Assembly Live Stream (partial)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Beyond and own Put pret Stevie Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Class F access rate first Give money from Tip 7. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you.

The House will come to order. Good morning. Still morning. Good morning, colleagues. Wonderful to see you. We will open with a prayer from Bishop Mark O'Connell.

A quorum being present, the clerk will read the journal of Tuesday, April 28th.

Without objection, so ordered. I would like to be a physical one, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. From Rochester's own Frederick Douglass. May I have the members' attention so that we can announce the schedule for the day? Members have on their desk a main calendar and a debate calendar. After any housekeeping and or introductions, we will begin our floor work by taking up calendar resolutions on page three, including one by Mr. Santa Barbara in association with today's Legislative Disability Awareness Day. We will then take up the following bills on consent. Calendar number 146 by Mr. Hevesy. Calendar 312 by Ms. Pollen. Calendar 336 by Mr. Burdick. And Calendar 337 by Ms. Lunsford. After that, we will then take up the following bills on debate. Calendar number 222 by Ms. Pfeffer Amato, calendar 257 by Mr. Magnarelli, and calendar 292 by Mr. Weprin. Our principal work of the day will be to take up our three Legislative Disability Awareness Day packages. These bills will include calendar number 25 by Ms Buttonshaw calendar number 94 by Ms Kellis and calendar number 150 by Mr Santa Barbara In addition we will be calling for the following committees to meet off the floor today Ways and Means and Rules. These committees will produce an A calendar, which we will take up today. I will announce any further floor activity as we proceed. So with that as a general outline, Ms. Speaker, let us begin with any housekeeping and or introductions.

We will start with Mr. McDonald for the purpose of an introduction. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today, Bishop Mark O'Connell, our new bishop here in the Albany Catholic Roman Diocese, opens us up in prayer and we thank him for being here. Born in Toronto to Americans, he was raised in Massachusetts. Bishop O'Connell is a graduate of Boston College and St. John's Seminary. Ordained to the priesthood in 1990, he has served in parish ministry, advanced canonical studies in Rome, and held key leadership roles within the Archdiocese of Boston, including judicial vicar and faculty member at St. John's Seminary. Ordained to Bishop in 2016, he served as Regional Bishop of the North Region and currently serves as Vicar General and moderator of the Curia. I forgot to mention that he is joined today by many of our members, Member Walsh, Member Werner, to meet all the 126 parishes, the several prisons, throughout our diocese, and at the same token, his mission is to build bridges. Thank you, Bishop, for being here.

Thank you. Thank you.

recently relocated to Saratoga Springs. She and her husband Tom are horse owner extending to you the privileges of the floor hoping you enjoy our proceedings today. Carrie is exceptional so thank you for all of the wonderful things that you have done to get her to this point and welcome to the capital region we hope you enjoy being here with us today. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today to introduce a very special guest, Coach Ryan Martin, who is here today with three of his basketball players. He is director of the Kents Lee, Khalil, Harriet, and Jonathan Pagway. And I highly encourage you to attend one of their wheelchair basketball games. It's a great, great, exciting afternoon. So I ask that you extend to them the cordialities of the house. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the proceedings to introduce Alan Grande, New York City Transit employee retired, Bobby Nash, New York City Transit employee retired, and Keith LeBeau, Local 46, iron worker. These individuals were one of the first responders in 9-11. 25 years later, and we're still advocating for those impacted with health issues due to that horrendous day. Many of us, whether we lost someone on that day or whether we are continuously losing them due to these health concerns, it's a battle that we continue to fight each and every day. These three men are just a symbol of the fight. I definitely hope you enjoy our proceedings today, but most importantly, thank you for your longstanding service to our community, the MTA, and obviously the New York City area. Thank you for your gracious and heroic work. We appreciate you being here today. Thank you very much. Mr. Brash is newly in that position for four months, but he is not new to the community nor to public service. He has been on the city council for years and was president of the city council before running. So in the people's house.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to welcome to the chamber the fifth grade class from the Rensselaer City School District. Madam Speaker, they are out here doing a tour of all the Capitol facilities. Then they've been to the State Museum, they visited the Senate, and they've been here for about an hour or two here in the Assembly, waiting for the proceedings to start, just like the members. And hopefully they'll get the chance to witness a little history while we're here. Please extend them the courtesies of the House.

part of our communities. I share a passion for these issues like so many other families joining us here today, not just as the chair of the Committee on People with Disabilities, but also as the father of a son with disabilities. My son Michael, he's 24. He has autism and he's faced many of the state people helping shape solutions to help move this work forward. And it also reminds us that inclusion isn't just something that we talk about. It's something that we have a responsibility to act on. So today we pause not just to recognize, but to recommit, Speaker, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I'd like to thank our sponsor for bringing up this resolution. is very important. I'd like to be able to use the Disability Awareness Day in context of some of the things that we do here. We have an option now of improving the quality of life of many of our disabled people, and then sometimes only certain sections of disabled people or certain categories. And I find it a little bit disheartening sometimes when we do things that we don't really want to be inclusive to everybody, that sometimes we center some groups as being worthy of getting something and some groups being not worthy of getting something. So I would like to say that in the spirit of the New York State Assembly Legislative Disabilities Awareness Day, that we move forward together as a group and allow all disabled persons to be able to communicate what comes best to them, whatever methods that they use, they should be allowed to use. The New York State Assembly should not be restricting that. So thank you very much for bringing this forward, and I will support you in anything that you're doing as far as increasing the awareness of disabled persons.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of Assembly Resolution No. 1232, memorializing the Governor to proclaim April 29, 2026 as Legislative Disabilities Awareness Day in the state of New York. As the ranker for the Committee for People with Disabilities, this day is an important opportunity for us as a legislative body to recognize and uplift the voices of individuals with disabilities, their families, and the advocates who work tirelessly on behalf of them. It is also a reminder of our responsibility to ensure that our laws, policies, and communities reflect the principles of inclusion, accessibility, and equality. Individuals with disabilities contribute in countless ways to our society, socially, economically, and culturally. Participation in everyday life, whether in education, employment, transportation, or access to services. Legislative Disabilities Awareness Day is not just about recognition, it is about action. It is about listening to the disability community and ensuring that their voices are at the center of the decisions we make in this chamber every day. we reaffirm our commitment to promoting independence, empowerment, and integration for all individuals with disabilities We also acknowledge the work that still lies ahead in the importance of continued collaboration with advocates and stakeholders Today we stand together to recognize the dignity value and contributions of every individual Thank you Madam Speaker

Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I rise and score the resolution. I thank the Chairman of the Disabilities Committee for bringing it. I thank my ranking member on the Disabilities Committee, Ms. Giglio for her remarks, and I'm very proud to serve as the other minority member on the people with disabilities. Bring it forward. Thank you. On the resolution, all those in favor signify

Thank you. I would ask you all to remember the bishop's prayer as I read this. Madam Speaker, may I begin? Thank you. The resolution's purpose is to recognize the on April 29th. Moreover, the associated bewilderment with rare and undiagnosed conditions leaves patients, parents, extended family and caregivers alike in uncomfortable positions. As all families have tragedy of some type, they're usually easier to accept and move on from. As I have sat many times at my daughter's deathbed, not knowing if she would survive the night, I was always surprised to see the angels descend to help. These are the people you wouldn't expect, but are comforted by in recognition that you may not be as alone as you think, as they and their families experience every form of discrimination imaginable. Subtle, overt, unintended, sometimes deliberate. Oftentimes, with no precedent to fall back on, there is limited advocacy for them, which further exacerbates their care, comfort, education, sometimes jobs and ability to earn a living, and end-of-life care as well. In closing, the burden of uncertainty is so stark that it impacts several other aspects of life for all those in the circle of people afflicted by these conditions. Please join me in recognizing the unique challenges of those suffering from rare and or undiagnosed conditions, the burdens on their families, the power of the human soul, and all things good. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. My colleagues, I rise today to honor and celebrate the remarkable impact of therapy animals on the live healing. Their presence can reduce stress, alleviate anxiety, and even improve physical health. For individuals facing challenges be it illness trauma or loneliness the unconditional love and general support of a therapy animal can be transformative Veterans working through PTSD children in need of support, following a period of trauma, or senior citizens in the need of companionship and company, these are the people that rely on constant and immediate care that are a firm of emotional support, bridging communication gaps, and fostering connections. They are ambassadors of hope, reminding us of the healing power of nature and the profound bond that we share with the animal kingdom.

Mr. Brown, on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to present this resolution today. This resolution on a yearly basis. A co-occurring disorder, also known as dual diagnosis, is the condition of having mental illness and a comorbid substance use disorder. According to the Federal Substance Use and Mental Health Services Administration's 2022 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, approximately 21 million adults in the United States have a co-occurring disorder. People with mental illness are more likely to experience a substance use disorder than those not affected by a mental illness. No specific combinations of mental and substance use disorders are defined uniquely as co-occurring disorders. The presence of two or more disorders can complicate diagnosis and treatment. and integrating both screening and treatment for mental and substance use disorders leads to better quality of life and health outcomes for those living with co-occurring disorders by treating the whole entire person. Increased awareness leads to early detection and can ultimately save lives as timing is critical. Early detection. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I just would like to thank Mr. Brown for his work on this issue. When I first became chair of the Committee on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse, which is actually its name, notwithstanding our efforts to change it, and what we can do by the existence of the Opioid Settlement Advisory Committee because the legislature no longer has direct control over how to spend the revenue in this particular area. But again, thank you to Mr. Brown for his tireless work on this issue.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. And I want to rise as the ranking member of mental health and thank Mr. Brown for his work on this issue as the two committee rankers that have to deal with the two co-ing sides of it. Mr. Brown obviously is retiring. He's not running for re-election. So I just want to say to him thank you on behalf of the people of the state of New York for being one of the last.

Mr DiStefano on the resolution Thank you Madam Speaker It can include physical harm name threats spreading rumors or excluding others It causes emotional pain lowers self and can lead to anxiety depression and poor academic performance No one should have to live in fear because of the action of others. Prevention bullying begins with education awareness, children's pain prevention. They should encourage open communication so victims feel comfortable speaking up. Bystanders should be also taught to report bullying and support those being targeted rather than staying silent. Technology has also created cyber bullying, which can happen through social media, texting, or online platforms. Because online bullying can happen at any time, it is important to teach responsible digital behavior and monitor online activity. In conclusion, bullying prevention requires teamwork, compassion, and accountability. By standing together against bullying, we can build a society where every person feels safe, respected, and valued. I want to thank my colleagues for joining me in supporting this important resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to thank the sponsor for bringing forward this resolution that will memorialize the governor to proclaim April of 2026's Bullying Prevention Month. You know, I just couldn't resist the opportunity. We spoke about, I spoke about it yesterday on the floor. I'm going to speak about it again. Yesterday we took up a bill. I have a bill, Jacobs Law. It's Assembly Bill 945. I've carried it for a few years. It would require that parents be notified if their child is being bullied at school. And as the sponsor just indicated, there are lots of different ways that students could be bullied. Some of them are going to be online and off school hours and would not be something that the school personnel might know about. But it just seems to me as a parent myself that if your child is being bullied, wouldn't you want to know? It just seems like a very common sense bill to get done. And I'm hoping that somebody, and I'm looking to my right here, to the other side of the aisle, I would really love it if somebody could pick that bill up and get it done. because we can proclaim months being Bullying Prevention Month, but really what would really help would be legislation that would require minimally as a baseline that if a child is being bullied at school that the parents are notified. You would want to know. I would want to know. And I think that that's just the very least that we can do. So I thank the sponsor for bringing this forward. I really hope to see some movement on some practical legislation to make that a reality. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Ms. Reyes, on the resolution. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Today we come together with a shared purpose to recognize the dignity of work, the rights of workers, and the responsibility we all carry to ensure safe, fair, and respectful workplaces across our state as we proclaim May 2026 as Workers Awareness Month and designate May 1st as May Day in the great state of New York. It is a time to reaffirm that every worker, regardless of industry, background, or role, deserves to return home safely at the end of each day. They deserve the abilities, to put food on the table, and to keep a roof over their family's head. They deserve to have justice and liberation from oppressive systems that seek to elevate profit for the few at the expense of the welfare for the many. It is a time to elevate awareness about workplace rights, protections, and the importance of fair wages, safe conditions, and mutual respect. Workers are the backbone of New York. From construction sites to classrooms, from hospitals to small businesses, their dedication drives our economy and strengthens our communities. But with that contribution comes a shared obligation to protect them, to inform them, and to empower them. Workers' Awareness Month reminds us that knowledge is power. When workers and their representatives understand their rights, they are better equipped to advocate for themselves and others. When employers prioritize safety and fairness, everyone benefits from increased productivity and stronger workplaces. Too many workers still face unsafe conditions, wage violations, or barriers to speaking up. This month challenges us not only to acknowledge these realities, but to actively work towards solutions. So, throughout May, especially on the first of the month, May Day, let us educate, engage, and uplift. Let us strengthen partnerships between governments, labor organizations, and employers. employers and let us recommit ourselves to building a New York where every worker is valued, protected, and heard. Together we can ensure that Workers Awareness Month is not just a moment but a movement. Happy May Day to all workers here in New York and abroad. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This piece is a manner to ensure individuals with disabilities are cared for. However this is not across the state of New York and this bill will just ensure that best practices by many of our fire departments will be shared across the state Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill is about moving New York's developmental disabilities service system forward. It reflects a shared commitment to strengthening support for individuals and families solutions forward. Because if we're serious about improving the system, we have to be willing to take a hard look at what's working and what's not working. That's exactly what this bill does. This is about making the system more coordinated, more responsive, and better aligned with the needs of the people that it serves. Madam Speaker, and thank you to the sponsor. I know that this is a bill that we've taken up a few times now, and it has passed unanimously, and I will continue to support it. I would just say that one of the implications of the bill is that there are undetermined costs to OBWDD. Here we are in the middle of budget negotiations. I just want to be sure that as we think that it's very, very important. So I hope that as we vote for it, I hope that as we get through our budget process that OPWDD does get the funding that they need to deliver what we need them to deliver to really help us to have a fuller understanding of this very, very important topic. I'll be yes.

