Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses H.398 updates to VEDA law, sustainable jobs strategy and disaster revolving fund
Summary
Committee members reviewed H.398, a statutory update for the Vermont Economic Development Authority that adds a sustainable jobs strategy to statute and creates a disaster revolving fund to support business and agricultural recovery; members asked for additional review from stakeholders before final action.
The committee discussed H.398 on April 8, considering revisions to statutes that govern the Vermont Economic Development Authority (VEDA) and related programs.
Committee discussion focused on two substantive elements identified by staff: (1) placing a “sustainable jobs strategy” in statute, and (2) creating a disaster revolving fund to support businesses and agricultural enterprises after disasters. Members noted the sustainable jobs strategy language echoes an older “jobs strategy” that has existed on letterhead for many years and could be confusing given the existence of a separate Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund nonprofit.
Senators raised the possibility that naming and statutory placement could cause confusion with the nonprofit Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund. One senator said she had contacted Ellen Kaler, the head of the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, to ask whether the statutory language would create conflict; staff did not yet have a response and suggested the committee could hold the bill out to allow further review. Committee staff described the naming and drafting choices as largely technical but said the two larger substantive additions are the sustainable jobs strategy and the disaster revolving fund, the latter intended to provide capital for recovery after floods or other disasters.
Committee members discussed whether other committees (for example, Economic Development) should have the opportunity to review the bill; staff said the bill may proceed but offered to hold for additional input. No vote on H.398 was taken during this session; senators asked staff to follow up with stakeholders and to monitor whether the proposed statutory language might unintentionally overlap with existing nonprofit or administrative structures.
Committee staff also described drafting oddities in the subchapter where the word “municipality” had been used in a way that, for purposes of the subchapter, would be read to mean the authority; that drafting approach was confirmed by staff as narrowly tied to the subchapter and not intended to redefine “municipality” elsewhere in statute.
No formal committee action was reported on H.398 at this meeting.
