 Well committee, I just would say that I scheduled markup for this this morning, but I thought that we would have information from the administration agencies on Enhanced designations and critical resource areas. That's what I asked them to talk about this week, but we didn't get that so I don't really think we have much to do with it. I'm sorry And I would suggest that we pivot to Unless folks have comments they want to make on that We can hear those and then suggest we pivot to talking about water quality ideas and in taxes you'd be willing to pay For water quality funding, so that's That's how I'm feeling this morning. So I don't think we have a lot to work on We need we have work to do to get more input on Definitions just where I thought we I thought we have that so yes You know repetition repetition repetition, but I will say again today I was disappointed in the testimony we got from the administration on the topic. I didn't think it was instructive Regarding Actually Act to 50 the next 50 years. It It was just not useful for furthering our discussion about how we need to move forward I appreciate the shift today because we do have a need Thanks for coming Okay, okay So yesterday we got an overview of some water quality funding ideas Carrie has a few more and I think we already adjourned but the folks who were still in the room as we were moving as we were breaking out I said well, you know, nobody wants to raise money for water quality funding None of us want to pay another tax But I guess the challenge I put before us is to say what tax would you be willing to pay to clean up the state of the state's waters? Because we need to we need to do this. We've we've gotten imperative from the EPA with the deadline of July 1 and our committee has an opportunity to shape that conversation and we should take that opportunity by Putting some stuff out there that we want to hear more about and so what I'd like to hear from you all or our tax ideas for or for Funding ideas for water quality cleanup that you find palatable and worthy of our exploration But we get a copy of the list that It was drafted by The bill Yes Well, we have the bill I'm talking about Yeah, that would be good because I mean she had just about everything Yeah, we can get that in fact Laura probably just find it. It's the treasurer's report on what water quality financing I think it's called and It's from two years ago About pierces office and if I'm sure you'll find it if you don't but it's now we could even have it. I'm sure you could email it to us quickly right now You know So I guess I would comment on the various The various mechanisms that are in each 171 We we got testimony Four years ago from the tax department back when the idea was ten dollars per parcel as a flat fee and so when one looks at the looks at The the section That Proposes buckets or barrels or $10 per year The tax the tax department said like four years ago that the cost of collecting ten dollars Wiped out the ten dollars my memory is that That it Costs money to collect ten dollars and so I'm just questioning On the broad sense and I don't know if we would need Testimony on that or if our committee is really going to only be talking about the ten thousand foot level Yeah, we like this concept and send it to ways and means but I would comment that That the those buckets are all All off They're all too low and And for sub four on page four line seven That needs to be tiered Just one bucket for greater than ten thousand square feet That needs to have a sub tier So that maybe on a per ten thousand square foot There is a fee and maybe I stop on this topic Yeah, I almost want to I Wonder about there's five things in Jordan Hill Or any of them or on the table or off the table in terms of people's levels of interest I Because you know like the asphalt tax Even though it starts Way back at the beginning of the process it's going to be passed right along to you know the transportation department to you know the town's Municipalities because they're going to use that product that's going to be built in so they're paying the time so And almost everything else that the melt one consumers would be Okay, and at the end Just about every time there is out there it's going to be put on the shoulders of Consolidant public Representative Morgan. I pretty much agree with him anything that makes the cost of owning a home or the cost of Consuming the food things that are necessary for people I would be against Things that you have a choice But you want to buy it or not and most people probably would anyway that would be something that I would be for but To make it more expensive to live here and make a house more expensive than it already needs to be Do all kinds of rules regulations etc. I'm against I just want to just mention that If we do nothing the cost is still good It's still going to be paid for by Municipalities residents Yeah, but that's the reality if you're going to improve wastewater treatment that costs three pairs if you improve your road network that's going to cost Municipalities if you're trying to help agriculture Those dollars have to are leveraging federal but usually you use state dollars to level federal so If we do nothing on funding the cost don't go away And so I think the challenge for us is to determine how to make sure that any dollar invested is So teacher you're getting the best bang for the buck so you're not wasting any dollars and number two you're trying to minimize Those costs across the rick taxpayers. I Just want to mention that it's The cost don't