SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-01-15 - 9AM

[Mary Howard ]: Thank you. [Ashley Bartley ]: Good morning, everybody. It is, Wednesday, January fifteenth, and we are going to be starting our conversations, with different agencies and stakeholders, regarding housing production, will kind of be the theme of our conversations this morning. And we first are going to welcome Frank Nack, who is the executive director of Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont. And I think there are definitely a lot of new faces in this community. So if we just wanna go around and introduce ourselves, I think that would be very helpful. [Frank Nack ]: Understand. [Emily Pausnow ]: Alright. Emily Pausnow, South Burlington Chittenden. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Frank. Hi. I'm Elizabeth Burrows. I represent Windsor one Rutland West Windsor in Woodland. [Mary Howard ]: Good morning. I'm Mary Howard, and I represent Rutland City District six. I'm Debbie Dolkin. I represent Saint Johnsbury, Concord, and Kirby. [Don Charlton ]: Don Charlton, Athens, Chester, Grafton, and Wyndham. Joe Parsons, Orange Caledonia District. [Leonora Dodge ]: We have our Dodge, Essex Town, City of Essex Junction. [Ashley Bartley ]: Ashley Bartley, Fairfax in Georgia. [Frank Nack ]: Alright. Well, thank you all so much for the opportunity to testify. I'm gonna hand out Talking to our materials. [Ashley Bartley ]: Could you send an electronic copy of this to the Volley? [Don Charlton ]: Yeah. Apologize [Frank Nack ]: for that before. Thanks. No problem. So just to give a little background on who we are at HHAB. So HHAB came together about a year and a half ago, and this is a result of a merger between two longstanding Vermont housing and homelessness organizations, Vermont Coalition and Homelessness, and the Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition. We've both been working with Vermont for many, many years, obviously, on similar issues, but the kind of ultimate goal being production of affordable housing, but with different strategies. And so a year and a half ago, the boards came together and said, hey. You You know, the ultimate solution solution to homelessness is affordable housing. We should come together and merge. And so we became HHAV, at that point. And so we work in a couple of different ways at HHAV. We work, in advocacy like today where we talk with legislators, educate folks about housing and homelessness related issues. We work in communities to educate community members as well. And we also, with our second hat, are the collaborative applicant for the the balance of state continuum of care. And so what that is is that each state has one or more continuum of care, which are HUD designated, homelessness response systems. And so in Vermont, we have two COCs. We have the balance of state, which is every county minus Chittenden, so the balance of Vermont, and then the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance. And so we at HAB are the collaborative applicants who help staff the balance of state COC and so work with frontline homelessness response providers across the state in every county minus Chittenden and then core coordinate closely with the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance. And so today, I'm gonna talk about our legislative priorities for this, this legislative section. And just to give you a little context about how these priorities came together. So we are a membership organization. Our members include folks from the affordable housing space, from the services space, from the shelter and services space, and had worked with our partners and members over the past six months to come up with this agenda. So understanding, like, what are the problems in Vermont and what are the solutions. And as you'll see from this document, a lot of the solutions really revolve around additional funding to kind of build the infrastructure and supports. And so kind of I'll walk you through that continuum. And so starting, backwards because I think that may make the most sense, in this running through the continuum. And so there's kind of three global pockets that we're working within. The first is kind of, homelessness response and so emergency shelter. The second is kind of the services and homelessness response things to keep people housed who are at risk of homelessness. And then the third bucket is the ultimate solution, which is permanent affordable housing. And starting with the kind of problem, I'll just give you all a little context about their rent in Vermont right now. So in Vermont, every year, Vermont participates in what's called the point in time count, which is every year across the United States on the same night. There's a count done by the continuum of care across the country around the number of people who are unhoused on that specific night. So we have one common metric across the country to understand homelessness. And so Sorry. Sorry. May I [Sarah Mierhoff ]: just ask you a question? [Frank Nack ]: Yeah. What [Ashley Bartley ]: day is that? [Frank Nack ]: I think it was January twenty. [Ashley Bartley ]: Is it always in the winter? [Frank Nack ]: Always in January. I it had been in January the last couple of years. I don't know beyond that. Yes. Thank you. I think it was right around January twenty fifth last year. And so partners that we work with through the continuum of care and to the kind of homeless alliance going out across Vermont and and work with the folks they serve to kind of understand the number of people who are on house in Vermont. We know from a number of sources that that is an undercount because solely counting number of people who are overstretched and under resourced, a woman's response providers can reach. But even looking at that undercount, we were at thirty five hundred. So a record number in Vermont of unhoused people, which happened last year as part of the pick count. And to put that in context nationally, HUD just released the twenty twenty four pick count. We had the fourth highest per capita rate of homelessness in the entire country. Last year, we had the second highest rate. And this year, the some of the differences were Hawaii moved up because of the fires in Hawaii or because of the fires in Hawaii, and New York moved up because of two factors, particularly in New York City, but our rate also increased. And so we are going in a bad direction of the month right now in terms of homelessness response. So we have thirty five hundred people undercount accounted account last year, and our emergency response system, so our shelter system in Vermont has a maximum currently of five hundred eighty five beds. And so put those two numbers together. Thirty five hundred unhouse people, five hundred and thirty five shelter beds or households, but it's a little bit more. Huge gap. And so how have we made up for that gap? In recent years, that's really been through the general systems emergency housing program, which is commonly referred to as the hotel motel program. That's where we serve as the backstop, particularly for the most vulnerable for Vermonters. And so as a legislature, the last couple of years have kind of clarified who qualifies who qualifies for the hotel motel program are people who y'all have deemed to be the most vulnerable. So we're talking about seniors, families with children, people with disabilities, people fleeing domestic violence, people who have some type of emergency like their house burned down. Those are the folks who qualify. And so at the GA level right now, we're housing about eleven hundred and seventy five, households. And so five hundred eighty five shelter beds, eleven hundred and, seventy five households, thirty five hundred people. So we're still having a huge gap. But that GA program is key to kind of reducing that gap. And so from our perspective, I think one of the key things we're asking for this legislative session, is for the legislature to continue the general assistance emergency housing program, but in a way that removes some of the hurdles that were created last session. And so if you recall last session, there were a few changes to the GA program. The first of which was they created caps. And so previously, if you're deemed eligible, so if you met the vulnerable criteria, you are able to access the program without any type of caps. Last year, they placed caps in place. So beginning, September of this year, there were caps in terms of the number of nights that vulnerable people were eligible to use the GA program. So eighty nights, you're eligible. And then the max number of hotel rooms that would be available under the program, which was capped at eleven hundred. And so what happened, if you recall back in September when those caps went into place, the state of Vermont began exiting hundreds and hundreds of people the state had deemed as vulnerable. So again, it's seniors, people with children, people fleeing domestic violence, etcetera. And so I think from our perspective, it's really, really important that we remove those caps because those folks were exited into a homelessness response system that was already stretched beyond capacity. There was no place for people to go. And so we literally had families with children being given tents and saying goodbye. That's what we're doing in Vermont. And so I think from our perspective, those caps need to go. We have no we as we build up the response system, we can talk about kind of tearing that up, maybe moving back to restrictions. But right now, we have no place for people to go. The second part of the GA program that we were concerned with last year was the way that we handled the winter weather program. And so previously, we had what's called adverse weather. And so even if you didn't qualify under GA for the criteria, everyone in Vermont, if you're unhoused in the winter, was eligible for GA because we all know Vermont, you cannot survive outside in a tent in the winter for the entire winter. It's just not possible. And so what happened last year during the legislative session was they placed restrictions on that program. So previously, all Vermonters were eligible if you're unhoused. What happened last year was they created restrictions so only people who were vulnerable were eligible for the GA program. And so currently, unless you meet one of those criterias for, vulnerable, you're not eligible for the hotel motel program, and we have no shelter capacity. And so people are left living outside in Vermont in the winter. So we think it's really important that those caps be lifted. And all oh, sorry. What was that? [Emily Pausnow ]: I just wanted to yeah. I wanted to add to that. I absolutely agree. Right now, there's estimated in Chittend County a few hundred people who are out right now, in the cold. And my biggest concern too is that the state's, you know, trigger temperatures are are pretty rigid. And so next week, for example, is gonna be extremely cold. And so I'm currently working with south the city of South Burlington and and our council to to try to see if we can replicate what what Burlington is doing. But it it's put a tremendous amount of stress and pressures on our municipalities because of what of, you know, I feel like failures on the state. And so, you know, they are left if if the municipality doesn't have the budget for such things, we're trying to figure out if South Burlington obviously is a large municipality, and we have some money for it. But it's still the staffing issues are, you know, hundreds of dollars a hour. They have to pay people to be there. So it it's been I I just wanna emphasize how hard it has been when it's even temperatures I mean, even right now, it's so cold to be outside. And so when the state's temperature triggers are are, you know, negatives, it's really hard for me to, feel like that's okay. So municipalities have have really had to step up, and that's I just want to emphasize the strain that that's caused our communities in Chittenden County. We're dealing with it every day and it's just been so hard. Yeah. [Frank Nack ]: And I think strain both in terms of like the at the individual level of staffing, etcetera, but also the kind of unfunded mandate that it's put on municipalities in terms of, first responders, law enforcement, etcetera, having to respond in a much less efficient way, to the crisis. So and all those are part of the GAA Emergency Housing Task Force recommendations that should be submitted to the legislature today. So we at HHAV were a member of the GAA Emergency Housing Task Force. It was representative of thirteen folks from across the kind of homelessness housing response system who came up with those recommendations, and so we strongly support those recommendations from this legislative cycle. So kind of moving along the continuum, the next piece is so we have a crisis, but we lack capacity. The next phase is really about not making the crisis work and at worst, And that is about kind of the homelessness response kind of system we have right now to kind of keep people who are at risk of homelessness from becoming unhoused. And so that is really through kind of services and supports, a lot of which is through the the HOP program that's administered through OEO and also what was called the ERAP program, which was some federal funds. And just to give you a sense of kind of how regionally diverse these funding are, it hits everywhere in Vermont. So Addison, Bennington, Brattleboro, Caledonia, Essex, Shittendon, Franklin Grand Isle, Memorial, Rutland, Springfield, Upper Valley, Washington County. And so all those jurisdictions are receiving hot funds that are using I'm sorry. [Leonora Dodge ]: Is there still a be that BRAP program? Is there still funds? [Mark Mahali ]: Or per hop or Yeah. No. Not Yeah. Not It's gone. Yeah. Okay. [Frank Nack ]: And so the HOP fund, what we're really asking for this year in terms of the budget amount is really just a continuation of the status quo with the COLA increase. So we're not asking for more, but we need to make sure that we are funding the programs and services that are currently on the ground across Vermont that are keeping more people from becoming unhoused. And at the same time, there was a separate program, called ERAP, which were federal funds that were on the ground in Vermont. And so those funds are in jurisdictions including Burlington, Barrie, Mooresville, Saint Albans, Middlebury, Burlington, Rutland, Bennington, Brattleboro, Springfield, Hartford, and those are also funding similar kind of homelessness response. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Yeah. Sorry. I just can we are [Leonora Dodge ]: you are you talking about a different section [Mark Mahali ]: of Sorry. [Frank Nack ]: I apologize. Yeah. [Leonora Dodge ]: Would you mind just moving us to that so that I think people that are following along online also would really like to know what you're pointing to. Thank you. [Frank Nack ]: And so here, I'm talking about the first few bullets here, which are the top program funds and the ERAP funds, which we think are really vital that the state continue to support because about that that thirty five hundred number is just going to increase. We're also looking at a very few expansion opportunities, but where we are looking at expansion opportunity because we think it's really vital that the state support these. And so some of which I know Molly Dugan's here can talk more about this, but it's expansion of Stash, which is kind of place based support services for the communities that they serve that have, you know, evidence based programs that have kept people in their homes and from going into homelessness and also pathways, which is site based. So where they go out and they serve folks in communities, expansion of pathways in the Rotman County where we see a real need, for that type of, service. And so I don't know how much time I have, how much how much in the weeds I should get if I should move quickly. [Don Charlton ]: Fifteen minutes. Thirty minutes. Okay. [Frank Nack ]: So about fifteen minutes. Okay. Thanks. And so as we move through this, we're also looking again, this is all really about maintaining status quo and so kind of ensuring that we continue to have the eviction prevention, the rental assistance programs that we've funded, that we continue to fund, voucher programs that kind of keep people in their homes, and ensure people are not exiting the homelessness. So, again, this whole section is really about keeping people from moving into homelessness that are at risk of homelessness. And then this last bullet, I should note, or the second last bullet, the three point five million to maintain trained resident services coordinators. And so I think we're really fortunate in Vermont to have an amazing kind of housing trust system that are providing kind of fairly affordable housing to thousands and thousands of people across state. Because we have not as a state invested in the supports to the level that they should be, A lot of the housing trusts have had to dig into their own budgets to kind of provide housing support navigators, etcetera, in their communities. And what that does is takes away from their ability to do other really important things. And so we think the state should really start stepping up and supporting that more going forward. So we're asking also for an additional three point five million to kinda help offset those budget impacts that housing trusts are having right now in terms of having to go into their own pockets to hire those key staff to keep people housed in their communities. And then moving to what we really see is kind of the solution to homelessness, which is permanent affordable housing. And so the kind of two key areas here around funding for BHCB and BHFA, I think Gus is gonna be in this committee later today and can kind of get into the weeds on some of the BHCB and Chad, I know y'all will be talking about BHFA. But we really see those as kind of the core partners that really need support to kind of be able to continue the kind of flow of of of of currently affordable housing that Vermont continue that flow. We've had thousands of units come online over the last couple of years, because the state has recognized the importance of investing in permanent affordable housing, but we still need thousands more. And so it's really important that we continue to maximize the pipeline of investment. And so it's funding BHGB. We're asking for eighty million of funding for BHGB in addition to their statutory, property transfer tax, share. And we're asking for those funds to be set up in a way where it really gives BHGB maximum flexibility. And so there's multiple ways that BHGB engages with the multiple ways that BHGB engages with those funds to kind of build housing to kind of ensure shelter capacity. But if we give it to BHGB in a way where they kind of have the ability to kind of maximize dollars and not have tied to specific children, that gives them the ability to kind of get things up and running faster and more efficiently. And the same with BHFA's ask of, I believe, it's thirty six million. So BHFA does a number of really important programs, the minimum homeownership development program, or gen homeownership rental volume loan fund. But, again, we're asking for those funds to be given to BHFA in a way where they have the flexibility to spend out where they need maximum output. And so I know they'll both be here to kind of talk more in the weeds about about the types of things that they can do with those. In addition, you know, the mobile home parks and kind of mobile home communities are really key to kind of solving the homelessness crisis in Vermont. And so we have a number of apps around kind of really maximizing our capacity around mobile homes, so rapid response in home program, helping homes, etcetera. And then I think, finally, we're we I don't wanna kind of ignore some of the other really important things that we think need to be funded. So the land access and opportunity board, which has really been charged, with kind of ensuring that we have access to kind of housing development, homelessness response system. We see it really a key partner in our work. You know, Vermont has one of the words racial disparities and homelessness in the entire country. So that's something that we need to recognize and solve. And so Land Access and Opportunity Board has been a key partner not only in BAPA, ensuring we have equity across the board in our housing and then also farmworker housing. So we have a huge shortage in farmworker housing in Vermont that impacts farmers, that impacts their employees. From an economic development perspective, it's something that's key. So we really support continuing the funding, which goes to your Champlain Housing Trust for housing. And so happy to answer any questions y'all may have and can also get back to you all to kind of drill down pieces of any of this going forward. [Mary Howard ]: Thank you for your presentation. I totally agree with everything you're saying. I I don't like that Vermont is number one in a couple areas, and and I do think that the administration could do more. Why do you suppose Rutland not Rutland, although Rutland is has had some issues. Why is Burma the number one state in the country for homeless? Since why do you that attributes [Frank Nack ]: Yeah. We're not number one, but we're both. We're number four in terms of, yeah, in terms of per capita. No. I think a lot there's a lot of reasons for the housing crisis in Vermont. We've not built the level that we need. So BHFA has done a housing analysis in terms of how many homes we need. I think it was twenty six to thirty thousand over the next five years. So we have a huge gap in the number of homes available, and within that, we have a huge gap in which that are currently affordable housing. We see a rising increase between the cost of housing and wages in Vermont. You know, post COVID, more people moving into our state, which has obviously, you know, shrunk the kind of availability. We have, you know, short term rentals. So, like, which is not a global problem, but particularly in, like, ski towns, like Ludlow or Stowe, that you have, like, I think, you know, fifty plus percent, which, you know, short term rentals or seasonal rentals. So there's kind of myriad factors that have created the crisis. But I think from our perspective, you know, to ultimately solve the crisis, we need to invest in permanent affordable housing. So there's also, you know, regulatory things that we could do. Like, we support you know, right now, one of the big issues on the regulatory side is the ability on the appeals process for, like, you you know, one or two individuals basically hang up a development project for years on end, which ends up drive massively driving up the cost. And so we really support, like, capping the length of time on appeal. So, like, say, six months, you know, you can appeal a project, but you can't drag it out for years. And so I think there's a whole host of things that have created the crisis. But, you know, I think one of the things that I would urge the legislature to do is to kind of think about, like, you know, regulatory reform is important, but it's not the ultimate solution. You know, we need funding, and to also make that kind of long term investment. And so, like, oftentimes throughout this, there's, like, one time funding here, one time funding there. Particularly, like, on the development side, it's like, how do you how do you commit to a long term project if you all if you have never had, like, clear consistency of understanding where your funds are and what the funds are gonna be. On the homelessness response side, like, how do you manage a staff when so many of the staff are funded by one time positions and don't have that job security and don't feel? And so you can't, like, kind of manage year to year, and so you're always kind of triaging. And I think kind of really ensuring that we are having that long term vision, investing in that long term vision is really important. [Mary Howard ]: I mean, we had a housing problem before COVID Mhmm. To start with. So it's just [Frank Nack ]: Yeah. So it's definitely gotten yeah. COVID just kinda crisis. [Mary Howard ]: Worse. Mhmm. [Ashley Bartley ]: Thank you. Sorry. [Mark Mahali ]: I'm gonna go [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Sure. No. It's okay. I'm gonna go [Ashley Bartley ]: to rep Burrows then rep Parsons, and then we'll go to rep pays out. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Do you have any kind of scatter map of outside of Chittenden County where I just wondered whether there was a pattern of higher rates of homelessness in different areas of our state. Do you have a map like that? [Frank Nack ]: We have so I could send the point in time count, which the Vermont point in time count that we released last, I think it was May or June, has an appendix which goes through by county what the homelessness numbers look like. And then I could also pull more recent coordinated entry, which is, like, our homelessness response kind of database and provide that to the committee, [Elizabeth Burrows ]: which is that room. Yeah. [Frank Nack ]: Yeah. [Mark Mahali ]: I can definitely do that. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Great. I I just don't have a sense of where, I mean, obviously, Washington County, we're familiar with because we're here. But I don't really have a sense of exactly where we're in the other counties. Almost people are located. [Frank Nack ]: Yep. So in terms of this physical location where folks are at Yeah. What towns and Oh, we can definitely do that. Like, within the town, you know Yeah. Some folks are in shelters or in hotels. Some are living, you know, in parks. And so we may not know the folks who are unsheltered homeless at this point exactly where they are. But we can give you the numbers to the best of our ability through coordinated entry. [Ashley Bartley ]: So, for example, [Elizabeth Burrows ]: in my area, there's no homeless shelter or overnight warm you know, shelter. There's no emergency program. So it, I think, would be pretty hard to count on the point in time count where people actually are. I wondered, how do you account for that has gotta be a pretty big population as well. [Frank Nack ]: Yeah. And that's one of the reasons that we know that pit count is an undercount. Yeah. So we can still count. So it's it's easiest, obviously, to count the folks who are in the shelter who are who are in the GA program because they're in a physical place. But, you know, our our our, homelessness response providers across the state have built trusted relationships with folks who are unsheltered homeless, and so kind of know where folks are and can kind of get out and engage with them and try and connect them with services. Like, we don't have the services we need, but can connect them to the extent that we can with services. So they built relationships. They know where some folks are and can kind of get to those folks, but there's a limit to that because of capacity. And so we know partly where folks are who are unsheltered homeless, but not everywhere. So our coordinated entry number should reflect some, but not all. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Okay. So, for example, the church that opens up next week and is run through volunteers, does that somehow make it into your numbers? [Frank Nack ]: So and as long as they were referred to the system, and I I can't speak with I'm fact specific on this on this specific issue. But in general, when folks when temporary shelters are set up, they're connected with the homelessness, the local housing coalition, which is the kind of lead agent. There's a local lead agency within the local housing coalition that oversees coordinated entry for that jurisdiction, and so they'll get connected in with the system. [Mark Mahali ]: K. Thank you. Definitely. That person? [Frank Nack ]: Thank you. I was just looking into account across the country, and I Judd is just not finding this. So maybe do you happen to know what one, two like, where four you sent? We're number four per per capita. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. [Leonora Dodge ]: That's kinda what math is. Yeah. [Frank Nack ]: Do you know what one two? That is what you're trying to find. New York, Hawaii, and Oregon, I think. Forever obvious. Okay. [Don Charlton ]: Thanks. Okay. It's on No. [Mark Mahali ]: Do you happen [Leonora Dodge ]: to know the percentage out of state that come to Vermont that are homeless? [Frank Nack ]: So I know that number has been sought in a number of different ways. There was actually a digger. I could send you the digger article that was on this. I think it was it was well under five percent. I forget the specific percentage. It was a very, very small percent of folk, and there was two different kind of datasets that you that they cited in that story and the bigger story. But there's no like, we don't have any way of kind of collecting that. The state had done some research a while back a couple years ago, and then I think another organization had done some research on that. But it had basically the same number. It was I forget off of my head, but it was under five percent. Yeah? [Ashley Bartley ]: Sorry. We're gonna do rep dodge, and then you'll be our last question. [Leonora Dodge ]: Thank you. I was wondering if you could speak to how how efficiently the the funds actually get out with all of these massive like, there are so many organizations involved and avenues for, you know, investment and then just direct servant. Yeah. Mhmm. And so, like, do you have any key asks for method, like effectiveness? [Frank Nack ]: So I think OEO, particularly on you know, BHGB and BHFA can talk about some of their their processes for getting the funds out. I know in terms of the HOP and the IRAP side, which goes through OEO, OEO is extremely efficient at kind of getting the dollars out. So kind of getting the proposals that coordinate closely with the two court, continuum of care in Vermont. There are kind of processes through the continuum of care to identify projects. So we have a fairly efficient process. I think part of the problem though is a lot of times those are one time funding one time funds. And so it's like figuring out how do you can spend the one time funds. It can become difficult if we're talking about staffing because, you know, when you're staffing at one, you know, one position, it's harder to hire than if it's a permanent position. And oftentimes, too, the rates of pay are, you know, very low. Like, you know, we we have a living wage problem even within the service provider community because the cost of living in Vermont has gone so high. And so we're talking about really, really difficult work. And so I think, you know, in a perfect world, we would see drastic increases in terms of the funds that are going into the service provider so that they can pay higher and more competitive wages. We're just in a really tight fiscal environment right now around that. [Leonora Dodge ]: Just, like, as a follow-up, for instance, I know that there were people who were I hope that's housing being built. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Yeah. The [Leonora Dodge ]: The, like, emergency family housing vouchers, like, you know, I'm in CVOEO land, and there was a family that was that was about, you know, imminently about to be homeless. And they were given a voucher, and they never found an apartment to use it in. And so, like, are there any are there any spots where you're seeing that money is available and can't get spent? [Frank Nack ]: Absolutely. So on the [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Okay. Thanks. [Frank Nack ]: Side in particular, but the the problem is because we don't have units available to move people into. And so, like, with section eight vouchers, for example, there's a set kind that you can have that, and we're having to get back vouchers Yeah. Because there's no place for people to move into. So that's why, think from our perspective, all three of these buckets are so important and why we need to adequately fund BHCB, why we need to adequately fund BHFA so we can build a solution so that we're not giving back vouchers because we don't have units. [Leonora Dodge ]: Thank you. [Don Charlton ]: Going back to the question representative has about this five percent influx. This is really salient data for our constituents. I think there is a conception among a lot of constituents that, of course, we have a lot of homeless people in the state because we're giving them a hotel rooms. This is what I hear. But being able to answer that cogently and help our constituents understand that ninety five percent of the people we're looking at are Vermont residents whose situations have just crashed. Yes. [Frank Nack ]: And I I [Don Charlton ]: it shouldn't be the case, but I think that that will generate more support among constituents, especially the ones who are Yeah. Okay. Keep calling on to their taxes Yep. To know who they are. Inside helping protect their [Frank Nack ]: their neighbors. Yes. Exactly. And we can so I will circulate that bigger story in McDonald. To to y'all. They did actually did a pretty in-depth piece. I think they included, like, a thirty first a thirty minute podcast along with it. It kind of went into that rhetoric and then look how it's, you know, what the data actually shows. I mean, I think one of the really interesting things in that was they were interviewing an expert from Washington state, a professor from, I think, Washington state, and he's like, you know, I work in a bunch of states on these issues. I hear that argument being brought up in every state. And so how is it possible that every state, people are coming in from other states take advantage of their great services? And so I think it's just a a talking point that's really gotten pushed, but the evidence in Vermont or in other states, you know, doesn't back it up. But, yeah, I'll get that digger out of it [Don Charlton ]: up to y'all. K. And any any future opportunity to gather data. [Frank Nack ]: Oh, we are that is on our list to figure out how we can gather one hundred percent. [Ashley Bartley ]: Well, thank you so much, Frank. If you could get that information to Mevali, that'd be really helpful. I think there are a few more collections that Repowered has, but I think we do need to move on. So if maybe you two want to connect offline Yes. That'd be great. [Mary Howard ]: Mine isn't exactly a question. It is my understanding that when COVID first hit, that the federal government gave vouchers to people and they could be used in any state, Not just, you know, they could come here from anywhere and be accepted. Could you, provide us by email more information on the issue that Brett Howard just raised? [Leonora Dodge ]: Thank [Mark Mahali ]: you. Definitely. Thank [Ashley Bartley ]: you. All right. Well, again, thank you so much for coming in. And I guess we will move on to our new last. [Frank Nack ]: Thank you all very much. Thank you. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Thank you. [Mark Mahali ]: Sarah, were you and the committee introduced itself? [Sarah Mierhoff ]: No. But I [Mark Mahali ]: Well, we'll introduce ourselves. Have a seat. So this is Sarah Miroff. So why don't you start, and let's go around and introduce ourselves to her. [Ashley Bartley ]: Hi, Sarah. Ashley Bartley, and I represent Fairfax in Georgia. [Leonora Dodge ]: Leonora Dodge, I represent at sixth Town and City of Essex Junction. [Frank Nack ]: Joe Parsons, Newberry Thompson, and [Don Charlton ]: then Brockton. I'm Charlton. Athens, Chester Grafton. [Mary Howard ]: Debbie Dolgen for St. Johnsbury, Kirby, and Concord. Gale Teso, Chittenden, twenty four Chestnut. Mary Howard, Rutland City District six. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Hi. I'm Elizabeth Burrows, and I represent Windsor one, which is Heartland, West Windsor, and Windsor. [Emily Pausnow ]: Emily Kraus now, South Burlington, Chittenden, and Ryan. [Mark Mahali ]: Hello. I'm Mark Mahali. I represent Kalis Plainfield and Marshfield. Welcome. Please state your name for the record. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Thank you. And welcome to you both. [Leonora Dodge ]: Thank you. I appreciate it. May I [Sarah Mierhoff ]: move my chair down a little bit? My feet are dangling. [Frank Nack ]: Okay. That's [Leonora Dodge ]: Welcome to my world. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Yeah. Right? Feels a lot better. [Mark Mahali ]: Normal. Sorry. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Good morning. Thank you so much for having me here. I'm Sarah Mierhoff. I am the new director of advocacy and communications for the Associated General Contractors of Vermont, which for all of our sakes, I will probably abbreviate to AGC Vermont, from here on out. We are, under the umbrella of the National Association General Contractors of America. And in Vermont, we have existed for roughly ninety years, and we represent two hundred twenty four members throughout the entirety of the state. So our members are builders, contractors, member framers, papers, you name it. If folks are building it in Vermont, it's more than likely, that they are one of our members. So Sarah, [Mark Mahali ]: let me just ask a quick question. Do you have any sense as to what percentage of all the contractors who are active are members of AGC? [Sarah Mierhoff ]: I'm not positive, but I can get you the number. [Don Charlton ]: Okay. [Mark Mahali ]: I'll start with that. [Ashley Bartley ]: Thank you. Yeah. Absolutely. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: In terms of our interest in, you know, our platform and how it intersects with your committee, it's probably fairly obvious. Housing, housing, housing. I think it's top of mind for everybody in the state of Vermont now. And I would say that our members' interest in this topic is not just I mean, it's obvious that they have an interest in it because they're building it, of course. But also, I would emphasize for you all that our members are also employers in of themselves, and I have already heard from many members that, like all employers that you hear from, I'm sure, they wanna hire folks, and they have a hard time even retaining and hiring folks because they can't find a place to live. Tail is all this time. Right? I'm just notes here. So in addition to the fact that our members are building the housing and our employers and of themselves, they our members also really care because they're Vermonters and of themselves. I was just on a call with our members, talking about the twenty twenty five legislative session. And, one of our members said that they, of course, wanna build more more housing and businesses in Vermont, but they also don't wanna see Vermont become New Jersey. No offense to New Jersey. But our members really do care about maintaining the, you know, the Vermont that we all, know and love. I think all of us at this table can agree on that. So in terms of what we are hoping to see accomplished this legislative session, I would kind of break it down into three pots, [Emily Pausnow ]: and two of [Sarah Mierhoff ]: them really got hand in hand. Bless you. The first and foremost, permitting and appeals reform. And I'll go more in-depth on each of these in a second here. The second, and I think these really have to go in tangent, is money to to help make the dollars and cents of all of this add up and work. And then third, and it's very difficult to legislate, I will say, upfront is a culture change. So first, I'll get into the probably the weediest and the almost third round of the topics, permitting and appeals. I'm certainly not the first person to sit before you all and tell you that the permitting and appeals process in Vermont can be long and arduous and expensive and unpredictable, and it makes it really difficult for our members to be able to accomplish their jobs in a timely and predictable fashion. I heard from our members that the Home Act last year was a great start to this conversation and that the particularly the loosening of some of our Act two fifty restrictions in the downtown and dense village, town centers was great, but it's of course geographically proportionally relatively restricted right to just a section of Vermont. So first and foremost for our members I mean for folks who are doing business outside of those downtown village and town centers kinda cuts them out from those opportunities. They're not able to take advantage of that, you know, several years long period where these restrictions are alleviated. Also, just Vermonters and of themselves, and I say this as a city girl, I live in Barrie. Not everyone wants to live in a city. And so in terms of building new housing, you know, and not everybody wants to live in a downtown dense area. And then just in terms of the map and, you know, Vermont is a small state, and within that, it's an even smaller portion of the state that is a dense area. I'll take my city of Barrie as an example. Barrie is relatively confined. It's a small geographic area, and it's also geographically and topographically challenged. Right? And so our downtown is small. And then, of course, we had we were just ravaged by the twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four floods. So we're super limited in where we can build within downtown Barrie. So if you expound that upon, you know, the entirety of the state, it it just kind of snowballs. Also, in terms of the the permitting and appeal process, I alluded to this already, but it costs time and resources. That time and resources just ends up being fed back into the just outrageous cost, really, to build a single unit of housing in the state. And then the time and the unpredictability of it, I mean, we are at a point where our members are having to plan so far out in advance for projects. And so if there is there are hiccups along the way, it makes it really difficult to plan for a season, to recruit your workers, to help find housing for your workers. You can see how this all kind of intersects with each other. I was thinking about it this morning as I was making my breakfast. It's kinda like a terrarium, like one of those self containing ecosystems, and it all just feeds into each other. Right? So that's the permitting piece of that. And I think that, again, the HOME Act is a really great first step in that. And I certainly understand the environmental concerns and, you know, motivations for the reason to contain development to dense areas. I think we all really care, especially after what we've seen for the past two summers right in a row, environmental concerns. We're all really sensitive to that. I think that we can do things in a smart way and still in an environment environmentally conscious way to think bigger than just downtown. Second piece, funding. I thought it was great. The the presentation that you heard from Angie yesterday at Downstreet was so prescient. She really got into the weeds of how expensive it is to bill and how even when you can leverage private and public dollars, it is still so cost prohibitive. That example that she gave of the project in Berry, and I promise I don't always talk about Berry. Sorry. Was so relevant because she said, DEW, that's actually one of our members, large, very successful, obviously, for profit developer. They simply couldn't make it work without some kind of subsidy. And I'm very concerned about that being just further exacerbated, particularly at a time when, you know, we may be seeing tariffs coming to pass in the, not too far future, although it's still, I think, too early to say how that might affect Vermont. But the cost of construction materials and labor is just out of this world. I think the first time I heard the number that it costs what five hundred thousand dollars to build a single unit housing my eyes just pop out of my head. [Mark Mahali ]: Right? Sarah, could I ask you Please. Have you been is there any have your member seen a lightning on the cost of construction that is have some materials come down since COVID? [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Yes and no. Because it's so from what I've heard, because it's so influx and also because of supply chain issues are still so unpredictable. I I heard from some members the other day that getting electrical panels, it's like a year long wait or something just to get an electrical panel. And so I think that, there has been some, like, leavening in that situation, but also it's still just logistically really complicated. [Mark Mahali ]: We have a question here. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Yeah. Excited to capture flow. No. Please. [Leonora Dodge ]: And I guess on the other side of that, of the supplies is is obviously the, the labor. And so and we're sure some of the peep some of your members are, like, big contractors that that hire them that themselves are hiring a lot of sub, workers. And I'm, I'm really interested in if you can tell us anything about the growing proportion of, immigrant workers in the in the ranks of our housing builders. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: I'd have to get back to you on the any growing proportion of new American workers, but I will say just very broadly speaking that I know that AGC is really supportive of efforts for safe and legal immigration to allow opportunities for new Americans to participate in the workforce, for sure. Well, we're gonna be waiting a long time for legal immigration reform. So It's a little above my pay grade to be Yes. Alright. [Ashley Bartley ]: Reforms. Well, I I guess I would [Leonora Dodge ]: just say, you know, I I think, like, at least I know that there are several legislators that are interested in trying to find out, like, what how we can how we can help in any way with with removing obstacles because we're we are dependent on that population. That's the only growing population that's actually gonna build our homes. Yeah. Yeah. So so I would just encourage, you know, our witnesses to just keep that keep that in mind as well. Great. And to Mister Ackerman? [Mark Mahali ]: We we have one another question for you. [Emily Pausnow ]: Yeah. Rev Krasna. What would you like? [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Rev Dodge [Emily Pausnow ]: touched on part of my question, but I'm curious [Frank Nack ]: to know [Emily Pausnow ]: about if you have any data to share about out of I I meet with developers and and contractors all the time, and it's my understanding. I'd like to know about the influx of out of state workers being hired and the data on that. And it, you know, I have concerns as rep Dodge stated as well and also about recently in the news some of the conditions that folks are forced into by their employer has raised some flags for me, And, I'd like to know more about that and your organization's response to some of that and making sure that, you know, mom and pop contractors are not undercut by large companies. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: In terms of that data, I'll get back to you. I don't have that right in front of me. I can say just broadly speaking that I think that Vermont is making really good investments in technical education and workforce training and things like that so that we can hire and retain from within the state. I do think there could be more work done. It's probably an issue for another committee. There's more work to be done shortly to to keep folks in the state and, developing a pipeline for, folks in the trades within the state. I hear you on the the housing conditions question, and I will also get back to you on that because I don't have information right in front of me on that. [Mark Mahali ]: I think that's, you know, an issue that's gonna surface here. We don't want to overly burden contractors. We don't want to make life more difficult for small contractors as opposed to large contractors. And every time in any field that we regulate, there is a tendency for our regulation to backfire and that it works for the large entities and doesn't work for the small entities. Nonetheless, we don't want people to be poorly housed and poorly treated. Right. Working and so that's going to be a balancing act. And I think you guys should play a role in helping us think that through. [Frank Nack ]: Yeah, absolutely. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Yeah, For sure. Because none of us wanna see, especially, like you said, mom and pop houses, you know, just completely tied up in regulatory burdens. [Frank Nack ]: Hold on. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Let me just find my place. [Mark Mahali ]: You were in funding. Yes. But in culture, which I am very interested in hearing. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Yes. And so Angie had alluded to yesterday the the cost particularly of connecting new builds with municipal infrastructure is a particularly high burden. And I would just say on the the cost front, I mean, I know that, we are not, as a state flush with the cash that maybe we saw a couple of years ago, thanks to the feds. But I think we can all recognize that housing seems to be the root of so many Vermont issues and so many things feed into it. And so I think investments in housing really does benefit the whole of the state is the kind of plug I would put there. And our members really don't want to only build how, you know, half million dollar houses that, you know, only the wealthy among us can afford. Our members are Vermonters themselves, and they want to see see affordable and workforce housing being built, and they want to have a hand in that. They also have to yeah. They have a bottom line too, and they need to make sure that they're sustaining themselves as well. So at this point in time, because of the extremely high cost of construction, it seems that some, public input is really necessary in order to make those dollars and cents work. And I would say that that first point on permitting and appeals and the second point on funding is really so tied together because neither will work without the other. I mean, you can throw as much money at the issue as you want, but if it takes six years to get a project, you know, even, you know, groundbreaking on it, then we're really not making a meaningful dent in the issue. And vice versa too, of course, if there isn't the money, but there are permitting reforms, then, we're just gonna be kinda treading water. Right? And then the last point on, culture change. And I I know that you can't legislate culture. That's for sure. But one thing that I heard so loudly from my members when I had that call with them last week was that they're seeing when they are working on projects and going through, you know, trying to get proposals and community buy in, it is still so difficult for them to get that community buy in. There's a lot of nimbyism, not in my backyard ism. And I don't know how we we take a crack at that really within this building. I mean, maybe it's how we come to the table ourselves and talk to one another. Maybe there is are some legislative initiatives. But that certainly seems to be, an issue still for folks who really just want the best for the state and want safe, affordable housing for everyone and wanna have a hand in building it. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: Please, is it really nimbyism, though, or is it a strain of xenophobia? [Frank Nack ]: Maybe a [Sarah Mierhoff ]: little bit of column a, a little bit of column b. Really? Is how I would respond to that. Yeah. There there's a little bit of both. I mean, I came from out of state. Right? I'm a proud Flatlander, and I felt very welcomed here. I also recognize, you know, the privilege that I had in coming to Vermont as a newcomer. With a professional job, having moved from out of state, took me a while, but I was able to find somewhere to live. Not everybody has that same experience, and it would certainly be easier for folks to find somewhere to live if we simply had more housing. Right? Well, I [Elizabeth Burrows ]: think that, you know, in general, Vermonters are really willing to accept and incorporate people who move to Vermont who want to dig into their communities. Mhmm. Because I think that's really the paramount thing. This is just my opinion, obviously. Sure. Really the paramount thing, but it's hard to embrace somebody until they're already there. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Yes. Yeah. Absolutely. I will say on the the nimbyism point, because I hear you on the kind of the dark underbelly of that perhaps being xenophobia. Right? There is also just, like, I feel a kind of reverence in Vermont for our landscapes and our pastoral, you know, appearance and everything like that. And it's really all lovely and quaint, but also, you know, people need somewhere to live. Right? So I I think it could be a little bit of both for sure. [Mark Mahali ]: One of the things that you might think about is one of the ways to, to address this is to educate people that new housing doesn't have to be ugly. And that and the way to do that is to take people to look at projects. [Ashley Bartley ]: Yeah. [Mark Mahali ]: And I think AGC could be a partner in that effort. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, some of our members are doing I was just actually meeting with somebody from Vermont Timber Framers and he was joining pictures of one of his latest projects and it's gorgeous. I mean it's beautiful and, it's done in a lovely and historic way with with Joyce and all of that and so it looks like it's been there for one hundred years really and, yeah, not every new housing project needs to look like a shipping container. Right? Yeah. [Mark Mahali ]: So We have about two more minutes. We have about two more minutes. Do you have sorry. I'm gonna wrap up. Or do you have a question? Go ahead. [Don Charlton ]: A quick question. In the in your assessment, is the design of affordable housing such that it lends itself to a healthy community within, say, that affordable housing project. In other words, I'm thinking back to the projects, Boston and New York, and they have a long standing reputation for just one. The way they were built, they got people under a roof, but it was not conducive to help the community. So it's an add on expense sometimes to create shared space and and some of just kind of things that will lend themselves to the growth and how the community is at part of the design consideration. Well, because if it's already half a million dollars a unit Mhmm. Is there an appetite? Is there anybody paying attention to are we putting up? And I think this is some of the new medium is section eight has, you know, a reputation in neighborhoods with her police departments. How are we how are we avoiding that going forward after treating the same problems? [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Very anecdotally, I would say that our members definitely care about that and, I don't think anyone wants especially if you think about some of the the historic kind of stereotypes of that sort of housing that you're talking about. I mean, so much of that also goes into the issue of redlining and how there has been systemic racism and and development and construction for, in years prior. For sure. Absolutely. Especially in some more advanced metropolitan areas like you're referring to. I would say that in terms of mandating any sort of, you know I don't know. For instance, new developments need to have bike paths or something like that. I'm just throwing it out there as an example. That would add perhaps a a level of regulatory burden that would make just make it more to another box check. