New York State SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, would you please call the house back to order?

[Speaker 1]: The house will come to order.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, members have on their desk an a calendar. I now move to advance the a calendar.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On a motion by mister Fall, the a calendar is advanced. Page three, rules report 95, clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number one one zero one zero, rules report 95, mister Pretlow, an act making appropriations for the support of government.

[Speaker 1]: Governor's message is at the desk. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, governor. An

[Speaker 1]: explanation has been requested, mister Pretlow.

[Speaker 3]: Absolutely, madam speaker. As we enter another week of negotiations, this is our fifth extender. This bill would ensure funding for state operations and other programs through April 22. This bill includes additional funding for school district payments, administrative payroll, public health programs, unemployment insurance, support for OPWDD services and veterans programs and general state charges.

[Speaker 1]: Mr. Paul Massano.

[Speaker 4]: Madam Speaker, will the sponsor, the chairman yield for a few questions?

[Speaker 1]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 3]: Yes, I will.

[Speaker 1]: Sponsor yields.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you Mr. Prytlala. You answered my first question. A couple more that we had. Well, a few more actually. So, what is the total amount we've appropriated with this extender? What would that total amount To be

[Speaker 3]: date, it is $12,600,000,000.

[Speaker 4]: And, this increase above the previous extender is how much?

[Speaker 3]: 5,100,000,000.

[Speaker 4]: Alright. And, since this is our fifth extender, we're expected to come back Wednesday to do another extender. Is that correct?

[Speaker 3]: Yes. This goes through Thursday.

[Speaker 5]: Okay.

[Speaker 4]: The twenty third. And then, what payroll or other expenses will we take up in that sixth extender?

[Speaker 6]: There's no payroll

[Speaker 3]: in here. There's no payroll

[Speaker 7]: in here.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. Any other well, that's fine then. And then, at this point in time, do we know how long that next extender may be?

[Speaker 3]: No, that is up to the governor.

[Speaker 4]: Okay. And, given the lack of any really substantive public updates, even informal media leaks over the weekend, which really is not encouraging, do you have any updates that you could provide this body where we are as far as negotiations from before?

[Speaker 3]: I can only say that things are being negotiated.

[Speaker 4]: And then I guess I would ask that question. I brought it back before. This is our fifth extender, one budget bill. And I know we had the baseball commentary, so I guess I'd be remiss if I didn't bring it up again. Last week when we talked, you said we were in batting practice. Are we done with batting practice? Have we started the game yet? Or from that analogy, where do you where do you see where we are right now as far as the discussions that are going on?

[Speaker 3]: Unfortunately, we have not started the game yet. There's a rain delay. We are still Wow. We're still doing batting practice. But, the good thing about batting practice is it makes the game a lot more exciting.

[Speaker 4]: Yes. Yes, it does. So, and we know what some of the issues out there, and I guess, what we know, we know the governor has a lot of policy issues that she's pushing, that's part of the discussion. Have we seen any specific language? And I'll just go down the list and if you could just say if any maybe yes or no on this. Have we seen any language from the governor relative to her tax, the new tax or any other taxes? Have we seen any language on that yet that's available?

[Speaker 3]: No. No. We haven't. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: How about on Seeker? Any language yet on that? No language on that. How about her auto insurance proposal? No language on that. How about the immigration proposals?

[Speaker 3]: No language there either.

[Speaker 4]: How about the tier

[Speaker 8]: six discussion? No language there either.

[Speaker 4]: And, on the climate agenda?

[Speaker 3]: Same answer under discussion. And,

[Speaker 4]: I guess on that front too, I would ask, we talked about, I know you did say in our discussions when I brought up the EV Scuba's mandate, you said that could be part of the discussion. On that same front, similar type of operation, we have this regulation called the Advance Clean Truck Rule which will deal with heavy duty powered vehicles that can impact the trucking industry. And you know, right now, the state has a delay on the enforcement, but not a delay in implementation, which the trucking industry is concerned about. The impact here, is there any possibility those discussions could include a delay in the implementation and not just the enforcement of the Advance Clean Truck rule?

[Speaker 3]: That is not under my purview. Couldn't answer that.

[Speaker 4]: Okay, that's fair enough. I guess I would say, I hope it is as we move forward. Is it kind of hard or is it difficult? Do you think it's fair that we continue to have a vote on these extenders with really no idea where we're going for our members here?

[Speaker 3]: We know where we're going. We're on the road. We just come to a few forks in the road and have to make decisions as to which prong of the fork to And

[Speaker 4]: you said, I I know this budget bill includes school aid payment for the current year, but doesn't really seem to provide any clarity for the upcoming year. And as you know, our school districts are up against now statutory deadlines to finalize and present their budgets to voters. In fact, military ballots have to be sent out this Friday, weeks from now. Do you have any idea when our school districts are going get their final allocations and how that's going be communicated with taxpayers or is that just going to happen when we pass the final budget?

[Speaker 3]: That will probably be when we pass the final budget, but school districts can rest assure that whatever was in the original proposal by the governor will be the minimum that they will get. So, they're only going to get more based on what takes place during our negotiations.

[Speaker 4]: And, with not knowing exactly what they're getting, I understand about what you point about the minimum. I know that's always been a discussion. Is it possible that we're putting them in a position where they might have to make mid year adjustments and have an uncertainty for property tax payers?

[Speaker 3]: I don't believe so. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: Here we are again in this late budget process and I think it starts to raise serious questions about who really controls this budget process as we know under the framework established under Silver v. Pataki, the governor maintains significant authority over the structure and content of the budget, including the ability to advance broad on public seas bills that limit our body as a legislature to meaningful agenda. Do you believe the current budget process as shaped by the silver v. Patakia gives the governor disproportionate control over negotiations during the budget?

[Speaker 3]: I think under the Prior to Patakia v. Silver, the legislature had a lot more authority, quote unquote authority over the budget. Under the new ruling based on the court of appeals, it has actually diminished the amount of authority or control that the legislature has on any given budget.

[Speaker 4]: And and you believe obviously would it be fair to say, do you believe this can this overarching control that the governor has is really contributing to the

[Speaker 3]: the delays we're experiencing right now? Well, I I really feel that it it it elicits the authority that the legislature has to do what we think is best for our constituents.

[Speaker 4]: Sure, and I would agree with that too. But, do you think it's time we really maybe start to evaluate and try to have a serious discussion rebalancing this authority to ensure the legislature has more of an equal role in shaping this budget?

[Speaker 3]: Well, that would take a constitutional amendment at this point because regular legislation would automatically be vetoed by any city government because it would diminish his or her authority over the budget. And, know, doing a constitutional amendment will exclude any approval by the sitting executive, but that's a time consuming process that I think that maybe we should undertake.

[Speaker 4]: So, it would take a constitutional amendment, is that something?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, I

[Speaker 3]: think the budget should be a purely fiscal document and not be hindered with a lot of language which is basically used to be called governor's program bills shouldn't be in the budget. But, this is what we're stuck with because of the PTAKY v. Silver and we're dealing with it.

[Speaker 4]: And, as we know with this imbalance, we know that we as members of the legislature do not get paid. I mean that's something we signed up for when we knew when it was approved. But the governor does continue to get paid. Is that something we should be looking at given the fact that one side can hold up whether it's on policy, whatever they want to do. Their interest might be a little different from a perspective, on a policy perspective when we're dealing with the budget. Is that something we should look at maybe to bring back fairness and look at holding back the governor's pay?

[Speaker 3]: I really don't believe that given the income level of the past several governors that for their salaries to be withheld is not something that they would frown upon unlike many of the legislators that have personal bills to attend to. This whole thing is rather undemocratic as far as I'm concerned that the legislature does not receive whatever their compensation is because there's no budget, which is something that's not really our fault, at least in my opinion.

[Speaker 4]: No, I understand that. Can understand what you say about it might not be driven for the governor, but I just think from a sense of fairness, accountability. You know, we have three people, there were three bodies, Senate, Assembly, and Governor negotiating, but the fact that the governor cannot I guess that's why I'm asking. Maybe that's something we should look at passing legislation just to put her on same equal grounds as we're looking at here as a body. Wouldn't that be the right step maybe possibly to take as a legislature?

[Speaker 3]: There is legislation that is in print as far as I know right now. It has not passed through a committee yet. That may happen in the near future.

[Speaker 4]: I think you'd probably get some votes across the board on that. And think you agree, we ought to move forward to have more accountability across the board for all of us, not just the legislature, but the governor as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your time as always. I look forward to our next discussion. It What Wednesday or wherever it may be? Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Speaker 1]: On the bill.

[Speaker 4]: Well, here we are again, our fifth extender, only one budget bill. You know, last week I talked about Yogi Berra deja vu over again. Mentioned Groundhog Day. We know Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow. This Phil right here sees a shadow. Actually, I see a dark cloud hanging over this institution, this chamber, and this capital, given the fact that there's much inaction from us and this governor. There's no transparency. There's no accountability. There's no sense of urgency. All the time when right now, we're at the point our local governments are looking for certainty, especially when you talk about construction projects, that season gets shorter and shorter. They need to know how much aid they're going to get to put for roads, bridges, and culverts, especially local roads, bridges, and culverts. That's why the CHIPS program is so very, very important. Also, school districts, like I said, Friday they have to send out their ballots to the military. They have to go through a process to put a budget in place to send to their voters next month, and they don't know. We're not going to have those numbers from them. It's great that we're making a school aid payment, but they don't know. So, that can provide certainty unless something is definite, they might have to make adjustments and that's not the way this should be done. I mean no major policy decisions are being included. We continue to be concerned that policy discussions continues to hold up the budget. These discussions really should be held in an open transparent way, and that's just not happening. We know what the issues are. Tax increases, the governor came out with a plan last week to add a new tier, the PA de tier for real estate in New York City. We know about the seeker as we went through this with the chairman, still not seeing language on the auto insurance, on immigration changes, on tier six, on climate policies, which I firmly believe we need changes on that. We mentioned about possibility of the EV scuba mandate changes. I know that's possibly being considered. We hope it is. I mentioned the act, advanced clean truck rule regulation. I do think that's something we need to look at in those climate discussions, whether it's in the context of the budget or not, to delay the implementation of it, not just the enforcement because when you don't delay the implementation, those trucking companies and those dealers are still building up deficits that's going to be need to address, which could devastate and hurt the trucking industry in New York. Same holds true for the advanced clean car two regulation. These are in effect right now. Delaying the enforcement, but not the implementation. So, just hope that's part of the discussions that we look at moving forward. It seems like the only budget related activity we see is the governor traveling around the state recently talking about her auto insurance reform proposals. And I know there's a lot of talk about affordability, lot of talk about putting money in people's pockets, but late budgets, high taxes, burdensome mandates, uncertainty is exactly what drives people to look elsewhere. And when they do, those pockets and their dollars go to those other states, and we don't need that to continue our nation leading out migration of more families, small businesses, farmers, and manufacturers leaving our state. At some point, it's not just about putting money in people's pockets, it's about whether they actually feel confident enough in this state to stay. And I will tell you, the governor getting on the media saying, asking people to come back is not instilling confidence in that type of investment for businesses to stay here, for families to stay here. When they see that uncertainty in the policies that we're putting in place, when they see that uncertainty in the comments that are being made. So, I remember her predecessor said people were leaving the state because of the climate. The business climate but the climate. No, they're leaving because of the business climate, the tax climate, the freedom climate. None of that has changed with this governor and so just like her predecessor, she can get on the air and say, we need to come back. Well, that's not gonna make a comeback. That's not gonna instill confidence in that. We're giving every we're giving them giving them every reason to leave because of this policy. It's really time to change that, my colleagues, because if we don't, we're not just gonna continue to lose their confidence, we're gonna continue to lose the people that we're empowered to serve. So I will be voting for this because we got to keep government open, but we still have a long way to go and we need to get to work and do the right thing by the constituents we represent across the state of New York. Thank you, madam speaker, my colleagues.