go away just because we decide not to fund it. It means the whole burden is going to be on People are by Representative squirrel. Yeah, and I want to follow up on that. I would I would posit that the cost go up If we fail to find a clean water from the source to make sense EPA The water at this point source pollution and we're just not going to get the kind of results we need for the cost So I support it increases Increases it at least three times Because if he ends up only relying on waste water treatment upgrades farm or more farmer regulations Combined animal feedlock requirement and water act and Federal stormwater regulations those things increase the cost three times and you don't get the results Keep it. Okay, so there's a chip on the table that that representative squirrels was put out who else is in favor Continuing to look at the impervious fee I think you have to look at it You know, especially getting at the question of What is the cost of administering that? I Think there's other options. So wait, let me just do a quick Who's in favor of just keeping it on the list to look at it as an option This was a tax on a shurbious Service service is not that nothing correct. That's one of the services Yes, anything that's Or we're compacted I Agree with the Tom and Lee I mean We have to think about how to do this affordably in an affordable way So I think that's going to be a real need for us to wrestle with how to Spread those costs of it's minimized Or pick the right Funding sources that we've learned there's no free lunch and anything that's gotta come from somewhere How do we how do we do that in a thoughtful way? Representative Odie in the whole thing well when I said, you know, I want to think about who's paying there is the argument that you made which is That if it's attached to Impervious surfaces Then it increases the cost to own things that people already own and that It's shelter One thing that people have a choice about Your art what I think I heard you saying is If you if you go with a higher amount on a room that people rent Hotel or motel That is discretionary and And I'm not sure that It would dissuade someone from coming to Vermont to pay something Because Another state they have Rental car taxes So If it's not too high that would Answer those two concerns that you raised As long as it's not so high that's to negatively impact What we do you know tourists that bring Millions upon millions upon millions of dollars I'm opening to listening to a lot of things and not necessarily taking things off the table at this point, but I Would be open to having it be more than one dollar You know I would like to reiterate what representative McCullis said in the terms of It's not basically the sources we go after but it also is how to collect the money in terms of we can get the most efficiency And and and that said I mean this committee for the last four years anyway that I've been on has always come up with a Funding package only to see if Mr. We've lost in the ways and means or it just hasn't gone anywhere And I and I and so I think in terms of coming up with a way of Getting them funding for water You should you know a I think we should look at a number of options that haven't been tried and one of them in my mind is in this more or less Would be an assessment it would be based on income tax so that you know, it would it would be scaled to Income and it would be so much a flat fee for just for an example say for anyone with an income between You know But what's great whatever the minimum is you pay a tax on up to another bracket You would give ten dollars and the next bracket would go up. You could do with you would increase by increment I don't know what the improvements are. I know where the cut-offs are But I would like to get someone in here who could kind of you know point that out to me and then have Figure out basically what that would bring in and then maybe pick a couple of the small ones I think the one we've got on the Tax on the property transfer tax has worked very well We've done it two years now and it's going to do the old shooting match but I don't I don't mind that is an option and You know, I'm willing to look at the fossil though. I understand some irregularities as far as the mapping goes You know shade trees and things like that Just the technologies and quite up to snuff yet I Want to hit a ball in the right field. What about a trunk stamp in the Illinois they generated Tons and tons and tons of money to fish on Lake Michigan for trout And people just buy them they collect them They do all these things similar to our duck stamps and to our yeah state and our state stamp So, you know, you could set a price three bucks four bucks five bucks whatever people are anybody in the outdoors I can say is for myself is that I would absolutely spend the money on a stamp Just to know that it's going toward clean water for trout. You sell it on the trout thing So I know you know a lot of states have that and I don't think we don't have that here And it's an easier way. I think when you're in the outdoors, they will spend money They will spend money for their boats and their fishing rods in there. They'll do it And I think it's a great idea that you know when it's not offensive people say, oh, well cool You know like the bears, you know the early bear tag. There were some some Resistance that but after they realized wow, what a great deal this is they all jumped on it Then Morgan and I had a couple of suggestions very simplistic I live on the shores of the Des Moines River and there