Thank you. This bill would require subsidiaries of New York Transportation Authority and their employees to submit all unresolved contract negotiations to binding arbitration. Mr. Sempolinsky. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions? Will the sponsor yield? Absolutely. The sponsor yields. I thank the sponsor. So I just want to, binding arbitration has long been the practice for the MTA and the other downstate authorities. Correct. And then in Chapter 814 of the laws of 2021, we added the upstate authorities to have similar just as the authorities themselves are and the downstate authorities are and their subsidiaries. You are absolutely 100% correct. Awesome. Now, what type of subsidiaries do they have? Do we know how many there are? Can you give me some examples of the particular entities that would be impacted and now subject to binding arbitration? Regional Transportation Authority, Capital District Transportation Authority, the Central New York Regional Transportation Authority. Those would be the ones. So I understand the authorities themselves were already subject to binding arbitration, but your change is to include their subsidiaries. Access Transit Services, Capital District Transit. Each side would appoint a member to an arbitration board, and those two members would then appoint a third member, and that would be the binding arbiter to resolve the labor dispute. Is that the correct—am I correct that that is the procedure? Again, 100 percent. Awesome. And that is—am I also correct that that is the procedure that is currently used for the downstate authorities and the upstate authorities? That being said, there is no change to the procedure or the membership of the arbitration board. We're just adding people to that procedure. And we are making sure that all those people we're adding are all treated equally. Correct. Right. And again, just to clarify, this arbitration board is designed to be equitable where you have people from both sides. And the third party is one that everybody can agree on. and there is a procedure in place which is also not changed in case there's a dispute as to the third arbiter. Correct. Again, 100%. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I'm going to go on the bill. On the bill. So I appreciate the sponsor answering my questions and wanted to sort of, the two things I wanted to make sure were clear is exactly the type of entities that are being covered. And we've moved from this being a downstate procedure to an upstate procedure. the arbitration board, and there is no change to that. It is an equitable arbitration board, no change to that procedure, and you end up, hopefully, with a board that gives a fair arbitration that fair to both the authority and their constituent labor organizations I going to be voting in the affirmative but I Read the last section This act shall take effect immediately

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do not believe that any contract disagreement or negotiation is unresolvable. You can always come to an agreement. Binding arbitration will lead to have a long history of binding arbitration. and it's funny, in our periodical Newsday, this very well-known arbitrator, I won't mention his name, but wrote a letter complaining about the high taxes on Long Island. And one of the columnists at Newsday said, isn't it rich that here's the guy who singularly responding to arbitration is necessary, it will lead to higher costs, and for that reason I am voting no.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. After spending 25 years in NYPD, we had a contract negotiation with the Office of Collective Bargaining. That didn't work out too well, so we went to PERB, a state arbitrator. And since then, I'm no longer with the department, but I felt that all of our members in the police department truly benefited from PERB. And as we can see as a result of that, I'm a union guy. I will always support our unions in any contract negotiations for the well-being of all members. So I will vote in the affirmative.

Yes, Madam Speaker. This bill would authorize vehicles fueled primarily by natural propane or hydrogen gas or by electric battery to exceed statutory weight limitations by up to

Given the subpar existing condition of many of our local roads and bridges, how does this bill account for the potential additional wear and tear from heavier vehicles, particularly on the infrastructure that is already strained and our local town highway workers struggle to maintain. How does this proposal interact with the authority local municipalities currently have to set weight limits on their own roads and bridges and does it in any way limit the local control? I don't know. By the way, those posted weights would control, okay? But if it's not, then this, being a state law, would control.

Well, I appreciate the intent of this 46 for deficient bridges. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 27% of our bridges show significant deterioration in key structural components. Local roads account for approximately 85% of centerline road miles in New York municipalities to set weight limits that reflect the conditions of their own roads and bridges. I am hopeful that in future budgets we can work toward increasing investments in our transportation infrastructure so local governments are not left to shoulder this burden and so we can ensure our roads remain safe. That any of these vehicles that are fueled by natural propane or hydrogen gas or by electric battery can exceed statutory weight limitations by up to 2,000 pounds. Okay. Thank you. So if I read in the summary of provisions, it kind of does say, so it's not really 2,000, it's up to 82,000. 2,000 might be the smallest number, maybe?

I thought it was 82,000, the whole thing.

2,000 over the limitations.

And that's the 2,000-pound limit.

Okay, so the reason I was asking before you even get to what I wanted to talk about here is that we're going to increase that posted weight limit because that vehicle itself is maybe only 1,999 pounds heavier than before. But actually, depending on the configuration, like you're saying, the axles and things like that and the load, possibly distribution, it's really 82,000 pounds.

Which is a factor of safety of 1.5 to 0.2, which talks...

Okay.

Trucks have gotten so much heavier now these battery operated vehicles. When the thruway was built they kind of used something called a superhighway standard. It was intended for these roads to exceed the lifetime of whatever the technology was and going into new technology. So I think that's pretty good. But, you know, as I said, all roads may lead to the thruway. Our local roads lead to the thruway. And our local roads were certainly not built with that same standard. And you're going to be having bridges in towns, villages, cities. You know, like I have some property over here in Greene County, and a bridge had, like, washed out. It hasn't even been built. 93 for the thruway for modern trucks. And then there are other standards for our local roads. So my concern is really this. If we're saying just at the 2,000 pounds, forgetting the 83,000 pounds, right? At just the 2,000 pounds, and I'm going to use a battery-operated school bus to really focus in on this, our roads, okay, using a local road and bridge standard, are made to withstand 30,000 pounds. Okay, so now you have a school bus that's 44,000 pounds driving back and forth and back and forth, different weather conditions, especially for our local roads, when we're talking about what's underneath them, instead of being maybe nine inches of concrete, like on our thruway or bigger roads, they have dirt. They have gravel. These underlayments get soft, and now you have a school bus coming 44,000 pounds on a road that was only supposed to be 30,000 pounds. So my concern here is with doing this is that I don't know, and I'm concerned really now about this 80,000 pounds, is what did we look into? Did we talk about, did we look into the standards? Did we see if our infrastructure can withstand it?

So I'm going to disagree because for the trucking industry, there's some sort of a mandate that for every two dies is going to get slammed when they decide to do the enforcement. Oh, for the last six years, you should have bought this many battery trucks. Go do it.

Right. Gotcha. Gotcha. You know, I'm disagreeing a little with what you're saying because I understand this is a first step, okay? But in that first step, and here's just...

I get it, and I don't mean disrespect, but that's kind of nice. But I live here. The federal government doesn't live here, right? And I want to make sure that the vehicles on my roadways are safe for my family and my children, which may or may not exceed a federal...

So that's why I'm kind of debating this bill a little bit. And the reason I'm talking about speed is because if you have a truck or a vehicle that is 2,000 pounds heavier, if there is a soft underlayment on the highway, those tires kind of act like a blade. And the faster that vehicle goes, it's pushing down, and a faster vehicle will create... Who is going to pay for the increased road wear of the infrastructure that they are destroying?

Thank you, sir.

Madam Speaker, may I speak on the bill?

So as I mentioned, a battery-operated vehicle has nothing but increased wear and tear on our roads. Everybody knows it. It's been debated. A battery-operated vehicle like this, what they really intend to do is maybe redirect the direction of a vehicle for safety purposes. So I think battery-operated vehicles, not only are they going to be a burden to our infrastructure and our electric grid, what they really are is an unfunded mandate for roadways and repairs for every road everywhere in New York State. And before we start trying to decrease that buffer zone, which we have set up for all of these reasons, we should consider a lot of other things, like how it is when we live here. What's the use of these going to be? And not a set of guidelines. I'm not saying it's arbitrary. But it's coming from the federal government. And what we're supposed to do is take those guidelines and use them for what makes sense for us. Not just blindly doing what somebody else does.

So just for clarification, you said before that if a local town, municipality, county has a different weight limit than the state weight limit on a highway or throughway or anything like that, they're still allowed to impose those weight limits, correct?

And when you say by posted, you're meaning literally posted on the roadway?

Now, can a state supersede those local laws for any purpose at all?

Well, okay, but my question is, or really what I'm saying is, we have a lot of local towns, small villages that post those because of not only the weight of the vehicle and obviously the wear and tear on the roads that they're driving through, but also height, obviously, size of the trucks, size of the roadways so that they can and cannot go up and down those streets. If you're in a smaller community, you have smaller streets. Some of those trucks won't fit on there, even if they're a delivery truck, some kind of construction vehicle. So that would really be my question. if you're driving that fair or that roadway, as my colleague was saying, and come on to those local municipal roads, does the state vehicle or the state supersede those local laws?

So as long as they post it, even if it is a state vehicle, but they haven't done it themselves.

But it would apply to all vehicles, correct?

Okay, and now you had said earlier that there was, from some study, I'm not sure if you had cited it or not, so I apologize, saying that heavier vehicles do not cause more roadway damage. And I'm trying to find out exactly where it was, but I can't. But it wasn't done by New York State or New York State?

It was a, okay, where was it? University of California Institute of Transportation study back in 2021. Okay when we haven done a study in we do studies on everything We haven done a study in this state regarding New York State roadways the infrastructure that we have done by the New York State DOT so we now know what we're dealing with when we're making laws like this to build different. We don't know if they're using the same type of materials. So how can we go by a study that's being done in another state on the other side of the country?

Understood.

Okay. No, I understood that. So you're saying in your conversations with the DOT as of now, they have no issue.

No issue.

And you said we're obviously bringing up to the federal standard.

So we always follow the federal standard in this chamber, correct? Or is it just the ones we want to pick with?

Okay.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to speak on the bill.