[Speaker 1]: Read the last section.

[Speaker 2]: This action will take effect immediately.

[Speaker 1]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes, one thirty six. Nays, zero.

[Speaker 1]: The bill is passed. Page three, resolutions, clerical read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty two, mister Kay Brown. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 04/04/2026 as School Librarian Day in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty three, miss Clark. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 19 through the twenty fifth, twenty twenty six as Medical Laboratory Professionals Week in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty four, miss Warner. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 19 through the twenty fifth two thousand twenty six as Crime Victims' Rights Week in the State of New York.

[Speaker 1]: Ms. Warner on the resolution.

[Speaker 9]: Thank you Madam Speaker, my colleagues. Crime Victims' Week was established in 1981 by then President Ronald Reagan and to serve as a reminder that we ought to confront and remove barriers that hinder justice and support victims of crime. This year's theme is listen, act, advocate, protect victims and serve communities. Here in New York, the Office of Victim Services offers critical advocacy support through the VOCA grant program for victims as they go through the justice process and provides financial support for crime related expenses. This House has always been a strong supporter of restoring the VOCA funds and I hope in the context of this budget we once again do the same. But I think it's important that we in New York take a moment to recognize the victims of crime and provide the support necessary for them to heal and to move forward. Thank you my colleagues. And with that.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh on the resolution.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you Madam Speaker. So yesterday I had an opportunity to attend a ceremony, a vigil in Saratoga County marking this very important week that the resolution speaks about. And I was really struck by the variety and the number of people, not just in the DA's offices, but in law enforcement, whether it's a K-nine unit, whether it is a sane nurse that does the examinations of children at the centers for the investigation into different child abuse allegations. It was really remarkable. The people that spoke about their loved ones, whether they were taken by a drunk driver or whether they were involved in domestic violence, It was really amazing. I think sometimes when we do our work here, we need to remember to refocus upon the victims, the true victims of crime. And I was very grateful to attend. I want to commend the Saratoga County District Attorney's office and the District Attorney for putting it together. It really helped me to refocus and think about that issue, and I'm very grateful to the sponsor for bringing the resolution forward to, again, let us think about that this week as we do our work. Thank you very much, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty five, mister Slater, legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Work Zone Awareness Week in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Slater, on the resolution.

[Speaker 11]: Thank you, madam speaker. I rise today in support of Work Zone Safety Awareness Week, a time to recognize the men and women who put themselves in harm's way every day to keep our roads moving and our infrastructure safe. This is more than just a resolution. It's a reminder of a very real and ongoing danger. In New York State alone, we saw approximately 450 work zone intrusions just last year. That resulted in more than one hundred and fifty injuries and four fatalities. And already this year, incidents are continuing at a same troubling pace. These are not just numbers, they are lives that are disrupted, families that are changed forever, and communities that are left grieving. And for me, this hits especially close to home. Today, wanna take a moment to remember Jake Arkara of the town of Yorktown. Jake, a member of our highway highway department, was a member of our community, someone who should still be with us today, but he was killed in a work zone on 09/14/2022. His loss is a heartbreaking reminder that behind every statistic is a person, is a family member, and a future that is taken too soon. In this legislative body, we often talk about infrastructure in terms of dollars and miles of pavement. But at the end of the day, this resolution is about people, the workers in those zones, and the drivers who also need to get home safely. The overwhelming majority of these incidents are preventable. They're caused by speeding, distraction, or simply failing to slow down or move over. So as we recognize Work Zone Safety Week, let's recommit ourselves not just in words but in action to protecting those who are working on our roads just feet from moving traffic because no one should lose their life during their job on the side of the road, and no family should have to endure the kind of loss that Jake Arcara's family has experienced. Thank you, madam speaker, and thank you to my colleagues for supporting this resolution.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Miss Giglio on the resolution.

[Speaker 12]: Thank madam speaker. And I would like to thank the sponsor for this bill as a member of local one thirty eight operating engineers. And throughout the state, the operating engineers, we are the men and women on the roads that you see performing this roadwork and this bridge work. And it having my two sons being operating engineers, their safety is utmost important. And we get some things right in this chamber and one of them was the increased fines in the speed zones. So, that is a great thing but really for the sponsor it is bringing awareness. And the awareness, Work Zone Awareness Week in the state of New York is a brilliant idea and people are slowing down. So, you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution oh, excuse me. Mister Miller, on the resolution.

[Speaker 13]: Thank you, madam speaker. I just wanna thank the mister Slater for bringing this led this resolution forward. You know, it really shouldn't be just safety awareness week here in New York State. It should be safety awareness year here in New York State. Our highway workers are put their lives in danger every day. And, you know, a lot of people don't look at it like that, but today coming down the Thruway, there's a lot of Thruway work going on, and there was a lot of people in very dangerous areas. So please, when you're out there and you're driving, I drive probably 40,000 miles a year, and I see workers from not just our state roads or our interstate roads, but on our county and town roads also, please slow down, move over, give them the courtesy that they need and the safety they need so they can get home and you can get home too. Thank you, mister Slater. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty six, mister Sayag. Legislative resolution memorializing governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim April 2026 as Arab American Heritage Month in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Sayj, on the resolution.

[Speaker 14]: Thank you very much for the opportunity to rise and to support this resolution recognizing Arab American heritage here in New York State. And this is really a resolution that is in conjunction with National Arab American Celebration, and is really within the spirit of this body to recognize the diversity that we appreciate and recognize here in New York State. That we are a state, we are a community of many different faiths, of many different ethnicities, and we bring to our state and to our nation different traditional values, different customs, different music and cuisine. And here in New York State, many of us, I'm sure, have tasted Arabic cuisine, whether it's falafel, or tabbouleh, or hummus, and we recognize that the cuisine, the Mediterranean diet, is a very healthy diet. And we also recognize that all ethnic groups, when they come to this great state, as some 300,000 Arab Americans in New York State, and some 4,000,000 across The United States, they bring with them their skills, their family values, their respect for interfaith dialogue, and peaceful coexistence. And Arab Americans in all fields, in healthcare and education, And I recall the contributions in the entertainment field of people like Danny Thomas and Paul Anka, and the role they play till today with organizations like Saint Jude's that brings healthcare to so many in need. And when you look at medicine, and you look at the contributions, and the roles of specialists like doc doctor Michael DeBakey, one of the foreknown leaders in heart surgery. These are Arab Americans of Lebanese, of Syrian, of Jordanian, of Iraqi, Egyptian, and others that come to this land to really bring the greatness of America to the level we know now. So it's my honor and privilege to celebrate and thank our colleagues in New York State for recognizing the contributions of Arab Americans, and especially the contributions of Arabs to civilization in general. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty seven, Ms. Rosh Kumar. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim 08/14/2026 as Pakistan Independence Day in the state

[Speaker 10]: of New York.

[Speaker 1]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven thirty eight, Mr. McDonald. Legislative resolution memorializing Governor Kathy Hochul to proclaim October 2026 as Spina Bifida Awareness Month in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. On consent, page 37, calendar number three forty two. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 10267, calendar three forty two, mister Bronson. An act to amend the labor law.

[Speaker 1]: Read the last section.

[Speaker 2]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 1]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes, one thirty seven. Nays, zero.

[Speaker 1]: The bill is passed.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 10342, calendar three forty three, mister Raga. An act to amend chapter four fifty one of the laws of 2011.

[Speaker 1]: Read the last section.

[Speaker 2]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 1]: The clerk will record the vote. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam Speaker, would you please withdraw the roll and lay the bill aside so we could deal with a technical issue?

[Speaker 1]: Yes. The clerk will withdraw the roll and lay the bill aside. Page three forty four. On consent page 38, calendar Ms. Walsh for the purpose of an introduction.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you very much Madam Speaker for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings for a moment for an introduction. We are joined today by the Business Council of Westchester. This introduction is on behalf of the Westchester assembly delegation here today. The Business Council of Westchester has an annual Albany Day, that is today, led by Marsha Gordon who is the president and CEO of the BCW, Jamie Shutzer, the BCW board chair, and John Rabitz who is the executive VP and COO and is also a former assembly member for the 73rd Assembly District from 1990 to 2002. So Madam Speaker if you could please welcome the Business Council of Westchester to the People's House and afford to them all the cordialities of the house. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On behalf of miss Walsh, the Westchester Delegation, the speaker, all members, welcome to the Westchester, Business Council.

[Speaker 9]: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll resume on consent page 38, calendar three forty four. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 10343, calendar three forty four, mister Taylor, an act to amend chapter eight thirty one of the laws of 1981.

[Speaker 9]: Record the vote. The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes, one thirty seven. Nays, zero.

[Speaker 9]: The bill is passed.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 10703, calendar three forty five, mister miss Simon, an act to authorize and direct the commissioner of agriculture and markets to conduct a study. Read the last section. This action will take it back to immediately.

[Speaker 9]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes 137, nays zero. The bill is passed.

[Speaker 9]: On consent, page 37, calendar number three forty 3, clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 10342, calendar three 43, mister Braga. An act to amend chapter four fifty one of the laws of 2012. Read the last section. This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 9]: The clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes 137, nays zero.

[Speaker 9]: The bill is passed. Page 17, calendar number 100. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number 2657a, calendar 100, mister Otis, an act to amend the public authorities law.

[Speaker 9]: Mister Otis, an explanation has been requested.

[Speaker 15]: Surely, colleagues, this bill would establish under, NYSERDA an electric landscaping equipment rebate program for commercial landscapers, for institutions, local governments, school districts, not for profits to provide some financial help in purchasing electric lawn care equipment. The legislation is important because over 69 communities in New York State, so far at least, have adopted local laws restricting in some way the use of, gas powered electrical equipment. This bill will give, landscapers in those communities or landscapers anywhere else in the state who want to transition to electric equipment some financial incentive to defray some of those costs as they compete in changing market. The legislation gives to NYSERDA the responsibility of designing the program. They do programs like this all the time. But it includes the equipment itself. It also includes battery charging and battery equipment that is often associated with the use of this kind of equipment. Good small business bill, good environmental bill, good bill for everyone to vote for here today on the floor.

[Speaker 9]: Mister Gray.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you very

[Speaker 7]: much, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 15]: Of course.

[Speaker 9]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 7]: Thank you very much, mister Otis. Nice to see you today. So would you go through so first of all, this is just for small governments, not for profits. It doesn't it's not consumer based?

[Speaker 15]: No. This is really the the biggest target here is really the small commercial contractors, commercial entities that are your local landscaper that services our constituents and neighborhoods. But yes, institutions as well. Sure.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. Would you go through some of the attributes of some of the battery powered landscaping equipment? Could you describe some of the attributes?

[Speaker 15]: What kinds of equipment?

[Speaker 7]: Just anything that you want

[Speaker 5]: people to buy.

[Speaker 15]: They could be mowing grass, cutting or chipping of trees, tree roots, clearing of snow and ice is included, clearing other kinds of vegetation, you know, basic all the kinds of stuff that those folks use.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So that's the type of equipments. Now can we talk a little bit about the attributes of having battery powered equipment versus gas powered equipment?