are I see lots of motorized boats Come up and down at various sizes on two boats. I'll have a registration on Money to use the water To help of various things. I also see and I have several myself canoes kayaks Blow up boats things that are not registered that are not motorized They're all using the waterways by great numbers in great numbers and we don't They they don't contribute contribute in any way tax wise Why not consider having most things registered also? So these these two ideas that you guys have just floated are often floated to help Make up the gap in fishing wildlife budget related to the decrease in license sales and I would say that We were on the agenda for this I any I'm anyway is a conversation about that and there's various reasons those And I don't actually remember them and it doesn't matter for this conversation But they they've proven to be challenges. It's been killed in the past. Well, it's not like by anyone But for I don't know I don't know why but I'm glad you're I like where your heads are Carol's up next, but um, I have some more Okay, we'll go ahead In the state of Vermont, I'm very simplistic and I've always thought about this everybody but many people have pets from cats to snakes The only animal that has to pay a fee as a dog and that usually goes to the town It's been that could be changed. Why not? I require a licensing as dogs are to all pets cats horses snake I guess a caged bird probably could be exempt, but Why not expand that extend that type of tax? Why shouldn't a cat be I know in some places in New York? There's some places where towns require cats to be licensed and that would generate a quite a lot of money I think beverages Why not with alcoholic and soda type veggie beverages that we don't aren't required We don't need they're not necessary, but everybody buys them and it seems they buy them at in the same with Cigarettes and e-cigarettes and pretty soon marijuana. Why don't we put a tax on that? Just as an example You're gonna buy some liquor. How about one cent per ounce of every liquor that any liquor that you buy? That in itself and a person purchases purchasing that they're not going to be one concerned about A few extra cents for a six-pack of beer based on ounces And it would generate tons of money And the same with soda. I mean we now put an extra tax on top of soda another cent Stuff I see these things beside the road by the millions so they don't even turn in for the five cents So they're not gonna be concerned about paying another penny per ounce or whatever deemed necessary and the same with tobacco and e-cigarettes Tobacco one of the worst things in the world and we sell it here in the state Add up another buck to the pack of cigarettes people are still gonna buy them and we create a tremendous amount of money another another thing related to The outdoors we have we could have another type of number plate Which could be designated as a water cleanup number plate with a certain designation on it that we have? These people are that have them are saying yes, I want cleanup and I'm living to pay an extra X amount of dollars from my plate to go to to go to that and I like the idea of the hotel motel thing people coming into town paying paying a little extra money Interesting. No But I those are quite simple. I think I don't think that I Think it would be a rather a rather easy thing to do And I think most people would support it because it's not going to add to their The cost of living because these things that you know if Coca-Cola gets too expensive People can live without it. They don't need to buy it the same with the booze And if they don't want to have to pay to have to keep a cat. Well they can can the cat That's nice I just want to know about the stamps. It's not a postage. Yeah, but the stamp that we what are you doing? So so in Illinois we would buy them and you attach them to your fishing license so that when you're out fishing if you get stopped You would the DNR officer would say oh, okay. You have your trial stamp You can fish for trout and it's just specifically for trout So it's required you had a license and a stamp, you know, if you're not fishing for trout You didn't need to buy one but people buy them anyway for collecting I think I paid 12 bucks for it and part of it went to Lake Michigan part of it went to the DNR Part of it, you know, they broke it up so that the money went to different places out of 10 bucks or 13 bucks But you don't need to buy one but for this Purpose you would need one because trout is our fish are there people all over the country who buy and sell stamps from other states They do they do they collect them they trade them they sell them Minnesota has it was most of the Midwest states have that stamp Represented with fave and then Taranjini Okay Chris that's a pretty good idea of the old problem is the state shutting down the hatchery in Salisbury In a few years. I don't know how many Well, we don't know These are great ideas I'm also Stuck on that concept of the non-motorized Craft whether it's a kayak a raft a tube a Stand up board That could be paddled and right by I say that kind of funny but but oh my gosh, I mean those people want to be paddling on clean water and clean rivers and and Are out there appreciating it And you see this with with mountain bikes up in the Northeast Kingdom. They buy a day pass Or if you go cross-country skiing you buy a Pass or skiing. I wonder to what extent that's a really interesting question because I think you have a very open audience and audience who would probably