Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commerce committee trims and clarifies elements of Economic and Workforce Development bill
Summary
Committee staff reviewed changes to the Economic Development and Workforce Development bill (S.122/S-one 22 in the packet), removed several unfunded sections, discussed program funding clarifications, and debated adding per-diem language to a convention center task force whose funding remains unresolved.
The Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on May 21 reviewed a revised committee amendment to the Economic Development and Workforce Development bill (referred to in committee materials as S-one 22) and discussed multiple program sections, funding language and a new task force for a convention center and performance venue.
Rick Segal of the Office of Legislative Council summarized the amendment as “the Economic Development and Workforce Development Bill that came over from, the Senate Economic Development Committee” and said the yellow highlights in the draft show where funding numbers and language changed after the Senate and the budget process. “What we have in yellow is, mostly the numbers that have changed from what the Senate passed to what is in the budget,” Segal said.
Committee members focused on several program-specific items. Members and staff agreed to remove sections that did not make it into the enacted budget, including an outdoor recreation section and a Vermont Arts Council section. On small-business supports, members discussed wording for a grant or appropriation to the Vermont Professionals of Color Network and the Vermont Small Business Development Center. Segal and members debated whether language should describe funds as "continuation of work" versus directing new expansion of services; committee members favored language indicating continued support and technical assistance rather than an explicit expansion.
On the Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund entry, members questioned whether a $100,000 authorization with $25,000 designated as a pass-through was adequate to require a definitive business resource guide by Dec. 1, 2026. Segal said staff would confirm with the program’s lead (Ellen) whether the smaller amount would meet the statutory requirement.
A proposed study to address business growth and access to capital—originally drafted as a task force by LaunchVT and the Chamber—was discussed at length. Committee members noted the original task force proposal had broader membership and per-diem requests, but the Senate version had been stripped down. After discussion, members agreed to remove the study language from the current amendment and to revisit the idea next year with more testimony and development. “If everybody is alright with removing this… maybe we need to work on that next year,” one member said.
The committee added language to create a task force on a convention center and performance venue; staff inserted per‑diem reimbursement language but acknowledged there is no dedicated appropriation in the passed budget to guarantee payments. Segal advised that if per diems are authorized without an appropriation the Appropriations Committee could remove reimbursement language later. “From my perspective, yes. I would not be comfortable to tell a member that you're gonna get reimbursed if language is not clearly saying you do get reimbursed,” Segal said, describing the risk members face if per-diem authority is provided but no funds are available.
Members also discussed the International Trade Division (the department’s name varies in different materials) and left intact continuing support language while stripping some expansion language the Senate had proposed. The transcript records staff noting inconsistent naming—“the governor's office calls it the international business office” but the department’s website calls it the International Trade Division—and the committee resolved to use the division name that matches the department’s website.
On Ireland/Ireland Trade Commission material copied into the draft, members debated linking any new commission or sister‑state relationship to work already underway and considered pushing effective dates if the committee advances that language.
No roll-call vote was recorded on these specific programmatic changes during this meeting; the committee agreed to circulate a clean version of the amendment, coordinate with Appropriations on per‑diem funding questions, and assemble addition materials (a section-by-section summary) for the committee’s full report.