[Speaker 15]: Well, the benefits are less noise and less air pollution for the area where this equipment is used. And so those are the main attributes. I'd say that in the country, CO2 gas emissions are the highest in the following states. We rank fourth worst. California, Florida, Texas, New York is fourth. In, our state, the counties that have the worst c o two emissions are in this order. Suffolk, Nassau, Westchester, Monroe, Erie, and Brooklyn in that order. But this would benefit, anywhere even if you're, in a neighborhood where the house is near you and someone's using gas powered equipment, you'd benefit from cleaner air and a quieter piece of equipment. But this isn't requiring anything of anybody. All it is doing is offering a rebate program to lower the cost for the purchase of the equipment. And it would help, again, the kinds of institutional purchasers that I described including local governments. And I have one local government who has already transitioned completely to all electric for the equipment that they do to, manage the parks that they they, are responsible for maintaining.

[Speaker 7]: So the equipment is superior to gas powered, you would say?

[Speaker 15]: Well, I think that that's an evolving question, I would say. And having spoken to folks that deal with this, some equipment is not as powerful as gas powered in terms of if you're blowing something. So there are are it's a moving target in terms of of that. But people operating the equipment, the landscapers, they're gonna make their own decision what they're comfortable moving to and whatnot. And I imagine the rational decision would be that if there's a piece of equipment that just does not perform adequately, they will stay with gas. And if it does the job, they will move to all electric. I think the technologies, as with everything else, will continue to improve.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So the marketplace, would you describe the marketplace as they're increasing in popularity for this equipment and sales may be growing, would you say?

[Speaker 15]: I think that's certainly true and I think that the manufacturers are trying to address this market and come up with new products and make them more competitive. One of my municipalities a couple of years ago set up an expo day at one of their parks where they invited DPW staff from other municipalities to come and they had a bunch of vendors, manufacturers come and bring equipment and they could sort of test it out and see what it was all about. So it's as many things in the technology space, it's evolving and will continue to evolve. All we're trying to do with this bill is defray the cost to the local landscapers, to defray the cost to taxpayers if their school district or municipality is purchasing this equipment. This will help lower the cost to all those folks.

[Speaker 7]: Sure. And so you said manufacturers are doing a lot to try to market their equipment and sell their equipment. And retailers, would you say they're doing the same thing in terms of trying to sell their equipment as think

[Speaker 15]: that's true. And you know kudos to NIPER who has sort of led the effort in supporting this bill for a number of years. But they've established a coalition of over a 100 groups in support of the legislation. And on that list are retailers and manufacturers of this kind of equipment. So it's a broad spectrum including the folks that are in the business of using and selling the equipment.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So what you're saying basically people desire cleaner, quieter, cheaper products to run And consumers consumers want them. Whoever is using them, the end users desire those products right now. The marketplace is delivering them and having different sales, marketing efforts to try to move them along and retailers are aggressively selling them. Is that a fair characterization?

[Speaker 15]: I think everyone's eager to respond to the market.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. Good. So why if all the attributes that you've just put in place and all the marketing and all of the effort is to to sell them right now, why would we want to try to incentivize them? Why would we pick a product in a marketplace and try to incentivize a a certain product?

[Speaker 15]: Well, mean we already have in New York State primarily through NYSERDA all sorts of incentives for electrification of homes and other clean energy products that one can buy. And so this would just add to the list of kinds of programs to make cleaner energy and cleaner air more affordable. And certainly, we are all concerned about greenhouse gases and air pollution and health, our lungs. And so this would be a step in that direction. I used to be a mayor and years ago before there were electric equipment, we did something, my community was not the first, but in Westchester a number of communities adopted seasonal leaf blower bands mostly for air quality reasons well before we got to any of the broader climate change discussions. And so that is an impulse why a growing number of municipalities around the state are revisiting their rules and in some places restricting. Sometimes, banning, gas powered equipment. And if you're a commercial contractor in this space, you could use some financial assistance to make that tradition transition. That's what this bill aims to do.

[Speaker 7]: Well, so you've described your product as compelling. Right? And I hope.

[Speaker 5]: I you

[Speaker 7]: hope. Well, we've had

[Speaker 15]: more If it's not compelling,

[Speaker 7]: do you think if it's not compelling, do you think somebody needs a rebate to buy it just to get the rebate? Or do you think the product is really compelling enough that it sells itself?

[Speaker 5]: Some of both. Some of both. Okay.

[Speaker 7]: So let's talk about the funding.

[Speaker 3]: Is

[Speaker 7]: there money that's set aside for

[Speaker 15]: this at NYSERDA? Well, NYSERDA operates a wide variety of programs with Reggie funds. That part of money varies each year depending upon auction price and interest rates, but that amount of money is going up. And so NYSERDA would fit it into their list of kinds of energy efficiency programs that they already have and we'll leave it to them to figure out what the market is for the rebates and where that can fit into their program.

[Speaker 7]: Do we have an annual cost of this type of program?

[Speaker 15]: It would be determined by NYSERDA figuring into what the interest level is and what that fits into in terms of their projections. I would share with you though that the amount of regi funds expected I'll give you one year, twenty seven-twenty eight. A year ago they were projecting $359,000,000 for regi funds. A year later the estimate is $517,000,000 So the pot of money that they can work with for a variety of programs seems to be growing and we'll leave it to NYSERDA to figure out how to fit it into their menu of programs.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So this is coming out of the RGGI funds. Where are the RGGI funds coming from again?

[Speaker 15]: The regi funds are an auction for the price of energy. It's a through the purchasing of energy and then they're fed into that auction price to avoid other costs.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. Do you think we should be more concerned about lowering energy costs in New York State?

[Speaker 15]: It's interesting you mentioned that because the RGGI board actually made a decision in their last budget that as they have increases in funds, a third of those funds are going to go towards reducing cost to consumers, not consumers of these products but to utility consumers. So NYSERDA and the RGGI board are dealing with the affordability piece in a proactive way and that's

[Speaker 7]: a determination they made in their last year's budget. We could have another debate on that someday whether that's enough, whether we're doing enough for consumers and businesses.

[Speaker 15]: We should be doing more and I will tell you that hopefully in this year's budget there will be aggressive steps to help utility consumers and as I say, Didi Barrett has a really good bill. Didi is not here right now, but she has a really good bill that deals with what share the utility companies pay towards their infrastructure as opposed to the rate payers. We should pass that bill.

[Speaker 7]: The whole object of all of this is to take less from the consumer for all of these funds. Would you agree? That's how we ultimately make energy cheaper for people, is take less to fund all these programs. So we'll go with that. So the governor vetoed a very identical bill to this, and she cited lack of a dedicated appropriation.

[Speaker 15]: Well, the bill that was vetoed a number of years ago is a different bill. It was a bill that structured the whole program in the legislation. That's not what this bill does. This bill leaves it to NYSERDA to figure out all those dimensions. And as I say, the RGGI fund pot of money is growing so if we set up the program they will fit it into they have a nice variety of programs that help with energy efficiency kinds of financial assistance and so different bill.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So okay. So it's a different bill. And so NYSERDA has several different programs, right, for renewable energy development, low income weatherization, workforce, whatever, Reggie, these programs that you're saying here right now. Consumers are increasingly falling behind on their utility bills because of an affordability issue. Does this take priority over the consumers who are falling behind in

[Speaker 15]: their I really think it's a different issue. Again, it is something that hopefully is going to get resolved in the budget or in some other ways legislation wise, but this is something to help small business people meet demand and sometimes they may be in a market. They may be operating. Generally, small landscapers might do a few communities. And suddenly if those communities establish restrictions and gas powered equipment, we want to provide financial assistance to those small business people so that they can continue to serve the customers that are long term customers for them. This is an important bill for small business people to get by in a changing equipment environment.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So you would say that this I mean, I think in my opinion, I will offer you that. I think the arrears that customers are facing right now should triumph overall other programs that we're looking to develop here and how to distribute the funds. All of our resources should possibly go to reducing energy cost and bringing people current in their bills.

[Speaker 15]: Well that may be what the reggie board decides to do with that one third relief piece. So I agree with you but I don't think we're at cross purposes here. We can do more than one thing at a time.

[Speaker 7]: Okay, Please.

[Speaker 9]: Mr. Gray for a second 15.

[Speaker 7]: Yes. Thank you very much. So let's just so let's talk for a minute. The bill says, I believe it's a first come first served basis. Correct? Correct. Okay. If the equipment is beneficial, why would we only limit it to first applicants? If it's really truly needed in the marketplace, it's compelling. The equipment is compelling to buy. There's a lot of effort trying to sell it.

[Speaker 15]: Well, in the spirit of your earlier questions, funding is not unlimited and so you have to set up some level of protocol and most of that will be done by NYSERDA. And NYSERDA will decide how much money to allocate to this. So they will decide what the universe is going to be. I think that that's I think you can't have it both ways. It's it's either too little money or too much money. I I think we'll let NYSERDA sort of figure out what the right the right balance is.

[Speaker 7]: Well, I mean, if there's truly an environmental benefit, why don't we just convert it all, right, incentivize all electric? We're cherry picking what we want to incentivize here. The premise is to incentivize them.

[Speaker 15]: But already, NYSERDA figures out how much to put into different programs. And so for the reggie programs that they have, some of the existing programs, some of them are sort of level funded each year. Some of the programs based upon NYSERDA's judgment go up or down and they have some calculus for figuring out what's successful, what is effective and I'm not looking to second guess their skill and expertise in that regard.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. So I think the bill, describes NYSERDA to reduce the rebates if it's anticipated that it's going

[Speaker 0]: to run out of money?

[Speaker 15]: Is left to them to figure out how to establish what the rebate is going to be and if they have to adjust it along the way, which is typical with how they structure other programs and have that kind of latitude.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. For a moment, let's shift to the safety of this equipment. So lithium ion batteries, we've heard there's much discussion over their safety. Many areas are trying to regulate it. I believe New York City as well as other places. And and we're sitting here saying that we should be incentivizing it. Now, frankly, I've seen in my jurisdiction many fires that are related to lithium ion. They're very substantially intense infernos. Should we be concerned about the safety of this equipment?

[Speaker 15]: Well, I I I the the situation, and you see this also with people that have like electric scooters and things like that. Often attributed to using non compatible batteries, batteries not from that manufacturer. And so that's something that is going to be an education problem and a quality control problem that we're going to have to stay on top of and have the manufacturers give proper instructions and warnings. But the products are out there and are going to be out there. So I I don't know that that issue is an issue that really is affected by this bill. What is important, just wanna, you know, continue to emphasize, we have and I've spoken to landscapers of small business people who are in need of making this transition but are having trouble affording to make this transition. They're in need for making the transition either because they want to do it or because the communities they operate in are saying you need to move to this kind of equipment. I want to provide help to those businesses and I think that's something that we all know folks that operate in that business space and this will be some relief for a situation where somebody could be forced to walk away from a community and customers they've served for years if the local government has said you cannot use gas powered equipment or gas powered leaf blowers or some variations that a large number of communities have already instituted local laws.

[Speaker 7]: So two things in there that you just said. So they're looking for being able to afford the equipment. Yes. So the equipment is more expensive over gas

[Speaker 15]: That if it's a I don't know, but I'll tell you this that if you have equipment and your equipment is of a certain lifespan and you now are a number of your customers or communities saying we want you to use all electric, you may have to speed up the acquisition of this equipment more than you would at the end of the life cycle of the gas powered equipment that you had. And so this is a financial assist. It's not making anyone do anything. It's just providing financial assistance just as we do for incentives for building weatherization or other kinds of energy, clean energy transition, which reggie funds are used for. Nothing nothing that dramatic. As I say, we've had more exciting bills here.

[Speaker 7]: Nothing dramatic, but we're taking money from from people to fund all these programs and their utility utility bills are dramatic.