be Little bit more receptive because they are in fact enjoying the same outdoors as everybody else represent McCullen and Morgan I really like the brainstorming we're doing here and And if you've been around this building long enough, you'll know that every single one of these things Shot up like a shooting star and flamed right out And maybe the time is right. Well, maybe the time is right Just because things I did in the past personally didn't work doesn't mean I'm not interested in trying them again because times are different. I Only add that to suggest that we have a bill in front of us which has specifics that we need to move out of here and and I think the intent is we give it a 10,000 foot level on the Types that are in here and that the Ways and Means Committee is then going to do the deeper dig and and decide You know is $10 for the first bucket enough or should it be 20 for instance? That really isn't I don't Come to understand not what we probably should be doing having said that I Think an appendix that we could attach to this bill for the Ways and Means consideration Could very well be a compendium of All of our joint ideas we might also just put an asterisk there that says see see treasure pierces report and Which of course They've seen and and but not all the members there have seen it so So I think maybe we could include an additional section with our brainstorming ideas for them to consider But we really do I think need to on a on a section by section here at the 10,000 foot level say yeah, let's Resupported further conversation on this one. We support it for the con And you know, we're not so hot on this other one Representing Morgan I just want to say I just I don't feel that I can support Anything that's going to make the cost of necessary living housing I Just can't support Again, I want to kind of build on what what we had suggested I have a as you know, I put in another strong proposal that we can think about it would be ready next week but it was along those same lines of beverages and if we put 10 cents on on bottled water and 15 cents on sugar drinks Only taking five cents of the 15 for sugar drinks using the rest for other Health related whether you're fighting obesity or diabetes or something Having those two and if and if people are concerned about Access to water for drinking there's always tap water, you know Which is that I think of an important we're lucky to have high-quality tap water in the state So I those two excise taxes I Think and according to the Treasury report generate The substantial amount of funding we'll find out from Michael Grady next week how much But that may be something to either supplement this with another funding source if we're going to use at least this bill as what we get back to nice and means or Or look at it as a standalone With something some of these other ideas. I Thrilled that out because I think that was the one of the principal Ideas the other thing I added to it which we can I know Paul had mentioned that that was one of those Ideas that shot up and then shot down But the idea of everyone gets a haircut here uses a lot of water and chemicals and everyone would be contributing to that but a small, you know every move of a of the exemption and That generates according to the Treasurer's report about three to four million It just says again just putting out these As strong proposals for us to and if if we're struggling with The per-partial or pervious covered there may be these alternative things we can live with you know, it's it's Shares it between visitors and not so like it shares It spreads the cost it generates revenue if there's a nexus to clean water One thing as we toss these ideas around We need to think of it the policy ramifications of what we're choosing as that's kind of our role in this and so When I mentioned that you know our Fish and Wildlife Department, which is under our jurisdiction is Struggling to raise funds. I would caution us around things that we want to keep on the table for them Not necessarily going like robbing Peter to pay Paul here might not be what we want to do Not to say that that maybe the nexus with water and trout is strong and we shouldn't put it out there But when we send our opinions over to ways and means we got to understand How they affect other parts of what we need to take care of here? Representative Odie in that case the 15 cents you were talking about the first 10 cents to go to Fish and Wildlife and the other Yeah, I was trying to recognize the public health Diabetes at an exercise and I was trying But the doubt the exercise tax on sugar sweeten beverages the duck stamp the registration a non-vehicle and One of the other ideas would be ideal because we don't want to close that fishery that fish hatchery For the good's a done deal At the cost of keeping it open That's another conversation, but Okay, this has been helpful. I think Laura met did find the Treasurer's report. She's put it up on our web page One thing I wanted to say about the impervious surface is that It's if you if you're in a forest and there's no There's you could own Thousands upon thousands of acres and you might not have any impervious So you would be great, you know It's a clear neck so they would have impervious surface there It's a clear nexus, I appreciate that that you know the amount of impervious surface you have on your property is I'm the interesting thing when I've known priors when they're talking about impervious cover They were looking at bigger bends, you know bigger costs. I think $50 is the first and then it goes up to 200 and then 500 and so having them this is Reasonable you can have one structure about how you use the structures equally. It's not more important Yeah It's depending what your target revenues are and depending on the cost of administering it once you do it if you decided It's worth doing you've paid the cost of administering it. Those are modest fees to double it You you practically reach our goal. Yeah, and it's done. That's one one source So we I think what I'm hearing is We'll hear from some of the folks on that the ability and the cost of doing it and It sounds like there's an interest among people on occupancy fee Yeah, I don't know if I'm really excited about that occupancy the I've heard it from my Constituents in my district. That's one area. They're already at 9% Which is higher than sales tax at 6% and Even though it's a per night thing. It's still it's an additional tax so Especially I'd like the idea at least going after the you know Airbnb We have an agreement all the other DBOs or whatever the other short-term rentals are yet to face some equal taxing compared to our Hotels and hotels I'm a little hesitant of putting an additional tax or something that's already highly taxed represent four gates of them Is it me? Yes. Yeah the dollar dollar per night I haven't I've never been here five years. But every year something has come up on that last year It was going to be used to help pay for the housing bond right a year before that it was going to be Something for homeless, I think Ironically down in my area The biggest The biggest critic of a $1 night Per tax on housing with Woodstock in yeah now $1 per night That Woodstock in is not going to eat a single person staying at Woodstock in And if any of us are off on some other state and you're staying overnight How many look to see if there's an extra $1 per night that they're paying nobody does if you want to stay there You stay there, you know, how much how much that would generate I don't know It could be It would seem to me the collection of it could be handled with the rooms and meals tax Which I think we're talking about going before the number they gave us was 3.5 million And to me that's that's something that Here the only way you're hurting brahmanters with that tax is You're staying in a hotel motel in Vermont Otherwise that money's about to stay Was there some I can't oh my color You've been acknowledged both of these conversations and both of these conversations have happened and at least three biennium and They're still good conversations. I've had I I think I had a bill for five dollars a night I've seen ten dollars a night on the table as well It Comes down to should it be in this bill should be concept be considered by ways and means and For them to select a number I'll say that my memory is the state chamber was against it in the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber was for it I think you're right so and and and and Build on what? Louise said it's other people's money. It doesn't come out of mom-and-pops grocery belt It's totally discretionary If you don't want to come to the UVM graduation because you got to pay an extra five dollars a night in Burlington stay home Really, I don't think it's gonna keep them away And I don't think they'll stay in Manchester and drive up to say by flux. So I'm meaning New Hampshire so then is it a concept that Ways and means that we would recommend as a policy decision That doesn't rob from our Department of Fish and Wildlife Could add to the water quality funding source and in fact could Keep the impervious help keep them pervious surface fee a little lower for the average for monitor Because of the infusion of other money from away So as a policy decision I support keeping that in the perparsal fee As you indicated earlier Because the amount would be Harder to collect would would be more expensive to collect except that They're asking the town to do it So so there's going to be no expense as far as the state is concerned on collecting that fee You're talking impervious fee. Oh, I'm talking about the perparsal Impervious surface fee. I don't know how you're gonna collect that Years ago we had what was a five dollar pole tax and I'm not I'm not saying do that I'm just using that as an example that it got to the point where it was costing more to collect it And then it must do it and that was probably unconstitutional And it was done away with you. This is in your lifetime. Yes. Oh, yeah What you had just had to come out and list all the All the credit you had on the right dog's cat's whatever Person I'm on board with other either let the dogs the unlicensed or license everyone else's Was pretty big deal Oh So it wasn't really a poll tax was it related to voting or not they called it a poll time and it was on the farm animals and but it was revenue that the state used To pay the air culture, you know the research centers and the extension but our portion of it Went to the town so that everybody was paying tax Yeah It was before property No, we had a property tax with it. Yeah, this was property tax. I mean it was all our property We used our pole tax that also added in certain machinery type of equipment We got rid of all of them. Yeah, what I wanted to say was this thing about pets Certainly farm animals unless you've got a goat you college your pet goat, you know those types of things and I guess Chickens people have chickens, but they utilize the Those things are pets. I mean Things that are pets that are just in essence. We're supposed to just love Those are pets So should we care for our children? I'm not sure though I'm not getting that one They're cold Anything else? I would just like to point out in the treasured report It didn't say that the easiest tax to collect and the one that would bring in 16.7 mill was the flat fee parcel $50 I mean I really do think it's really a question of how much money we have to spend on the collection of them and the difficulty and then the town clerks were We have crashed around with them So with the any either the parcel or the impervious being a town with a lot of Taxes and properties I can just already hear my town clerk I don't know how you add hundreds. We would have hundreds of parcels to add in Middlebury if we decided to I'm not saying we shouldn't do it But I don't I think the logistics of some of our towns with so much tax-free property Would be a big challenge If they really don't get a bill at all, and I think they I want to check on that one they must get something Zero, I don't know What I heard Council saying is that there would be three expenses one would be to change the way the bill The property tax bill looks One would be to add All the Previously taxes and properties so that you have that all added so you know to be fair to the towns that would be nice if We gave them slay money And then there was one other expense Oh Collecting it If it weren't paid, but I remember that when we were talking last time it was the concern that I heard was If we put it on the property tax bill it looks like property tax and people complained very much about property taxes So but if you separated it off the property tax bill then The cost to administer that program would be millions of dollars every year And what are you going to do if somebody doesn't pay $10 or $50 to go after that it's just a cost prohibitive So if you have it the way it's proposed in this bill, then you then it's once you get it going It's pretty streamlined and the money definitely comes in so In the state of Vermont we have a number of state parks do people have to pay to go into a state park Yeah, and the force parks and rec essentially pays for themselves through those fees It's pretty so it's there is something already set up a whole program Yes, and they're going to come in next week on the fee bill and asking for very modest increases And that might be something to consider asking for an increase Whatever their modest increase might be to and have those funds A lot of these parks have water people are using it Upset about paying an extra But whatever some sort of an extra fee and it could be indicated right on out right on a stub They paid that much more to have our water The other thing I want to say is you know if you I'm thinking If you raise taxes in just a couple of places one or two places It with the per parcel that you said was how much 16.5 and then you do five dollars on a hotel room, which is 18 million You've got a lot of money without having to Not that it's necessarily what we should do I'm just saying then you've got a lot of funds to do a lot of work and it's permanent and it goes into the future 20 years and After the initial shock of absorbing that idea You don't see Taxes in lots of other places. So, you know You don't want to also be known as a place where every single thing you do is tax So sometimes just paying one little thing one thing substantial insubstantial depends One thing that you pay or two things Generating revenue and then everything else is left alone might be less stressful to people then All of a sudden all kinds of taxes And feeling like So much that's just an observation. It's not anything So we've looked at three of the five things in Georgia's bill and though we talked briefly about the asphalt Essentially, you know kind of being passed on to all of us and to in some ways to me the impervious fee and the asphalt fee are Maybe too much the same Coin, you know, I mean I wonder about I'd like to hear your thoughts on the asphalt Dollar per ton that he's and I think we don't know how much it would raise, but I think it's only $1,000 Well, I'm one here about this. I'm wondering about the use of glass in roads, you know We have a problem with glass Because we don't know what to do with it. We go to the solid waste district They're like glasses an issue be great tech people have to use it Maybe it would encourage people to use glass in roads and the other thing Well It would still be a ton of asphalt it would just up last time When I encourage people to instead of putting a driveway in that's paid They would choose Some in her some pervious surface instead I don't know How much people be impacted by that And they do make them I saw some of the watershed discussions we were having they put in a driveway with like paving blocks So there's a space in between them or you know, they're setting a way for the little hole in between them So it allows it to be done But usually they have to put a sub base under there and the sub base would be Probably impervious. I mean it may or may not be Because if they're gonna let the water run down through they have to do something different But if you put in a foot or two of of some kind of fill It's kind of be pretty hard for that water to run through it unless it's pretty coarse I know that they I've seen those that kind of innovative It's almost like a septic system We put a crushed stone base underneath so the water can go down through the top of the driveway into that and then slowly absorb I like the idea of the asphalt tax In that it may dissuade Excessive use of asphalt It may dissuade People from even using asphalt in certain instances and and We have two major asphalt Manufacturers that sell in Vermont. They're both located in New Hampshire and Having said that that doesn't mean it's going to be free money because that price will get passed on to the Vermont Department of Vermont agency transportation and everybody who paves their driveway or their tennis court I think it there's being looked at and and and for the For the value of its green nature for Nothing else So I would support keeping keeping that in I would hope that When they went when the ways and means considers that They'd consider other impervious makers as well. So all the sub the sub base that goes under all the asphalt Is all non-renewable resource as well crushed crushed stone sand Concrete Portland cement That those are all similar kinds of impervious surfaces that are part of the problem We need impervious surfaces to drive to work but so I think I Wouldn't want to strike it because I'm kind of looking at this bill as a You want to keep this area down you add a few of these other things in and and and So from a policy standpoint for clean water, I think we know the petroleum It's in the asphalt that does leech out into our ditches and then streams and and and Lakes is an issue and so then it could be reasonably Daxed as part of the problem for cleanup. So I would support keeping it in It doesn't really describe if there are any exemptions To the some pervious surface speed, but I guess the question is how does it Roads or state roads? It does have So Imagine municipal roads and state roads does capture you've heard me as a broken record complain about Private roads and dry ways, but it would Exempt municipal roads and and state highway. So in that respect that asphalt fee is I think a Good reflection just to indicate that that's just another hard surface in the nominal fee to illustrate an all-in Contribution, which is it raising a million according to George Till's bill So it's not a lot, but it's it's a contribution One million left to raise elsewhere Unintended consequences and we're worried about lots being split up and if we had a per parcel fee then then Maybe it'd be less likely for force to be split into smaller parcels because it would be Or people might consolidate their parcels Yeah, and I might be just the opposite a lot of these parcels forest blocks You're made up of a lot of parcels and I've just won parcel They look like one parcel, but they purchased them over a period of time and they all still have a separate Parcel the same with the agriculture community. So but it might motivate them to make it in one Well, they may not be able to I mean Whatever reason but anyways, you know, it just it's not as simple Yeah, well, you know with the agriculture community A lot of the larger farms when we did the water quality bill We said, okay for water quality purposes, you need to pay $5,000 annually Open your door Keep your door open Medium-sized farm. It was $2,500 so They've already contributed quite a lot that way and then you do a per parcel fee and Depending on how the parcels are broken up and we really ought to take some time and understand what it would be before we will fold it So there are some consequences to that and the impervious surface fee we've asked our culture community to Put in a lot of impervious surface to catch the dirty water and retain all the run-offs and make sure In an area that has you know, helps keep the water clean and then you know Depending on what the rate would be then you go back and put an additional tax on that for them to utilize it So I mean this consequence is always around On the point of interest this bill exempt state municipal stormwater issues from the transportation infrastructure the town of Williston's Stormwater Utility and the town of South Burlington's does not and the state contributes their fair share of impervious surface and this could be a step a huge step backwards, but again, that's The details that that committee would be dealing with and and I don't think the tracks Really Should be a surface be in here So I can purge that the policy matter we include that impervious surface Because they will anyway deal with the details and just that we did digress a little to parcel But this bill doesn't have a parcel fee in it. No Good to remember that Would say unintended consequences and then say If you've been legally required to put something in You could just a lot of people are required to put in parking in the city Or You might point out just about farms that they've been required to put something in You might not want to tax them on If you think about it in terms of say people Okay, you have to have a certain number of parking lots parking spaces So now you have a building that wants to be built They've been required to put Spaces then You want to exempt that? So that's a little into the weeds on that Yes, thank you. The last one which we haven't touched yet is no gamblers 0.001 100 Oh Let's tax those farmers they're making so much money in their right the divan box like But here's the question that Would that create an incentive for The handlers the processing to lead the state Well, that's that's a possibility. There's a lot of reasons Processes are really looking hard at whether they should stay in Because I would rather keep the processing I like the idea of consumers paying and they did I think Michael Brady did mention that Maine has this but I Don't want to lose the Processing well But I gotta tell you that it's not gonna come back at point zero zero one to consumers Gonna be substantially higher than that because it's gonna be something in the straightest pass in there It is gonna be an opportunity for them to make a little money with that and I've seen it happen in the past So it's and that's gonna be passed on to the consumer But I think it was Small revenue like I think he said it was I realize it it's small I just I just don't like the idea One down the road attacks not food And if I may you know something on point I made yesterday a well-managed farm and forest is our goal And I know there I think the intent was to try to have every sector continue I to share that concern putting an added burden on Cultural history I would just like to add if we're going to impose taxes which Nobody's happy with that. Let's let's impose a tax that's not essential to life Something that you could you can tax but people can And for those who can't afford it don't have to pay a tax So Under the impervious surface speed, we're not exempting proposing to exempt Been pointed out agriculture is doing those who are taking good care of their Concentrated eat lots and and they're they're Silicially taking so on impervious areas. They are putting effort into that This bill doesn't Recognize that effort. It says you've got impervious surface on this farm You're gonna have to contribute to the bucket Okay, and I'm okay with that Having said that the Nexus for for milk producers not producers milk food processors Which is I think poorly defined in this bill, but that's a different story. I Think the Nexus is not nearly as clear and It's not It's not generating a lot of money, but it could be But it could be if we had our floor ears on to quote former chair It could put a stake in the heart of the pill We're suddenly going to be what raising more taxes on the backs of Oh milk and so I think it's a bad policy Simply Because it's not a really tight nexus and because because It's not going to further our ability Legislation that will produce results I I say no to this So I'm in the food business obviously with my hot sauce and stuff, so I Cannot support the milk thing either I just I just can't because it's gonna come down the line So if somebody was to charge me $50 permit it could end up being three more dollars I did not my bottle of hot sauce just because I can do it So I just Okay, so it looks like we're open before the five And Kerry's gonna bring a few more next week and there are strong proposals just something to put on the table to Draw straw hey thanks strong Business pretty high tax on that I mean to do is income tax That's a great question. How do people people feel about that something that can raise a lot more money? All right What's the proposal It would be scaled to the income so that it would be an assessment And the assessment would be scaled to income as reported on your income tax We would go in the increments would be figured in increments and the more money you made the higher The higher assessment you would pay is maybe starting tan and go working its way up Need some kind of expertise testimony to say how that will all play out or how much we can Depending on what we wanted to take from it but it could be one of the one of the options or it could be a Big a big option. I don't know but it just seems like it would be easy to collect That's all I'm gonna remember that Things you ran into before We're all ran into difficulties with collection and what that was going to cost and a lot of a lot of our options Got scuttle because the the collection fee was too high. So Looking at that is just the simplest and most direct way to try to fix a bunch of money in a bucket So when we tell people Their state income tax is going to be higher. I don't think people would be very receptive Even though it might be only a insignificant amount to most of us still people But it may be Often then putting it on the property tax The property tax that's where the treasures found nexus because your waters running off property and Bringing pollutants with it. And I think that's why they don't talk they talk about Impervious or partial versus income So it's a farther nexus to water, but it may be a much better alternative since Property tax for education is already income-sensitive yet. It still is on the property tax. So and since we haven't moved any of those education funds off the Property tax to become more income-based even though seventy five percent of The education funds is income-sensitive This may be the second best alternative is that I personally agree in terms of affordability the Property tax the only thing that tool that one of the only one of two tools that municipalities have and they're struggling This may be a more politically palatable option in lieu of a Property based That's the number I use in my mind. Yeah, I know that was true two years ago And I knew there was a lot of discussion as to whether or not that was even going to cut it that I remember Miss people from municipalities coming in and saying, you know, the time you get the O&M Price figure here on 32 30 to 32 To me, it's you know, we're just kind of taking what we hope is in the cheapest way out, but I don't know Yeah, we haven't gotten there it's kind of we're gonna have to do it I mean better do it once and not then keep on putting it up And I think a 30 to 32 is what I and that's that represents the state Course the state subsidy of the cost. Yeah, it's not the full cost All right, well, this was really great. Thank you all for pivoting to a new topic and providing ideas