In a past life, I was a motor vehicle crash reconstructionist. It was the longest, hardest school I'd ever taken in my law enforcement career. And I learned that mass always wins in an accident. Any type of crash, even a speeding vehicle, the heavier the vehicle, basically the safer you are in that vehicle, but that vehicle is going to do the most damage. Currently, everything that we drive upon, walk upon, all of the infrastructure was designed in the 50s and 60s. We're using bridge technology from the 1800s, and everything is geared towards what we're operating right now as far as the weight and the max weight. I think right now, without a permit for a tractor-trailer, is 80,000 pounds. Anytime a heavy vehicle is involved in a crash, the severity is much worse for all the vehicles involved, and the inertia weight of the vehicle usually does more damage to the passengers in both vehicles. The guardrails we have right now, as my colleagues have said, are actually called guide rails, And a heavier battery-powered vehicle is going to peel right through that guardrail. The guardrail cannot resist the weight of a heavy vehicle hitting it at speed. We have greater impact of forces on the passengers inside any heavier vehicle. And it's also a much higher risk for pedestrians and cyclists. obviously the weight of any vehicle hitting a pedestrian or cyclist, but we add to that a lot of times a battery-operated vehicle doesn't have the audible cues that it's in the area, meaning it usually runs pretty quiet or, if not, silently. One of the biggest factors that you have to consider with 30 to 0 stopping distance in a city, that's going to be extended by several feet, and that is a matter of life and death on a city street. and not even to mention fire risk and that a whole other ball of wax You know there a lot of things involved with heavy vehicles that all of my colleagues have mentioned And because of that weight, a lot of microplastics are being off-leaded into the atmosphere at a greater rate than we currently have with a lighter vehicle. There's a whole plethora of reasons that we need to re-engineer our infrastructure if we're going to start having these much heavier vehicles. My colleagues did a good job asking the sponsor some questions, so I didn't want to really belabor those points and more questions, but I do think they made some very good points. Our ranker on the committee talked about how we have declining road conditions, declining bridge conditions in the state of New York, how we rake near the bottom, gave those percentages. My other colleague talked about the advanced clean truck rule regulation that's on the book, getting into the important point that was agreed to, there's a delay on enforcement, but there is not a delay on the implementation. The problem with that is our dealers, our customers, they're building up deficits that they still have to meet. For every four ICE vehicles they purchase, they have to purchase an electric truck. That's problematic because they're building up those deficits and there'll be significant impacts later. Why we're not delaying enforcement, I do not know. We know about the weight differentials. And obviously, with a budget where CHIPS is flat, it's concerning. And I know it's in a memo, and I know my other colleague got into the discussion with the chairman about the study. Well, there is a study that was done here in New York recently in conjunction with Cornell University with the New York State Town Highway Superintendents. They've shared that through conversations as well. The thing we need to know, on the electric school bus mandate, we all are hearing from our schools about these costs, how much it's going to cost, how it's three times as much to purchase an electric school bus versus a near-zero emission diesel school bus. They talk about the cost. They talk about the cost. What we don't hear a lot of people talking about is the per axle. An electric school bus, there are about 14 tons on the front axle and 25 tons on the rear axle. So this study was done, again, in conjunction with Cornell University and the New York State Town Highway superintendents. What did that study say? Now, it will increase rehabilitation costs by more than $550,000 per mile above and beyond what it is now. I know that the California study says they saw like a 1% decrease in life use. This same study said that we would see a decrease in road life use by 20% from 10 years to 8 years. That is significant, my colleagues. That is something we need to take into consideration as we rush through this electric school bus mandate, the impact on the cost for our school districts, the cost to power, but also the cost to the towns that we all represent that are going to bear the burden of this. And then when we see a budget from the governor that keeps chips flat and how we have to fight tooth and nail every budget cycle to ask for more chips money, keeping in mind that 87% of the roads in New York State are owned and maintained by our local municipalities. Keeping in mind that 52% of the 18,000 bridges in New York are owned by the public with no delay or help in sight. And again, I'll bring this point out. I am still baffled how... How we are asking our school districts to convert their entire school bus fleets by 2035, and no one has answered this question, no one from the media asked 2040, a full five years after our school districts. Why are we asking our school districts and property taxpayers to be the guinea pig for this social experiment? It's not going to work. It's too costly. It's too damaging. How about the state of New York does it first and shows it can be done properly and that they can get all the kinks out, costs, oh by the way, this weight of these electric school buses, we should be increasing CHIP significantly. $250 million is not a big ask in the context of a quarter of a trillion dollar budget when we see funding for other programs that aren't as much of a priority. So I hope you keep that in context during your conferences and when you're negotiating. I hope we take that into consideration in light of this study that's out there that is done here in New York in conjunction with Cornell University with those preliminary numbers that are out there. I think that's something we've got to consider moving forward, so I just wanted to share that information with my colleagues. I hope we take that into strong consideration as we move forward on our communities. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. What budget bill are we on?

Oh, okay. Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions? Will the sponsor yield for a couple questions?

So I just don't understand the purpose of this bill. Whether you have a vehicle that has an engine in it or a battery, 82,000 pounds is 82,000 pounds. We're increasing the weight limit for vehicles powered primarily by electric battery power and other fuels. What other fuels are we considering in this, number one? And number two, if you're telling me that, you know, they're going to increase it a ton, why don't we just up the limit from 82,000? All the different kinds of fuel would be natural propane or hydrogen gas

That's already there. But what you're saying is that we're not going to increase the weight limit

Yeah. Without a permit, we wouldn't increase them. You're correct.

Okay. Again, it doesn't matter whether it's got a battery in it. My thinking is, why isn't New York State being the leader on this? I think you've done an excellent job as our chair of Department of Transportation anyways, Mr. Chairman.

We have folks, the professionals, and say, hey, you know, here are some areas within the state where we need to make some structural changes or fixes. They should be a priority, as my esteemed colleague, Mr. Palmisano, just mentioned about more money should be put into the budget for transportation and for CHIPS. And I a big proponent of that or a big proponent of that because I think our infrastructure is in some serious trouble here but we have professionals both at the Thruway Authority and a DOT that can say okay all the roads in Section 1 or Zone 3 Zone 4 any vehicle at 85 pounds or less you do not need a permit and those vehicles can drive on those roads.

There's no bigger proponent of CHIPS increases than I am.

Well, and I appreciate that, and I've worked with those folks both professionally and here as a state assembly member.

and they're allowed to be at 84,000 pounds, but Joe Schmoe that's got a 2012 Mack truck and trailer has to stick to the 82,000 because it's a diesel vehicle or a gas vehicle. I don't think that's right. Like I said, 82,000 pounds is 82,000 pounds. So if you let somebody travel at 84,000 pounds over a structure that can only handle 82,000 pounds, we're going to have failure. Doesn't matter what's driving the vehicle, what's inside the vehicle, powering it. 82,000 pounds is 82,000 pounds. That's the max.

Okay.

Is there a question?

But you're adding.

No, it's 80 to 82,000. Okay, but you're adding, you're allowing vehicles?

All right, but what you're saying is we're allowing these other vehicles 2,000 more pounds than what's already on the road. That's what I'm trying to say here.

That's wrong.

I hear you.

but everybody else only at 80 over a structure that can only handle 80,000, I guess is the way to put it. I hear you. What's the difference? I mean, this is like we're just, again, and I know, Bill, I know it's not you. I know this bill is coming from wherever. But unfortunately, there's a lot of that in this chamber where nobody uses any common sense and says, why don't we all just get together and let's fix this the right way? That's my point. Madam Speaker, on the bill?

First of all, I want to thank the chairman. I have a great relationship with him. And as I said, he does a great job leading the Department of Transportation Committee. I just, this is just, again, a lack of common sense. And why would we put a bill up that allows some people to go at a certain weight, but others cannot? It just it doesn make any sense A structure is a structure and it can only handle a certain amount of pounds before it fails So either we need to, somebody needs to learn how to get these electric battery-powered vehicles and propane vehicles a little bit lighter, or we need to increase the weight another 2,000 pounds for all vehicles. It's as simple as that. And let me tell you what, they built the new vehicles today. As my colleague in front of me said, a lot of these new tractor and trailers, these things drive better than cars, and they're safer than cars. Where we lack, as my other colleague mentioned, is we're not doing our part as the state of New York with our infrastructure, with our own communities. Every single year we leave chips flat. We put no more money into our municipalities or even our State Department of Transportation. We just had a failure just outside of my district on I-88 again, where about 10, 12 years ago, we actually lost two people. They were killed. When a structure gave way right on a major highway between Binghamton and Oneonta. This is what we miss in this chamber. The priorities, the things that mean life and death for the people that we represent. Here we are, almost four weeks late from a budget, and we're worried about social programs instead of life and death issues that are within our constituency. That's what we should be doing. and that's how the budget should be done. Priorities first. It's just, it's ridiculous how we do business in this place. It's ridiculous. It's very aggravating. Very aggravating. So, Madam Speaker, again, this bill needs some work before I'll support it. I'll be voting in the negative. But, again, appreciate, respect, and thank the chairman for his work on this. Thank you very much.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The Republican conference will, generally speaking, be in the negative on this piece of legislation, but if there are those who wish to vote yes, now would be the appropriate time to do so at their seats. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Lunsford. Thank you, Madam Speaker. The majority will be in the affirmative on this vote. If anybody would like to deviate from that, please indicate by pushing your button. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hmm Thank you

Ayes 85, nays 48.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. In the absence of Assemblymember Smullen, I am tasked with announcing that the Republican Conference will be immediately conferencing in the parlor right now. So if members could please report back to the parlor. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, could you please recognize Assemblymember Clark for an announcement?

I'm also here to announce majority conference right now in the speaker's conference room,

Majority conference, speaker's conference room, Ms. Lunsford.

Thank you. Thank you. So Welcome to the Bmediibbard Podcast. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. So Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. kt Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. We'll be right back. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you We be right back Thank you. Thank you. Thank you 2 Speak 2 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Do I go?

The House will come to order. Members have on their desk an A calendar.

On a motion. By Ms. Lunsford, the A calendar is advanced. Page 3, Rules Report 104, Clerk will read.

On a motion by Mr. Pretlow, the Senate bill is before the House, the Senate bill is advanced, Governor's message is at the desk, Clerk will read. I hereby certify to an immediate vote, Kathy Hochul, Governor. An explanation has been requested. Mr. Pretlow.

Mr. Palmisano.

Yes, I will.

Thank you, Mr. Palmisano. You did answer my first question. I see it up there. This goes until Monday, May 4th. As we asked in committee, with the total amount now, with this being our eighth extender, what is the total appropriation?

Okay. And this increase above the previous extender is how much?

Okay. I think it was just yesterday, if not yesterday, this week, our colleague down in the hall made a comment, said that we're at the end of the middle. I'm not really sure what that means, but I'm really more concerned of what you think, where you think we are.

but I'm really kind of concerned just really where you think we are in this budget process right now. I know you said we've had some progress.

But right now, as far as the fiscal aspects of the budget go, we haven't proceeded very far. Okay, fair enough. Relative to the, I know you want to focus on the policy, the fiscal, but I just want to ask you some questions if I could. I know last time when we spoke about this on Monday, you said we're making progress. If there's anything you might be able to add or elaborate on what might be happening, anything you could add or elaborate what's happening with tax policy in this budget?

All right, so that would hold true for auto, insurance, seeker, immigration, tier 6, correct?

And then same on climate?

And on climate, I'd like to delve a little bit into that, if I may, if you don't mind. This week we had a proposal that was introduced that would provide utility relief for state workers who are impacted by the delayed budget Before we go any further are there any state workers that are not getting paid with these extenders? Aren't we taking care of those state workers or is it really just us?

All right, so that piece of legislation would only benefit us if that were to move, correct?

I can't tell you how happy I am. We're happy to hear that. And on that front, though, we know that our rate payers or people back at home, we're hearing 50 to 60 percent higher than the national average. Like there was a report out, I read this this morning, saying 70 percent higher than the national average. So as much as, and I appreciate what you just said about that bill not going anywhere, is there discussion about real relief that will be provided to lower energy costs for families, for seniors, for veterans? Are there proposals that you can share with us that would actually reduce costs in energy bills that are being discussed as part of this?

All right. Any talk about possibly the $2.4 billion that NYSERDA is sitting on?

Okay. That's fair enough. Mr. Prello, as always, I appreciate your time very, very much.

And Madam Speaker, on the bill.

Well, Madam Speaker, my colleagues, the score is now eight budget extenders, one budget bill. I probably meant to ask them how many more budget bills or extenders we expect to have. I probably forgot to ask you, but I'm sure there's at least, we know another one is going to come Monday. After eight extenders, there is no defined end point. And at this pace, there's almost no doubt this budget is going to be later than last year. And like I said earlier, our colleague down in the hall said we're approaching the end of the middle. I guess the main question to ask from that is what does that actually mean? There is no visible transition from the middle to the end that I see. There is no public framework. There's no outlined agreement. It's an indication of issues that remain and what have been resolved. At some point, phrases like this stop signaling progress and start highlighting the absence of progress. Our New Yorkers that we're representing across the state are not following inside terminology or negotiating phrases. They're really looking for a result in action. And right now what they see is a process that is without clear direction or timeline. And what I'm seeing and what many of us are seeing is a disconnect. And I will talk about, you know, with the policy that's being talked about, one area that I think it's important to talk about on the climate side of things that I asked the question, I know there's climate change, climate policy is being addressed, but what about direct ratepayer relief? Will this budget provide direct and immediate ratepayer relief? I certainly hope it does better because our residents need direct ratepayer relief right now. And that disconnect I've seen the past couple weeks with some policies. The one we talked about that my colleague has basically said is not going to see the late of the day, but to see a proposal like that that would just benefit us while our residents are on the brink that is just kind of a detachment and a disconnect from what going on And then there another policy we debated in this floor that would provide rebates paid for and subsidized by ratepayers with higher utility bills to subsidize the purchase of electric lawnmowers or electric weed whackers for businesses, for schools, for hospitals. This would all be determined by NYSERDA. The same NYSERDA that came out with an estimate saying if we don't make changes to the policies, residential home heating costs will increase to over $4,000 annually. The same NYSERDA that says if we don't make changes, the price of a gallon of gas will increase $2.23 a gallon above and beyond what it is now. The same NYSERDA that said the price of diesel will increase $2.41 a gallon above and beyond what it is right now. The same NYSERDA that said utility costs for small and commercialized businesses will increase 46% depending on utility and facility size. The same NYSERDA that said transportation operations, trucking operations will increase more than 60%, and we know the impact that will have. And like I said, the report that just came out this morning I saw, now our residential electricity rate is nearly 70% higher than the national average. They're on the brink. But it's the same NYSERDA that's sitting on over $2.4 billion in ratepayer funds that have already been collected, sitting there so they can spend money on green programs and policies that we've advocated in the past. We trust NYSERDA to handle this money. We want NYSERDA to spend more of our residents' ratepayer money. We think that's a good idea. I would ask any one of you to go back to your constituents. You said, hey, will you pay higher utility bills to help subsidize a business or a school or a hospital to get an electric lawnmower or a weed whacker, or do you want direct ratepayer relief right now? You and I already know the answer to that question. they're going to say they want direct ratepayer relief right now. We need to do that, and we need to do that quickly. So you say, how can we provide direct ratepayer relief right now? I know my colleague said there's proposals. I know in the one-house bill there was a rebate, which we support too, but that can't be in and of itself. It can't just be a rate freeze because that doesn't do anything to reduce rates. But what we should do is direct that that $2.4 billion sitting in NYSERDA's coffers should get immediately rebated back to the residents of this state to show them that we understand that they're suffering and we're going to do the right thing. We're going to provide them back that money, that surplus money, and provide them direct rate pay relief now versus subsidizing electric heat pumps, electric vehicles, electric lawnmowers. That's what people want. They want direct rate pay relief. We could also look at the taxes, fees, assessments, and surcharges that are on our utility bills. In some instances, you all know that can account to more than 20% of our individual's utility bill. We can cut that off right there. That would provide a relief of up to 20% immediately. These things together could do good things. We should also be looking to do what NISO is talking about to ensure that we have a reliable and abundant support of generation. Yes we need to look at repowering natural gas power plants we need to look at putting new natural gas power plants online There hasn been one in many many years When we do that we increase supply We can deal with the pipeline constraints There's things we can do. All these things will provide relief, and we could do that right now with this budget, with some of the things that we've talked about and we've advocated for. And, of course, we know our school districts are suffering with their budget votes. I mean, they have the budget votes that they're waiting on. They didn't get their aid yet. And when it comes to the school districts, they have the mother of all unfunded mandates, the electric school bus mandate. That's going to cost them significant amounts of money. We know tens of billions of dollars just in replacement costs, infrastructure improvements, and charging infrastructure. And I know others, when they talk about this, they say, we're giving money to the school districts. We got money in the Bond Act. I don't know if you might recall at a budget hearing a couple years ago when we asked the NYSERDA president and co-chair of the Climate Action Council, if you take all the money from the state and the federal government they put in, how many school buses would that purchase? She said about 3,000. We have a fleet of nearly 50,000 school buses. So who's going to make up the difference? My local property taxpayers, your local property taxpayers. We need to not just pump the brakes on this thing, we need to slam the brakes. We should not just let them get waivers, we should be extending this thing. And as I said earlier, I'm having a hard time understanding why no one can answer this question. I'm having a hard time understanding why the media doesn't ask the governor this question. Why are we asking our school districts to convert their entire school fleets by 2035 when the state of New York does not have to convert their heavy and medium fleets until 2040. Oh yeah, but the state of New York, like I said earlier, they have an out for feasibility, for cost, for life. They can stop for whatever reasons, but our school districts don't have that same privilege. Why not make the state of New York do it first? Why are we asking our school districts and local property taxpayers to be the guinea pig for this social experiment? Let's provide relief to them now. Let's delay this thing because they need to delay, they want to delay, they can't implement it. And those that are buying electric buses are having problems. Listen, we need long-lasting solutions to bring down energy costs, not just proposals that shift away from addressing the problem. And as we continue to talk about phases and process, the real consequences are growing. Late budgets create uncertainty. School districts have sent out their military ballots for school budget votes last week. And the property tax report cards were due on Monday. Municipalities, our municipalities, are planning their budgets right now. They have road construction projects they want to do, but they have no certainty about how much state aid they're going to do, how much chips aid we're going to give them, which we should be giving them a lot more chips aid. Absolutely. And even just yesterday, the largest municipality in the state of New York, New York City, said they're delaying their budget until May 12th because state funding and revenue is still being negotiated. The longer this drags on, my colleagues, the more proposals get thrown in the mix, creating more uncertainty and less transparency. At some point, we must move past the middle, define an actual endpoint, and deliver a complete budget that reflects the responsibility of this institution, because right now we are not even close to that. Of course, I will be voting for this extender to ensure our state operations continue and our employees get paid. That responsibility is not optional. I would be voting in the favor of Madam Speaker and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On the bell. Thank you. I just want to take a moment to express concern on behalf of school districts across the state of New York. My colleague just iterated the fact that our school districts are obligated, our volunteer school board members are obligated to present a budget to the voters to fund their schools. The budgets must be finalized by May 5th. It's now April 29th. We're getting increasingly close to the date where they have to finalize a budget, and they don't know the state aid they're going to be receiving. The governor proposed a minimum 1% increase. School districts across the state are looking at costs that are rising tremendously. The cost of health insurance, the cost of a lot of things that we talk about in this chamber every single day. The final budget may include impacts that they will need to deal with. My colleague just mentioned the electric bus mandate, whether it's dealt with or not in this budget. We're talking about changes to the pension system. That could increase costs to our school districts. So the fact is that we have abdicated our responsibility to deliver a budget that's timely. Our districts are not able to present that to the voters. May 5th is when they need to finalize that budget so it can be put up for a public hearing and then voted on May 19th. And I think we need to really join together and urge that this be completed because, again, it's not fair to our districts. It's not fair to our property taxpayers. I can speak as a Long Island representative. The number one issue I hear is my property taxes are too high, and it's something that they're dealing with. They want to provide an excellent education for our children. We need to make sure that we finalize this budget to get those numbers out there. In a few minutes, we're going to be considering another bill that you can look. School districts are starting to unravel because of issues that are not dealt with in the budget. So I'll be voting yes on this to continue to pay our state workforce. But I am, you know, on behalf of the people I represent, the people that all of us represent as a ranking member of the Education Committee as a former teacher, as a parent, a PTA member. I'm outraged the fact that we don't have those final education numbers, and I think we can do better. Thank you.

This act shall take effect immediately.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. So I just want to pick up on something that was raised by our Ways and Means Ranker behind me here about the media covering what's going on here. I mean, the media is right down the hall. They cover what they can. But this whole process is so mired in secrecy that it's very difficult for them to write thoughtful, investigative pieces based on tweets from the governor or an off comment made during her statewide tour at different appearances around the state. That not going to lead to an intelligent thoughtful conversation I mean the bottom line is when this budget finally does come together you know we going to get briefed with briefing memos that are still warm and then we're going to have to come in with reduced debate time, due to the rule changes that were passed a couple years ago. We're going to have to try to intelligently inform the voters and ourselves about what this budget contains. So, again, I'll continue to support the extender because I want to see government continue to operate. I'm not going to try to jam things up. But, you know, that's the reason why we can't really have good government here, because it is completely secret. And those of us who are in this room are left out of that conversation, essentially. So I'm not happy. I will continue to vote yes on the extender. Thank you.

Ayes 134, nays 0.

Assembly number 11166, Rules Report 105, Mr. Pretlow, an act authorizing the South Country Central School District.

An explanation has been.

Mr. Pretlow. Mr. Madam Speaker, what we have before us now is an Article 7 bill. It actually can be considered a companion bill to the bill that we had just passed for the extender, the one-week extender. If the members would look at the breakdown of that one-week extender, there's a $7 million incremental, not incremental, but $7 million increase in school aid. That $7 million is being totally allocated to the South Country Central School District. And this also includes, this bill also includes deficit spending, giving them bond authority, and the Orange County Industrial Development Agency Monitor. We're authorizing an extension of the monitor for Orange County IDA.

Yes, Madam Speaker.

Yes.

Sponsor yield. So, Mr. Prello, obviously we have an Article 7 bill here. Are we hoping to have more Article 7 bills to follow here in the near future as well? I'm sorry.

Yes.

Is that correct?

Okay. And understanding, obviously, with the school district and the appropriation, can you just explain a little bit more about the Part B, a little bit more about this independent monitor for Orange County IDA and why that's necessary to do this in this Article 7 bill at this time?

Okay. And with that we have obviously the support of the county to implement this asking for this Is is being asked for by the county We haven really talked since we been joining Okay, so we're doing it without knowing what the county?

Well, Mr. Prell, thank you very much for your time. I have no further questions.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the sponsor yield for a few questions?

Yes, I will. Sponsor yield. Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate it. Just a few clarifying questions as it pertains to the Orange County IDA provision. Can you tell us how much the monitor is costing taxpayers in Orange County?

There's no bills associated with the monitor for the Orange County IDA?

And do we know how much that IDA is costing the IDA at this point in time?

And do we know what entity oversees? My guess is that the monitor is providing bills, because it's my understanding that they've spent more than a half a million dollars, or approximately a half a million dollars, during this time frame.

And so is there an entity or an individual that oversees the bills that are issued by the monitor to the IDA to be paid?

Very good. And does the monitor only apply to Orange County specifically?

Is there any concern considering the geographical location of Orange County as it relates to it being a border county, bordering New Jersey, bordering Pennsylvania. Is there any concern about the impact that this is having on economic development?

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

No. And does the language expand in any way the powers of the monitor?

I appreciate that. And over the last two years since the monitor's been in place, has the monitor reviewed any of the IDA's records as part of its job?

And have they issued any reports related to those reviews?

No. None of our – my understanding was there was a report issued in 2024 based on – I don't believe that was the public report, was it?

And anyway, that's fine. Were there – I guess this goes to my next question, though. If we aren't aware of any review, even though I believe there was one that was conducted, do we know what the findings or any reporting that the monitor has referred the IDA for?

but all the members of that IDA either are either resigned or are no longer part of the Orange County IDA. That would indicate serious problems to me. I agree but it that is that a is that a understanding that we both have that all the members have been changed on the Orange County IDA I believe that the case Okay so we are applying the monitor to basically an entirely new entity because of the makeup of the IDA

But he's had those same powers and authority over the – when you say new board, it's the existing board, by the way. So if there were any issues, the monitors had the last two years plus to refer any concerns or issues, my guess is to the next level of authority. Is that a fair assumption?

And that has yet to happen.

Still issues. Can you tell me – and I didn't see any language in the bill, but is there an off-ramp here at some point that the Orange County IDA is able to accomplish so that they know when the monitor will no longer be needed?

Based on what criteria?

I understand. Well, thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate you answering my questions today. Madam Speaker, if I can, just on the bill.

And I really do appreciate the Chairman's answering my questions. I know this is, unfortunately, a local issue. I don't even represent the county that is impacted, but it does beg the question of standards, because right now we're hearing that there's been a monitor in place, but there's been really no findings of the functionality of the Orange County IDA with its present members and the way that the board is currently made up. And when we want to understand what needs to be accomplished for the IDA to move forward without the monitor, It's based on the notion that there are still issues that are existing, but those issues have never been brought to light or referred to either the authorities or any other entity within the state government. And so it really begs the question why we're doing this. And it really begs the question if it's even needed. When you have a brand new IDA, new members who are not associated with the past sins of the previous members, It begs the question, to what point and to what extent does the monitor need to continue to exist in the fashion that it is? I think it's concerning that there's no off-ramp that's built here, that we're going to continue to reassess, it sounds like, in perpetuity every year. And I do think that, and there has been, by the way, concerns raised in Orange County by union contractors over the impact that this has had on economic development, on generating good-paying jobs, and making sure that the economy of Orange County continues to turn. So I do want to just raise those issues for the record. I do appreciate the chairman answering my questions. And, Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On the bill. Let me answer some of those begging questions that were just given. The largest part of my district is geographically as well as population-wise in Orange County. There are five other IDAs in Orange County and we are monitoring any of them. Why? Because they do everything by the books, as it may be. In 2021, criminal charges were filed against three of the leading officials in the IDA, including the former county exec, who all pleaded guilty. But there were no charges put up against them other than replacing the money that was determined to be taken at that point. This led to us placing a monitor on the Orange County IDA in 2024. And just to give a little vision on old board members and new board members, just at the end of this last year, 2025, new board members, okay, the IDA violated state law and illegally barred the monitor from an executive committee meeting. In that meeting, they voted to approve $100,000 for hiring a lobbying group or some concerned group that would help them get rid of the monitor. And that, of course, was without the monitor there. The monitor is a person who advises the IDA and helps them to make the correct decisions. We are simply protecting the taxpayers' money when we put this monitor in there because the board itself is not doing that. And I would hope that everybody votes for this and the IDA monitor for Orange County. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to explain my vote. First of all, I'd like to thank the governor, the speaker, and my colleagues who made the South Country part of this extender. This school district has been pushed to its limits. Positions eliminated, spending slashed, programs teachers, literacy coordinators, math interventionists, sports, and AP programs cut. This community has sacrificed enormously. They're in distress, and they needed help. This is not a bailout. This is a loan to pay back the non, I'm going to say the people don't understand a lot of what's been going on. We were brought to this fact last year and we've been working on it ever since. You have my word that I will make sure that the people that are responsible for this are held accountable for what happened in this school district. My only concern and my focus has only been about the kids. Why do these kids have to suffer for the actions of a few? We want them to be held accountable. I promise you in this body that I will make sure that they get the education that they rightfully deserve Thank you and I vote in the affirmative Mr DiStefano in the affirmative

Madam Speaker, do we have any further housekeeping or resolutions?

Ms. Lunsford. I now move that the Assembly stand adjourned until Thursday, April 30th, tomorrow being a legislative day, and that we reconvene on Monday, May 4th, at the call of the Speaker.

Thank you. Thank you.