[Speaker 15]: We're not changing we're not increasing anything

[Speaker 16]: on

[Speaker 15]: our the bill isn't assessing anything new to fund this. It's under the existing reggie system as it is now.

[Speaker 7]: I would contend we should reduce, not increase or not even maintain. Should reduce in order to make it affordable.

[Speaker 15]: That could be another bill, but we're still in germane space.

[Speaker 7]: We'll move on. So you talked about communities that are banning gas powered combustible engines. How many communities are there that are doing that?

[Speaker 15]: There are at least 69 communities that have enacted some form of restrictions. They may not all be bans. They A variety of they can restrict hours. They may restrict leaf blowers only. It varies. So I can give you a list of communities that we have so far. But it grows, I'm sure, every year additional communities choose to enact something locally.

[Speaker 7]: Do do we have communities that equally can that are equally concerned about lithium ion batteries because of the Oh, safety you

[Speaker 15]: speak to fire department people there. Every the fire department folks are do a lot of I have I'll give a shout out to the city of New Rochelle fire department. They make a real effort at educating the public about proper use of lithium battery equipment. And so that's certainly something here. I mean we're not going to we may all disappear but this equipment isn't going to disappear. It's out there in the marketplace. It's popular and ideally safety innovations will continue to be made for these kinds of products. Who's to say in five or ten years there's a different way to energize equipment. So science moves very quickly as it will. It moves more quickly than some debates on the

[Speaker 7]: assembly floor.

[Speaker 4]: That's true.

[Speaker 7]: This is true. So are we concerned about is there any safety standards that are included in this bill? Any storage requirements? Charging guidelines? Anything that's going to make this equipment that much more appealing, right, and safer for communities and safer for the fire departments who are responding to these absolute infernos.

[Speaker 15]: That's not the subject matter of this bill. There probably are other pieces legislation that deal with the safety issue and certainly, out in, as I say, the fire department world, there's a lot of material being shared with the public on how to safely operate and store and charge such equipment.

[Speaker 7]: I think sir, let me just see.

[Speaker 5]: I think we can conclude it right there.

[Speaker 15]: You very much. Thank you very much. I

[Speaker 7]: appreciate that. Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Speaker 9]: On the bill, sir.

[Speaker 7]: So I think the sponsor has done an ad good very good job. Let me just say that. Describing the product, why he believes he's sponsoring the bill, why he believes it's superior, why it's popular, what companies are doing to market it, not only manufacturers, but people are trying to sell it. That's true. The marketplace will deliver what is necessary. The bill commits undefined amount of taxpayer money at a time when utility customers are plagued with high bills and in arrears as well. So the governor vetoed a very similar message because of the funding concerns back in 2022, I believe. So all of this does, and all of this goes forward and still does not address the safety risks of lithium ion batteries, are at the heart of this equipment. If the product is appealing and the marketplace is doing a good job trying to move the product along. I think government is the last person, last entity that should step in and put its fingers on the scale in a private marketplace and try to drive customers to a certain product. The product is good enough, it's safe enough, it'll sell itself, and it doesn't require government to incentivize it or fund it in any way, shape, or form. I think we have more reasons to be concerned about the money that we're extracting from the business community and the consumers out there on their energy bills that we could find a better way to purpose that money or just choose not to take it all to begin with. So with that said, I would encourage my colleagues to vote no on this bill. Thank you.

[Speaker 9]: Thank you, mister Gray. Before we turn to the next questioner, just a gentle reminder to colleagues that comments on debate are to be confined to the bill that's in front of us. Mister Palmisano.

[Speaker 4]: Madam speaker, will the sponsor yield

[Speaker 9]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 15]: Be my pleasure.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you, mister Otis. Just real quick on the veto. So the governor said, and my my colleague covered a lot of it, and I just kinda wanna fill in around the blanks for clarification. So the governor vetoed the bill in 2022, said it should be done in the context of the budget. How come we're not doing it in the context of the budget?

[Speaker 15]: Because this adds no new spending to the budget. And, again, as stated earlier, it was a different bill. And this does not ask for any additional funds. It's through the existing Reggie system. Two reasons, Okay. We're in a different

[Speaker 4]: So, I know you keep saying RGGI, that's one part of it, but it's not all RGGI. RGGI goes on the energy producers and then ultimately comes back, ratepayers pay it and increase the cost on their supply. But, there's also other surcharges, taxes, fees and assessments of ratepayers like clean energy fund that ratepayers are paying into this fund, correct?

[Speaker 15]: My analysis is that this would most likely be paid for with RGGI funds.

[Speaker 4]: Well

[Speaker 15]: So, I'm familiar with the other fund. I think they're more likely to be working with RGGI.

[Speaker 4]: But, that's up to NYSERDA, right?

[Speaker 15]: It is, but there's no reason for them to the other funds have other purposes And ultimately borne by

[Speaker 4]: the rate payers. Ultimately one way or another it's going be borne by the rate payer, correct?

[Speaker 15]: Except this bill isn't changing the amount charged to rate payers. This bill does it within the existing auction and interest rates they use to fund programs now. So, there's no increase to to ratepayers here. But, there's

[Speaker 4]: no decrease either. So you obviously have unfettered confidence in NYSERDA to handle this program because NYSERDA is off the books. We have no authority, no auditing. We nothing in them. So you have all you and your side of the aisle have unfettered x trust and confidence in NYSERDA to handle this program. Is that correct?

[Speaker 15]: With all state agencies, we will judge their actions on a case by case basis. I have confident that they can handle this in a way that we will all think is positive, professional, efficient and effective.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, so you know right now NYSERDA is sitting on $2,400,000,000 in surplus funds. It's just sitting there to be used. So, your opinion, you'd rather have this money go to pay for someone's electric lawnmower, electric weed whacker versus giving that money back to the ratepayers. Is that what you're saying? Because that money is there. They've already been collected from the ratepayers. Well that's what you're saying.

[Speaker 15]: You're talking about you're talking about a variety of funds. For RGGI, generally, the practice with RGGI funds year to year is the money that they pull in for RGGI, they fully allocate to the variety of renewable energy, affordability, energy efficiency, building electrification, innovative greenhouse gas abatement programs. They have a list of programs that they use that they spend the money on. And in most years, they expand the that year's allocation of regi funds and interest fully. And so I I I questioned the assumption of talking about other funds that they have. Different topic Does your

[Speaker 4]: specifically say this money is going come from RGGI?

[Speaker 15]: It does not, but this

[Speaker 4]: is NYSERDA where makes the decision.

[Speaker 9]: Colleagues, if we could not talk over one another, that would be great. Thank you.

[Speaker 15]: Fair enough. I couldn't hear your question over your question. So repeat your question again.

[Speaker 4]: So I asked you if this bill specifically filling these funds going to come from RGGI. You said no, but that's up to NYSERDA basically if I interpret it correctly. So, that's up to NYSERDA to make that decision on where they take these funds. I know you think it's going to come from RGGI, but it's up to NYSERDA, correct? That is

[Speaker 15]: true, if you look at the list of programs that they do from Reggie now, this fits into that model. If they have excess funds in other places that they think would be good for this, so be it. What I want to do is I want to get the program off the ground and give the small business people that are the contractors that are are being put in a situation where they're being asked to make this transition some financial assistance to do it. This is a time sensitive issue if you're somebody in that business and you have to buy this equipment because a few of your communities are putting in restrictive rules, we should be giving them assistance. It's a good thing. It's a good small business person thing for which, hopefully, despite other issues and other pieces of legislation, everybody in this house should be voting for this bill if you care about that small contractor doing work in your community.

[Speaker 4]: So, then you're okay with the senior citizen or the disabled veteran subsidizing electric lawn mowers and weed whackers for businesses who want to purchase this, correct? Al again repeat

[Speaker 15]: the answer which is this bill does not increase the charge at all.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you. Okay. And then, is your goal really with this bill ultimately to basically ban the sale of gas powered lawn equipment in the future? I mean like California did?

[Speaker 15]: That's not what this bill does.

[Speaker 4]: I know, but is that your goal?

[Speaker 15]: It's not my goal. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: Know, Mr. Otis, thanks for your time. Madam Speaker, on the bill.

[Speaker 9]: On the bill, sir.

[Speaker 4]: I'm sorry, my colleagues. This is just more misplaced priorities. I have great respect for the sponsor's bill. I really do not like this bill. This is another out of touch policy on a climate energy agenda that continues to put green policies over rate payers from a bigger perspective. California banned all gas powered. They said from the article we read, it cost $1,290,000,000 to do it. You talk to landscapers out there, they said it would cost increase their prices 30%. People from a range issue said that they could do 10 to 15 lawns a day would have to do five to seven and lose a thousand dollars a week. If you I know the sponsors keep saying this come out of RGGI. It's up to NYSERDA. So, this bill doesn't defend it, REGI. NYSERDA will defend it, determine it. So, he has confidence in NYSERDA. I do not have confidence in NYSERDA. They're sitting on $2,400,000,000 in rate payer funds right now that have been taken for them, but this bill doesn't reduce that at all. This just basically makes more opportunity to take that money from the rate payer. If you ask your concession, I urge you, I'll go home, would you rather have direct rate payer relief right now, or would you rather subsidize someone's electric lawn mower or someone's electric weed whacker? There is no doubt every one of your constituents are going to say, I want direct rate payer relief right now. NYSERDA has unfettered control and access of rate payer money for these green energy programs that and the more New Yorkers are finding out about it, the more they do not like it. Again, dollars 2,400,000,000 sitting in NYSERDA accounts utilities have account money too. Our taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges that are on our utility bills that go to pay for these green programs. This is a green program. Sometimes, that amounts up to as much as 20% of our utility bill. I've heard this house said their answer to solve utility problems is to freeze rates. That doesn't lower rates. That just keeps them high where they are. If we directly rebate that $2,400,000,000 back to them now, give it back to the rate payer because they want it back. They need it. They're on the breaking point. And then, let's put a suspended taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges that are under utility bills that go to pay for these green energy programs. That's direct, immediate rate payer relief right now. Now, the whole cost of this I mean, I know there was a lot said about NYSERDA, confidence in NYSERDA. Well, if you have confidence in NYSERDA, NYSERDA came out with a memo a couple weeks ago saying the green programs that are in place, if no delays, changes, or modifications are made to it, it's going to increase heating costs for New Yorkers to more than $4,000 annually. What else will it do? It will increase prices of a pump at the pump of a gallon of gas by 2.23 a gallon on top of what it is right now. It will also increase prices for diesel by $2.41 a gallon on top of what it is right now. For our small and medium commercial businesses, I know the sponsor talked about helping small businesses. This will increase utility costs for small and medium commercialized businesses, depending on utility and facility size, by more than 46%. What else did NYSERDA say in their memo? It will increase trucking delivery truck operations by more than 60%. What does that mean? Food prices get shipped by truck. 96% of products and goods are shipped by truck in New York State. Food prices will go up because those costs to truck them are going to go up because of those trucking operations going up 60%. Housing costs are going to go up. Why? Because the lumber to ship it from point A to B is going go up. That and we see supposedly have all affordable housing crisis in the state of New York. I don't understand this. We have unfettered access and trust in NYSERDA to run this program. There's no accountability. There's no auditing. They can do whatever they want, and we continue to give them that authority for these green mandates. And then, when a utility rate increase happens, everyone wants to blame the utility. The governor loves to blame the utility. Many of my colleagues love to blame the here love to blame the utility. I'm not saying the utility is off hook, but there you don't want to look at the policies of these green mandates programs like this that continue to increase assessment fees surcharges on the ratepayers. Why should a senior citizen on a fixed income or the disabled veteran have to subsidize a business that wants to purchase electric lawn mowers or electric weed whackers to do their business? If we want energy choice, we're safer all the above approach. If the people wanna do this, go ahead and buy it. But don't make our senior citizens or our disabled veterans subsidize it. This is just more misplaced priorities. And you take what we already said before the the memo came out last week, we know that the the cost of this whole CLCPA, which this is a part of, so very, very germane, is more than a quarter of $1,000,000,000,000, if not up to a half $1,000,000,000,000 according to the Empire Center. Residential electricity rates in 2017 before CLCPA was passed was 17¢ a kilowatt hour. Today, it's more than 26¢ a kilowatt hour. That is more than 50% higher than the national average. Madam Speaker, my colleagues, our constituents are on the brink. Our businesses are on the brink. You talk to businesses, they care about two things when it comes to energy policy affordable and reliable. If they can't get affordable and reliable energy in New York, they're going to go elsewhere. And shocker, they already are. And who can blame them? Because we have continued policies to continue to go after green. And the only thing green about this is what it's going to cost you more green rate payer dollars and more tax dollars. It doesn't make sense. There's no all of the above approach. In February 2019, the PSC approved $43,000,000,000 in future rate payer cost to pay for green programs which they specifically delineate. This is a green program. This is going to come from the rate payer. You can say it's from Reggie. Even when Reggie, it goes to the power plant which gets baked into the supply so they're getting paying that on the backside that they don't even see. It's hidden charges. There's so many hidden charges on the utility bill that this chamber and this governor has advanced. Look at her policy. You got the all electric mother of unfunded mandates, electric school bus, the all electric buildings act, cap and invest, which we have to deal with. Advance clean truck, advance clean car. It's one policy after one policy after one policy that continues to put the rate payer in the background. The policy is being and we didn't talk about the you know the battery disposal, the sourcing, or the the safety of this stuff got into a little bit. The energy policies, the climate agenda that continues to be advanced by this governor and this house, affordability, feasibility, and reliability are not part of the discussion. Make no mistake, we will continue to sound the alarm. We will continue to push because it should be the priority of we will be looking to advance the common sense energy agenda that prioritizes, yes, affordability. That prioritizes reliability to keep the lights and the power on because the renewable green solar wind is not reliable dispatchable power. We will push to prioritize feasibility to make sure the grid can handle it before you continue to put these mandates in place. We will continue to prioritize and push for safety. We will continue to push and prioritize for fuel diversity. And, we will continue to push and advocate for energy choice. These policies that are advancing are not energy choice. We will continue to push for these things because we know that New York families, farmers, senior citizens, small businesses, and manufacturers deserve nothing less. But it would be nice in the context of these budget negotiations and all the policies we continue to advance that we start thinking of the rate payer and these families so we don't continue leading to our nation leading out migration of more of these individuals and businesses leaving our state. So, the more these bills come up, the more you will be hearing from me, and I'm sure my colleague, the energy ranker, because this is just bad misplaced priorities and it's time we start taking into consideration of the individuals we represent because believe me, you talk to them, they want direct ratepay relief now. They don't want to subsidize a business' electric lawn mower, electric weed whacker. They don't want to subsidize someone's electric heat pump or electric vehicle. But that's what we're doing with the policies we're implementing. So for that reason, madam speaker, my colleagues, because of these misplaced priorities, I will vote no and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 9]: Thank you, mister Palmisano. Miss Walsh.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 9]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 10]: Thank you very much, miss Rodis. So and I apologize if any of these questions are redundant. What I'm trying to figure out because we did take up a a version of this bill back in 2022. What happened between then and now? So I know that you weren't carrying the bill then. I know it was our former colleague mister Engelbright who did and but I was rereading the prior debate and so a few things I a couple of my questions are just gonna have to do with that. So one of the questions I have is does this bill give an advantage to homeowners or is this specifically geared towards businesses?

[Speaker 15]: This is businesses and institutions.

[Speaker 10]: And institutions, okay. So from my reading of the prior bill, that did impact at least the debate centered around what homeowners could get as a rebate.

[Speaker 15]: That's not this bill.

[Speaker 10]: That's not this And

[Speaker 15]: sponsor, different bill. Right. And and so we could talk probably could talk about a lot of other different bills. That's not this bill.

[Speaker 10]: No, I understand that. And I just I'm just for my own sake of clarity and understanding what we're talking about today versus what we were talking about a few years ago. So I do believe it's on the same topic, it's just I think that that prior bill was going at it a different way and had a different scope but I'd just like to bring that forward. So

[Speaker 15]: The biggest difference I'd just say was that bill also structured the program in a way where left less to NYSERDA to structure the program. This bill lets NYSERDA set it up in a way that they feel makes sense.

[Speaker 9]: Colleagues, just a reminder that we're talking about a specific bill on the floor, not previous bills.

[Speaker 10]: Yeah, but it's okay. It has to do with the same subject matter and there is legislative history that's led I mean certainly as as I've been briefed on this bill, it talks about the prior bill's history and the prior veto from the governor. I'm trying to figure out Different bill. Different bill. Okay. So you mentioned earlier in response to earlier questions about the fact that this bill is going to help small businesses. So for example, where I live, there are people who have side hustles where they've got some lawn contracts that they do just like they would do maybe snow plowing in the wintertime, some of them are doing some lawns in the summertime. So if you only have a DBA doing business as, would you qualify for this program?

[Speaker 15]: Well, have to look at the language of the bill but it's which I guess I'll read you the language of the bill. Does that work?

[Speaker 10]: As long as it's this bill and not one from a few years ago because I heard we can't do that.

[Speaker 15]: Commercial landscaping business shall be a sole proprietorship firm limited liability company partnership corporation or other business entity whose primary concern involves the care and maintenance of yards, gardens, and other outdoor landscapes for clients including but not limited to lawn care, gardening, and the removal or pruning of trees and shrubs.

[Speaker 10]: And I thank you for that. I also read that bill language and the lawyer in me of course looking to you know find any anything that seems vague or not specific enough. I was looking at the part that talked about or any other business entity. Would that include a doing business as a DBA?

[Speaker 15]: I don't know. I'll defer to you on a business law question. You could we'll take work with the language that's in the bill and are they a sole proprietorship, limited liability company, partnership, corporation or other business entity?

[Speaker 10]: Well, don't, please don't defer to me on the law. Mean I'm deferring to you as the bill sponsor to set the legislative intent. Whoever is going look at this after That's

[Speaker 15]: the language we could farm out to whether doing business as counts or not. I don't know. Are they an LLC? How are they constituted? Yeah.

[Speaker 10]: Would be an LLC. Yeah. Now this is this is your real, you know, regular Joe or Jane, you know, out and they've got us maybe a side hustle and is doing some laundry. But I'm just trying figure out if they're going be helped by

[Speaker 15]: this business. It's a business. Yeah. It's a constituted business.

[Speaker 10]: Doing business as. You're an individual doing business as Joe's landscaping. That's what that is. You file with the clerk's office and

[Speaker 15]: Well we can look into that after this debate and see but that's a commercial law question. The language in the bill is broad and would carry most people that are really in the business of doing this work.

[Speaker 10]: Okay. Alright. Fair enough and I'll leave it there. Let's see, do we know how much the rebate will be?

[Speaker 15]: That will be determined by NYSERDA.

[Speaker 10]: Okay and okay. If the, once the rebate program is established, there will be like a set amount of money that would be used for that program and then if it's exhausted in given year then what happens then?

[Speaker 15]: That would be determined by NYSERDA as they do with their other programs, yes. Okay.

[Speaker 10]: This would be on a calendar year basis from January to December or from the time of bill passage? What's

[Speaker 15]: It would be nicer to set the timetable how they would structure it. They have they deal with fiscal years in terms of how they do accounting for their other reggie funds but I'm going to make no assumptions.

[Speaker 10]: Okay. I was curious as you know for example with my law practice when I would file my taxes, there would be a schedule where I would itemize any equipment or furnishings or things that I had purchased through the year to be part of that. So I know that when you do your taxes, you know if you're buying equipment that you're using in your business, for example in my case it would be a computer, in the case of a lawn company it could be equipment like this that would be part of the program. Why not just allow the business owners to just itemize that stuff on their taxes and receive a benefit that way?

[Speaker 15]: Could they do both?

[Speaker 10]: Well this would allow them to do both. We want to allow them to do both. Okay.

[Speaker 15]: Well, mean you're talking a difference between a business deduction a rebate that helps actually fund the purchase of the product. Two different things.

[Speaker 10]: Yeah, that is two different things. We know that the cost of gas has been rising recently. Isn't that an incentive enough for a company to, a small company even to think about going electric versus you know using gasoline to to power their vehicles?

[Speaker 15]: Well, are pros and cons to all of these things and markets change. The price of gas fluctuates, the price of electricity fluctuates. And I would imagine the price of this kind of equipment will fluctuate as well. So, that's for an individual business owner to make the economic decision that's wisest for them.

[Speaker 10]: Yep, precisely. I agree with that. It is something that a business has got to decide what the best way to proceed is. With this program, is it only for the equipment itself? I was reading somewhere that in order to get a certain number of hours out of the equipment on a single charge, you might have to have multiple batteries that

[Speaker 16]: you have

[Speaker 15]: As stated earlier, it covers batteries, charges, the equipment needed to do the charging. Charging. Those are all eligible for the rebates.

[Speaker 10]: Okay, thank you so much. And I apologize for the redundancy. I didn't hear that answer previously. Okay, I think I have gotten my questions and clarifications Thank from you. You very much.

[Speaker 15]: Always a pleasure.

[Speaker 10]: Madam Speaker on the bill. On the bill. So you know I had supported the previous bill back a few years ago because it really was going to help homeowners more directly than businesses. I mean I guess where I'm, I think I've changed a little bit over the last couple of years in the way I look at some of these bills. I kind of feel like the more that government wades into somebody previously had said putting the finger on the scale or trying to tip the scale in favor, The more the government gets involved in doing that I think the more of a problem it can create. I think that we should leave this up to market forces. I think that if a business decides that it's better for them given the cost of gas to go electric if they want to start shifting some of their equipment over to electric. Think that that's fine but similar to what previous speakers have said, I mean the fact that NYSERDA is sitting on $2,400,000,000 in rate payer funds, I don't have the confidence that they're going to create and run a program that is going to be done fairly, that's going to be done well. And I think that that's a change in the way that I'm looking at things over the last few years and why on this bill I don't think that I'm going to be able to support it. I I I think that you know there are a lot of people hurting right now in in our state over energy costs. I just think that I don't know. I just don't think that this is we're shifting, this isn't free money, we're shifting costs to subsidize certain types of purchases and I I don't think that this is the right way to do it. So I don't think I'll be supporting this bill, but I appreciate the sponsor's time, and thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 9]: Thank you, miss Walsh. Mister Bendett.

[Speaker 8]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 9]: Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 8]: Thanks. I just have one quick question. I'm a small business owner and I own some commercial properties. And on those commercial properties, I do my own yard work. I mow my own lawns. I trim my own bushes, and I do all my own stuff. Would I qualify for this rebate?

[Speaker 15]: We'd have to scrutinize that. I mean, guess the language in the bill is we had I think there was some sort of primary concern involves care and maintenance of yards, gardens. Possibly not, and maybe we should look at adjusting that. But actually you may fall under the category of institutional, but again, I think we have the primary issue. But we can revisit that issue. I think that's an interesting point for for people that businesses that do it on their own.

[Speaker 8]: Yeah. Because my taxes are very high. My expenses are very high. So I save money by doing that myself. Don't

[Speaker 11]: belong to

[Speaker 8]: a gym, so that's where I get my exercise.

[Speaker 15]: We we will take a look at that. I think it's an interesting issue worth looking into. And certainly, the bill is valuing the need for this eligibility for institutions including commercial institutions.

[Speaker 8]: What are institutions? What's the definition of an institution?

[Speaker 15]: Okay. So institutional or commercial applicants shall mean a commercial landscaping business or state agency, state authority, local authority, town, county, village, school district, private school, university, not for profit corporation, or other not for profit

[Speaker 8]: So churches?

[Speaker 15]: I would think that would fit

[Speaker 4]: in that Okay. You very

[Speaker 8]: much, madam speaker. Thank you.

[Speaker 9]: Thank you, mister Bendett. Mister Mankdolo?

[Speaker 5]: Thank you, madam speaker. Will the sponsor yield?

[Speaker 9]: Will the sponsor yield? Of course.

[Speaker 5]: Thank you. When we're talking about commercial operators, so a young kid out of high school that's mowing lawns or doing landscape, would that individual, he or she, qualify for something like this?

[Speaker 15]: Well, probably not. And when I was in high school, I did a little of that usually using the homeowner's lawn mower, not my own and so I was in that world decades ago but you have to be a business under the legislation here. So why would we pick a business that would be eligible for this versus an individual? It's geared towards people it's geared towards businesses for which this is their primary activity, not the occasional sort of user. We don't have for instance, this bill does not include homeowners which could be a different bill and certainly plausible thing. But where the need was especially are these commercial landscapers to try and give them an assist.

[Speaker 5]: So I've talked to some commercial landscapers up in my district and I talked to them about going to electric lawn mowers, chainsaws, everything that they use, brush sweepers, leaf blowers, and it just is not feasible because of the weather that we have and the time that they can get out to cut lawns or do their job, especially in a year like this when winter is going longer, that means the time is shorter to do so. My concern with the bill is how can we nitpick one commercial operator versus this young man or woman in high school or starting their own business and yet they pay taxes, their parents pay taxes, but they are not eligible for this?

[Speaker 15]: It's how we structured this specific bill. One could open it up to just anybody that buys a piece of equipment, but that's not what this bill does. This bill was really geared towards helping that small business person. But again, remind everyone, although it was stated earlier, is that this isn't forcing anyone to buy electric equipment. The market forces or regulatory things at the local level may drive that. But this bill is just giving a financial assist through a pot of money that we are not increasing through this bill, a financial assist to help them afford the equipment. You touched on something worth mentioning. For an institutional entity or Department of Public Works, they have the ability to schedule their work, bring go the stuff back to the garage, maybe charge it and then bring it out a few hours later. For a commercial landscaper, they are out all day. So what do they do? They have to have they basically have batteries on their trucks and charge some equipment during the day as they're going from job to job because they're not going back to the home garage in the middle of their work day. So they have a need to buy these batteries as well to keep them functional for the whole workday.

[Speaker 5]: So so it sounds like you believe that a commercial operator will have to pretty much double up on their batteries that they have on hand because they're going to need x amount during the day. We're charging the other amount for the next day or the next night, whatever. Where municipality has the opportunity to go back to their town highway department.

[Speaker 15]: I think it's more challenging. That's why I'm very sympathetic to the commercial landscaper because they have a different kind of time pressure and lack of flexibility than like a school district or municipality who isn't necessarily doing using that equipment all day. So I'm sympathetic. That's what the bill is trying to help these folks out. I've spoken to some of these business owners who want to go into this space but there are these kinds of barriers and so we're trying to give them a financial assist.

[Speaker 5]: So are most of those spaces within the city limits, some place that's more confined, more like a suburban type area versus a rural area?

[Speaker 15]: It would be applicable in any circumstance. I'm not sure I understand your

[Speaker 5]: question, but So you said you've had many of those commercial operators talk to you about doing this and possibly wanting to go that way. Are they operating within a city or a suburban area

[Speaker 15]: or I'm a rural in a suburban area, so with different sized properties, there is some variety.

[Speaker 5]: Alright. So, as I said earlier, a young man or young woman that wants to start a business probably wouldn't be able to do this just because they're not a commercial operator yet and at the same time they don't have the volume of a commercial operator. Is that correct?

[Speaker 15]: Well, mean if they incorporated themselves as a business, they would be eligible. It's really an established themselves as registered business, set up some sort of business entity, they would be eligible.

[Speaker 5]: So if they choose not to do that, then they wouldn't be eligible at all then? That is correct. Alright. Thank you, sponsor for Madam answering the speaker, on the bill.

[Speaker 1]: On the bill.

[Speaker 5]: As my colleague here said on the floor a little while ago, I was listening to his debate, and we talk about all the cost. And I wanna share a story of a US army combat veteran who retired from the army. And he started a business back home several years ago. It's a barbecue place. And he called me a few weeks ago and said, Ryan, I've gotta give up. I can't do this anymore. He says, I've been a fighter my whole life. I fought where most people will never go. But he's tired of fighting New York State. From the cost of electricity to the cost of gas, from the cost of insurance, for the cost of workman's comp, for the cost of overtime, high wages, all that's piling down on him, and he cannot make it work. Him and his wife worked full time in this operation. It was an operation that they were going to hand over to their children, maybe part of their retirement plan down the road. Again, in this house, we always tend to think of the few. I'm all for helping commercial operators. Absolutely. But every commercial operator that I know has the right to make that decision. And we're gonna rob Peter to pay Paul to do this? Anything where we rebate or give something free is coming from somebody's pocket. It's coming from some tax dollar. And it just doesn't always work. I'm all for giving them incentives to make that happen, helping them get through that. But again, we constantly push one way instead of looking at the whole picture, the whole horizon of what everybody is doing. I support the bill of cleaner leaf blowers, cleaner lawn mowers, cleaner mulchers, cleaner everything, but not where we're harming other people. We cannot continue to do that. We have senior citizens that are struggling. We have young people that are struggling. We have places for these dollars to go, madam speaker. But to give this as a rebate, I just can't support that. I will absolutely support going in that direction, but not at the cost of all of our local taxpayers back home when they are all struggling across the board. So again, I thank you madam speaker for allowing me. I cannot support the bill, but I applaud the sponsor that at least we're looking at things and I hope this bill doesn't go through because it will absolutely harm many individuals that you and I will probably never see in our life. So thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Miss Bailey.

[Speaker 17]: Madam speaker, on the bill.

[Speaker 1]: On the bill.

[Speaker 17]: So as I sit and listen to the debate, I had no indication that I was going to speak on it, but I hear reggie funds quite a bit in the conversation and NYSERDA is going to determine where these rebates are coming from. We've picked one industry that we're going to be allocating rebates to, and I'm sure, as with all of my colleagues sitting in here with us today, our phones in our district offices are ringing off the hook with our rate payers. The funds that NYSERDA is going to be identifying that will go out to these rebates for our commercial lawn and care, nonprofits, whatever it may be that's outlined in the bill that the sponsors has that's mentioned, at the end of the day, it's the rate payer that is paid into that. We have a means right now to take action to help each and every one of our rate payers that are calling our office every day with meaningful dollars that we could give back to them. Rather than picking one industry over another, I would much rather see us look at the rate payers who are struggling day in and day out, who are leaving our state because pretty soon, we aren't going to have rate payers paying into these funds that we're going to then go dip into for various programs. Right now, if you walk into any lawn lawn store, Home Depot, Lowe's, you name it, there are many battery operated pieces of equipment that individuals are buying day in and day out without a rebate. So I would really urge us to take the ability that we have in this in this body and put those funds back into the hands of our rate payers. Not one group over another, but the individuals who are calling your office every day and that's going to make a meaningful difference. So thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Speaker 2]: This section will take effect immediately.

[Speaker 1]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you, madam speaker. The, minority conference will generally be in the negative on this piece of legislation. But if there are members who wish to support it, now would be the time to do so at your desks. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be supporting this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they can do so at their desk.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. The clerk will record the vote. Mr. Otis to explain his vote.

[Speaker 15]: I thank my colleagues for the good discussion. Is just to drill down a little on the health aspects related to this equipment. One of the memos and support is from the American Academy of Pediatrics. And they indicate that emissions from gas powered equipment are strongly linked to increases in child and adult asthma incidents, severity, emergency department visits, as well as negative impacts on maternal mortality, adult cardiovascular and neurological disease, and increase in cancer rates. And we have another number of other memos from the health community. And so why some local governments are trying to reduce the use of this equipment is because they get complaints from people often, folks with respiratory conditions saying we'd like some relief so you have different kinds of restrictions enacted locally. Also, in terms of who's paying, the RGGI funding stream is these are the regional greenhouse gas fund where utilities basically buy the right for a certain level of emissions into a fund that then provides funding for a variety of clean energy programs. That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Some of the comments we heard today sort of saying, well, do we have RGGI at all? But RGGI helps diminish the amount of greenhouse gases that are going into the atmosphere and uses the money that is derived from the fund for good purposes. So I vote aye, but thank everybody for the thoughtful discussion. And Mr. Penditt, we're going look into your technical issue. Good point. Maybe we'll do some tweaks. So thank you very much.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, Mr. Otis. I affirmative. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes, 97. Nays, 42. The bill is passed. Page

[Speaker 1]: Page six, calendar number 10. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number three forty eight, calendar 10. Miss Barrett, an act to amend the real property law.

[Speaker 1]: On a motion by miss Barrett, the senate bill is before the house. The senate bill is advanced. An explanation has been requested. Miss Barrett.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you madam speaker. This bill is a clarification. It requires that when a manufactured home park community owner notifies the homeowners in the park of a rent or fee increase in excess of 3%, the community owner must provide a written justification for the increase and make sure that such documentation is available to any resident by request that shows the cost and commencement of work that justify that increase.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Johnson.

[Speaker 18]: Thank you very much, madam speaker. On the bill.

[Speaker 1]: On the bill.

[Speaker 18]: I believe that this legislation is well intentioned and rooted in a very real concern. Protecting residents of manufactured home communities from sudden and burdensome rent increases. The goal of stability for residents is a good goal. It's a goal I share. It's a goal that I think most of our colleagues share. Manufactured home residents, many of them seniors, working families, individuals on fixed incomes, deserve predictability, fairness, and dignity in their housing. However, good intentions alone are not enough. So I'll wait I'll wait for you. Sorry.

[Speaker 4]: Technology. Alright.

[Speaker 18]: However, good intentions alone are not enough. In housing policy, perhaps more than anywhere else, we are judged on outcomes, not aspirations. And my concern today is simple. This legislation is currently written, risk producing the exact opposite outcome of what it intends. This legislation would place a three percent limit on rent increases, requiring the property owners to justify anything above that level, particularly when it's tied to maintenance or improvements. Now on its face, that seems very reasonable. Yet what incentives does this create for the people who own and operate these communities? Because whether we like it or not, the long term quality of manufactured home communities depends on one fundamental reality. Someone has to invest in them. Someone has to invest in the roads, invest in the sewer systems, invest in the water infrastructure, invest in electrical upgrades, invest in drainage, safety, and modernization. These are not optional investments. These are not cosmetic. These are capital intensive ongoing responsibilities that fall squarely on the property owner. This is where the bill before us creates creates serious unintended consequences. If a property owner must justify, defend, and potentially litigate any rent increase above 3%, even when tied to legitimate improvements, then the rational response is not to invest more. The rational response is to invest less Or even worse, delay investment as long as as long as possible. This is not speculation. This is basic economics. When you make it harder to recover cost, you discourage spending those costs in the first place. And what would that lead to? Aging infrastructure, declining property conditions. In other words, a race to the bottom. Not because owners want that outcome, but because the state's official policy would now push them there. We must ask ourselves, who ultimately bears the cost of that decline? It is not the state. It's not this chamber. It's not the other place down the hall. It's the senior driving on deteriorating roads. The families dealing with outdated water systems, and a community living with infrastructure that should have been replaced years ago. So, while the intent of this bill and its design to protect residents, we must confront the possibility that over time, it could harm them instead. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, and manufactured home communities are one of the few naturally occurring affordable housing options we have. It's lower cost, lower barrier barrier to entry, and community oriented. It's often located in areas where traditional development is limited. And if we are serious about addressing our affordability crisis, we should be asking how do we expand and improve manufactured housing, not constrain it by artificially capping the amount of rent increase. But that would require something very essential, investment. Not just maintaining what exists, but modernizing it, expanding it, and making it more attractive to residents. Let's ask a simple question. Why would a developer choose to invest in manufactured home communities in New York under this framework? When their ability to recover cost is uncertain. When their pricing decisions are subject to heightened scrutiny. When their return on investment becomes less predictable. We sometimes forget that capital in the state is mobile. Developers can invest in other states, other asset types, in other housing. And if we send a signal, intentionally or not, that manufactured housing in New York comes with additional regulatory risk and constrained returns, we should not be shocked when investment goes someplace else. This is not an argument against regulation. It's not an argument against resident protections. It's an argument for balance. Because the best housing policy does not pick sides. It aligns incentives. It ensures that residents are protected, that owners are able to maintain and improve their properties, and that investment is encouraged, not discouraged. Now, I don't simply wanna be a cynic or a detractor or a critic or a pessimist or a defeatist or a killjoy. I do not believe the answer is to walk away from this issue. I believe the answer is we should get the legislation right. We must create a clear capital improvement recovery mechanism. First, we should establish a transparent, predictable pathway for owners to recover the cost of legitimate capital improvements. If an owner repaves a road, upgrades a sewer system, or modernizes infrastructure, there should be a clear, streamlined process, not an ambiguous or burdensome one, to reflect the investment in rents. When we reward investment, we get more of it. We must also differentiate between maintenance and investment. Distinguish between routine rent increases and increases that are tied to capital improvements. Those are not the same thing. And treating them the same creates exactly the disincentive we are concerned about. Legislation of this type should create certainty, not ambiguity. Right now, this bill raises questions. What qualifies as necessary? Who decides? What is the timeline? What is the standard of proof? Uncertainty is the enemy of investment, and clarity is its foundation. Finally, let's think bigger. How do we not just preserve, but grow manufactured housing in New York? We incentivize new developments in the state all the time. We encourage the modernization of existing communities. And if we partner with responsible operators and we focus on restriction without encouraging growth, we will simply freeze the status quo or worse, degrade it. I understand that this legislation reflects a genuine concern for constituents that we represent. It reflects an understanding that housing costs can be unpredictable and burdensome, and those concerns are real. However, our responsibility in this place is to not just respond to problems, it is solve them in a way that works in the real world. And if we pass legislation that makes it harder to invest in manufactured housing, we may feel like we are protecting residents today. But five years from now, ten years from now, when infrastructure has aged and investment has slowed, when conditions have declined, we will ask ourselves, did we actually make things better or did we unintentionally make them worse? I urge this body to take a step back. Let's refine the approach and work together on a solution that protects residents and encourages investment in manufactured home communities that we so clearly need. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Read the last section.

[Speaker 2]: This act shall take effect immediately.

[Speaker 1]: Party vote has been requested. Mister Gandolfo?

[Speaker 19]: Thank you, madam speaker. The Republican conference has generally opposed to this bill. However, any members who wish to vote in the affirmative may do so at their desk.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. The majority conference will be supporting this piece of legislation. For those that would like to vote no, they can do so at their desk.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Aye. It's 97. No. It's 42.

[Speaker 1]: The bill is passed. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, madam speaker. Can you please recognize miss Bailey for a motion to discharge?

[Speaker 1]: Miss

[Speaker 17]: Bailey. Thank you, madam speaker. I move to discharge the committee on agriculture from consideration of assembly bill number A7607, sponsored by myself for the purpose of bringing the same before the house for its immediate consideration and request permission to explain it.

[Speaker 1]: The motion is in order. On the motion, Ms. Bailey.

[Speaker 17]: Thank you. This bill would put into statute the farmland for a new generation program. New York farmers generate 8,500,000,000 in income. They fuel our economy, feed our families, and preserve our heritage. Unfortunately, our state has seen drastic decline in farming as there were 15% fewer farms and 11% less farm production land in 2025 compared to 2015. Between 2024 and 2025, New York lost 500 farms and 100,000 acres of farmland. That's in one year. 80% of that lost was being attributed to small farms. We also have a looming crisis as 35% of New York's farmers are over the age of 65, with 25% nearing retirement age. Without action to ensure that this program is continued to be funded annually through our budget, we leave 2,000,000 acres of additional farmland at risk of being lost. Just earlier today, we heard in a debate that when you add mandates and different things, you have people walking away from industries. When we have competing mandates that look at our farmland, that is exactly what we're seeing. We are seeing our farms walking away. This would help to secure, to ensure that we have strategic planning for those who are younger, who are wishing to enter into the farm industry, for those looking for a succession as they are looking to exit and retire if they do not have generations below them to take over that farmland. We need our farmers to understand and to know year in and year out, New York State understands that the succession planning is not a one year at a time glimpse. By moving this program into statue, it would allow us to do that. And it would allow to ensure that funding is allocated year in and year out through the budget. Farming is deeply embedded in the history of New York and the families that have built these farms that feed our citizens need our support. And by doing this, it will help the next generations carry on the legacy that was built by so many of our neighbors. And for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this piece of legislation.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Tague?

[Speaker 20]: Yes. Madam speaker, a point of clarity. Am I allowed to ask the sponsor some questions on this bill during this proceeding?

[Speaker 1]: There is no q and a on a motion motion to discharge.

[Speaker 20]: Can I I cannot so you're telling me I cannot ask a couple questions about the bill prior to us? And could you please tell me where in the statute it says that? I like to know where where it says that in the rules. Not what other people say, but what it says in the rules. I think it's important to be able to ask some questions. There's hardly anybody in this room. This is a very important bill, and nobody's here to even know what it's about.

[Speaker 1]: Yeah. Thank you, mister Taig. Custom and practice in our house's motions before the house don't include questions and answers, but you do have an opportunity to speak on this motion to discharge if you choose.

[Speaker 20]: So do I do that now

[Speaker 10]: or after

[Speaker 20]: the vote? I can do that now?

[Speaker 1]: Yes. There is no explanation of votes.

[Speaker 20]: You can Well, I I appreciate that, madam speaker. And first of all, I wanna thank, the sponsor of this bill. This is a great bill, and it's unfortunate that we're not able to ask questions for her to be able to stand up and explain to you exactly what this bill does. But many in this room always say how wonderful our farmers are and that we need agriculture, but you continue to approve bills that take farmland away from Upstate New York, continue to support different types of bills that take farmland away from rural Upstate New York. Good, sustainable farmland. A bill like this takes somebody that might have been born yesterday and gives them the opportunity to be a farmer twenty years from now, or some retired couple that don't have any kids or grandchildren that have owned the farm for generations, allowing somebody that may have just graduated from Cornell University that wants to farm worse than bad, but doesn't have a mother or father or a grandparent that was in the ag industry. That's what this bill does. This is not a political bill. This isn't a Republican versus Democrat bill. This is a good bill that does something for agriculture and does something for anybody that wants to be involved in agri agriculture years from now. It protects Upstate New York and its agricultural lands. I've said this a million times in this body and so have others. This body, the body down the hall, and the governor are gonna continue to destroy and take rural Upstate farmland away from the people in New York State to where we're gonna have to depend on other states to be able to feed the people that live here. And do you look at me and you could say I'm crazy, but no, I'm not. It's the truth. Over half a million acres of farmland, tillable, productive farmland in rural Upstate New York, which drives our economy, has been taken for politics or crazy energy policies that have come out of this office or come out of this place. So I'm asking you to think long and hard. If you really care about agriculture, if you really care about feeding you, your children, your grandchildren, and the future, then you should vote in favor of letting this bill come to the floor and giving her the vote. That's the truth of the matter. I wanna see today who's got the guts. Who's got the guts to put politics aside and do the right thing. I'll be voting to put this bill on the floor. And if you really care about feeding people, feeding the world for that matter. Food out of New York State just doesn't take care of the people in New York State. It goes all over the place. We have x we have the best growers in the world right here in New York State. So no farms, no food. We're putting the vote to you. You either support agriculture and support rural Upstate New York and our ability to feed the country and the world, or you're against us. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Ms. Walsh.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On this motion, you know, I think that and the prior speaker really summed it up as well. There are really good ideas that can come out of our side of the aisle. But in the next few days in committees that we're gonna be holding in the assembly, we've got, like three dozen of our bills that are just going to get held in committee. This bill is coming here under a motion to discharge as a as a last ditch attempt to try to get a good bill like this to the floor for an up or down vote. And that's really how this ought to work. I mean I think that we should be encouraging good ideas to be able to come up for a vote. There's nothing so depressing as a member of the minority party than to develop a bill that we really think has merit like the farmland for a new generation program, see it come through a committee and just see it get held for consideration. Just see it get held. It just dies. This is a way, this is the way that we have on our side of the aisle to get a good bill like this to the floor for a vote. So I will support this motion to discharge. The members of our conference will. We hope that we'll have some support on the other side of the aisle in recognition of the fact that good ideas are not are very often not partisan ideas at all. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mr. Fall?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to remind my colleagues that the proper procedure of dispensing bills is through the committee process. Today, we've been asked to bypass this process. The vote on a motion to discharge is a procedural vote, not a vote on the merits of the bill itself. I ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this motion and voting no.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Miss Giglio?

[Speaker 12]: Thank you madam speaker. Coming from a very large agricultural district, it's really important as we see our older farmers aging out and the next generation that they wanted a better life for them. They wanted a life for them to go to college, become a lawyer, become a doctor. And they saved up all their money and they put their kids through school and the kids are just not taking up the same opportunities that the farmers had when they started those farms decades and a generation ago, 10 generations ago. And it's really important. We heard through the budget hearings that the farmers that are working on the farms and the ones that own the farms are tired. They don't want to do it anymore. The regulations, the paperwork, they just can't do it all. And so, they wanted even not only for children of farmers, but for farm hands that are working on the farm to have a mechanism so that those farm hands can now take over the farm, own the farm, operate the farm. And this new generation program is really a good idea so I, as well as my other colleagues, am hoping that we will have support on the other side of the aisle because good ideas are not partisan. They are you know, bipartisan. So hoping that we can get some more votes. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mister Gandolfo, on the motion.

[Speaker 19]: Thank you, madam speaker. On the motion, just to speak a little bit about the process here. This is not outside of normal process. There's a reason that this exact procedure exists is to move bills from a committee that are being held there basically in purgatory for eternity. That might be good bills, but because the sponsor of said bill might have the wrong party affiliation, it's just held there and it will never see the light of day on the floor. And it's really an unfortunate way we do business here in New York. Being involved in some organizations where I get to deal with other state legislators, it's not how they do business everywhere. If there's bills that the minority passes frequently that are not necessarily partisan bills that have an ideological leaning one way or the other, but they're good bills that can help a lot of people of the state. And it's really a shame that we have to resort to a motion to discharge like this to get a common sense bill considered for a vote on the floor. So I I would ask that my colleagues across the aisle do do support this motion. Let's take up this bill on its merits, not based on who the sponsor is, and maybe we could help some New Yorkers. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: A party vote has been requested. Ms. Walsh.

[Speaker 10]: Thank you, madam speaker. On this motion, the minority conference, the republican conference will be in the affirmative. We want to see that this, bill is, taken up on the floor for a vote for all the reasons previously stated. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mister Fall?

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority conference will be against this motion to discharge. For those that would like to vote in a different direction, they can do so at their desk.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Members are reminded that the motion before the House is a procedural question and not a vote on the merits of the bill. On Ms. Bailey's motion, the clerk will record the vote. Are there any other votes? Announce the results.

[Speaker 2]: Ayes, 43. Nays, 96.

[Speaker 1]: The motion is lost. Mr. Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam Speaker, do we have further housekeeping or resolutions?

[Speaker 1]: We do have several resolutions. Resolution by Mr. Levine. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven forty, Mr. Levine. Legislative resolution commemorating the observance of Holocaust Remembrance Day in the state of New York on 04/13/2026.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Levine on the resolution.

[Speaker 21]: Thank you, madam speaker. Yom HaShoah, also known as Holocaust Remembrance Day, gives us the opportunity to reflect on one of the worst tragedies in human history, and we have certainly had more than enough bad, worse tragedies in history. It was 6,000,000 Jews who were murdered, ritually murdered. But it wasn't just Jews. It was, starting in the early 30s, the Nazis murdered close to 300,000 disabled people and a quarter of a million Roma and at least 15,000 gay men. And this started with hatred, the heart and the soul of racism. These murders were the price paid for racism. And racism is, of course, antagonism, hatred by anyone against anyone else based on their membership in a particular racial, ethnic, or otherwise identifiable group, typically one that is either marginalized or does not have that many people. The World War two era, deaths of so many, is again the product of hatred. Doctor King said that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. In the very same sense, inhumanity anywhere is a threat to humanity everywhere. We must resist and we must call out this hatred. There are no innocent bystanders. Whether it's Jews, whether it's Muslim Muslims or Christians or trans people. Hatred carries with it a brutal price. It dehumanizes each and every one of us. And I think that what binds us together, one of the important factors that binds us together as Americans, is that it is our solemn obligation to care for each other, to care for our families, our neighbors, and our communities. So I thank you very much for permitting me the opportunity to speak on this resolution. We have had enough hatred, and let's do our best to make sure that we put an end to it right here today in New York State. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mister Wepren on the resolution.

[Speaker 22]: Thank you, madam speaker. Once again, it's very important that we all speak out whenever hate, and in this case, antisemitism rears its ugly head. We all know that crimes hate crimes against Jews in New York City and throughout the state and country have increased astronomically versus any other hate crime against any other people. And that's really how the holocaust started. It was little by little, antisemitism, isolationism. So once again, it's very important that we not forget that we talk about incidents, but in particularly that we commemorate events like holocaust remembrance day which occurred last week and hopefully will come to a world where we can all live in harmony and and and fight hate wherever it rears its ugly head. But in this particular case, it's very important to speak out, about antisemitism and the rise, in our own communities. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you, mister Ari Brown on the resolution.

[Speaker 16]: Thank you, madam speaker. I think I'm of the age where I could turn around and the holocaust really wasn't in that distant of a past, especially when I was a child. But more than that, I grew up in a home where I have a mother who had passed already, but when I was a kid she would cry out in the middle of the night from the nightmares of the holocaust. My mother and grandmother were of Italian descent. They were lucky to have escaped, but would tell the stories, the real stories, the real life stories of family members, immediate family members, sisters, and children ripped out of the arms of aunts and uncles, stepped under the feet, made into lampshades, not distant cousins in a distance, immediate aunts, immediate uncles. On my grandfather's side, there wasn't a single member left. No one, except for my grandfather. My mother and grandmother have since passed, but they grew up lecturing and speaking and weren't quiet about it. And there was always this background theme of never again. But as we saw since October 7, never again certainly happened again. The world just let it happen. I say it often. If we were to substitute the word Jew for any other group, there would be outrage. But like in the past, like in throughout the millennia, Jewish blood has always been cheap. I have nine bills on antisemitism in this chamber. And last session was told by one of my colleagues, if only you would bring up these bills, we would speak out together collectively. I got up and said, well, it just so happens. Do you recognize these bill numbers? Those bill numbers, a lot that has to do with this exact antisemitism, what we're speaking about this resolution, they weren't even allowed to come to committee. So if we're serious about preventing hate and this terror to continue for all of us, we should allow these simple bills to come to pass. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Ms. Glick on the resolution.

[Speaker 23]: Thank you, Speaker. The Holocaust that most people think about are the camps, the trains that took people to the concentration camps, but it started so much earlier. It started with telling, Jews that there were certain professions that they were no longer allowed to pursue. That there were some places they were not permitted to live. It is just the most recent global horror facing Jews. We in America think of 1492 as the time that Columbus came to this country, some would say invaded. But it is actually also the year that tens of thousands, possibly a couple of 100,000 Jews were expelled from Spain and told after generations of living there that they were no longer wanted. And then there are so many of us who have families who came here as a result of pogroms in Russia or in other Eastern European countries. And part of the horror of the Holocaust was that as you were rounded up and told to, on this day, go to the town square, go to the railroad station, You could only take whatever you could carry. And your neighbors were very happy to go in. People who had talked to you, had lived side by side with you, were very happy to go in to your home and take what they wanted. So the Holocaust was really not just the governmental brutality but the societal approval of denigrating people. And we see it today by saying some people are not human. Some people are not worthy, and that there is no longer a reason to care about your neighbors, because, well, they'll be taken away. This should be a reminder to us that when the government decides to isolate and demonize and then victimize one group of people, it doesn't stop there because it was Jews, it was the intellectuals, an attack on the universities, it was an attack on gypsies, and it was an attack on gay people, And millions of people who were targeted were killed, but many many other people in the horror of the subsequent war, 10,000,000 more died. So let us remember that demonizing our neighbors is the beginning of a pernicious road that leads only to a lack of humanity. So I'm pleased to have had the opportunity for the last time to speak on this resolution because, like some of my colleagues, I'm closer to it than many of other members who are here. And we have to be mindful not to fall into the trap of following the crowd. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. A resolution by Ms. Reyes. Clerk will read.

[Speaker 2]: Assembly number eleven forty, Ms. Reyes. Legislative resolution commemorating the thirty ninth Annual SOMUS Spring Conference to be held on April 17 through the nineteenth, twenty twenty six, and paying tribute to its host, Somos Incorporated for its contributions and advocacy on behalf of the Puerto Rican and Latino communities in the state of New York.

[Speaker 1]: Ms. Reyes on the resolution.

[Speaker 24]: Thank you Madam Speaker. We are coming down from a very long and exciting weekend where we celebrated Somos here in Albany. Myself and my colleagues that are members of the Puerto Rican Hispanic Task Force had the honor of welcoming our Latino members, allies of the Latino community, and so many folks from our community up here in Albany this weekend. Starting from Friday when we had buses of our seniors from our senior centers come up, to having dozens of workshops to talk about issues that impact the Latino community, and I would say one of my favorite events of the weekend are mock sessions where the senate hosts CUNY and SUNY students to do a mock session in the senate, and the Puerto Rican Hispanic Youth Leadership Institute that was founded by former assembly member Angelo del Toro. We have high school students sit in these very seats, they were here yesterday, all day debating our many of the legislations that we work on and it was so uplifting to see these young people not just research all of the members here and learn about the work that they do in their districts, but really take the opportunity to advocate for some of the legislation that they felt was important. And it was nice to see for many of our colleagues have two students debate their legislation in both Spanish and English. So, I want to thank all of my colleagues who helped me make this weekend possible. It was really a beautiful uplifting one And we will be celebrating forty years in November at our Puerto Rico conference coming up soon. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Mr. Zuccaro on the resolution.

[Speaker 25]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today I rise with pride and with purpose to honor the Somos del Futuro conference, which is a movement not merely a meeting that has for four decades ignited leadership, built bridges, and advanced the promise of Latino communities across New York. This year's theme, lead, unite, transform, is not aspirational rhetoric. It is a mandate for this moment to lead when courage is required more than ever and when our voices must cut through the noise and speak truth with conviction. To unite when division seeks to weaken us, but we know that our diversity is our greatest strength and our solidarity is our greatest power. And to transform when incremental change is no longer enough and bold unapologetic action is demanded to secure justice, equity, and opportunity for our people. Across this nation, Latino communities are facing profound challenges, attacks on opportunity, barriers to progress, and moments that test our resilience. But history has shown us that we do not retreat in the face of adversity. We rise. We organize. We lead. And through that leadership, we transform not only our own futures, but the futures of this state and in this country. And for forty years, Somos has provided that proving ground where leaders are forged, where vision becomes action, and where the next generation is reminded they are not waiting for a seat at the table. They are building new tables altogether. And none of this would be possible without the extraordinary leadership of our chair and our colleague of the Hispanic task force whose unwavering commitment and vision has embodied this very spirit of this conference. She leads with strength. She unites with purpose. And she is helping transform what is possible for our communities across this state. And so today, as we celebrate this year, forty years of the Somos El Forturo conference, let us not simply reflect, but recommit. Let us meet this moment with the urgency that it demands and let us lead with fearless conviction, unite with unshakable resolve, and transform our shared future with bold and enduring purpose. Because Somos is not just about who we are, it's about who we are determined to become. Thank you so much, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Miss Tapia, on the resolution.

[Speaker 6]: Thank you, madam speaker. I am proud to stand here today in support of this resolution celebrating the four year anniversary of Somos. For more than two decades, I have had the privilege of being part of Somos, both in Albany and in Puerto Rico. And I can say without hesitation, it is one of the most important spaces we have for bringing our Latino communities together. For forty years, Somos has done what few organizations can do. It has created a place where legislators, advocates, educators, business leaders, and community members come together not just to talk, but to listen, to learn, and to act. This conference is is platform for real conversations about the issues that shape our communities, mental health, child care, immigration, education, and economic opportunities. It is where ideas turn into initiatives and where partnerships are formed that last long after the weekends ends. I have seen firsthand how some of us build community. From Dominican and Colombian receptions that celebrate our diversity to workshops that tackle the toughest challenges we face, to moments where we uplift and honor Latina leaders. Some of us create space for everyone. And beyond the the conference, the impact continues Through through scholarships, internships, and leadership programs, Somos is investing in the next generation, giving young people the tools, the access, and the confidence to lead. That is the legacy we are celebrating today. For forty years, someone has strengthened communities across the New York state and amplified the voices of the millions of Latinos who call this state home. So today, we don't just recognize an anniversary. We recognize a movement and a community. It is moreover a commitment to continue this work for the years to come. Thank you, madam chair, for all what you have done in Somos for our communities. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The resolution is adopted. We have a number of resolutions before the house. Without objection, these resolutions will be taken up together. On the resolutions, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? No. The resolutions are adopted. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: Madam speaker, can you call on miss Clark for an announcement?

[Speaker 1]: Miss Clark for the purpose of an announcement.

[Speaker 26]: Thank you, madam chair. I am announcing there will be majority conference this afternoon. There will be majority conference this afternoon in the Speaker's Conference Room. Timing is TBD, so please pay attention to your text for when it starts. Thank you.

[Speaker 1]: Thank you. Majority conference at the call of the speaker, check your messages. Colleagues, please. Mister Fall.

[Speaker 0]: I now move that the assembly stand adjourned and that we will reconvene at 2PM, Tuesday, April 21, tomorrow being a session day.

[Speaker 1]: Mister Fall's motion, the house stands adjourned.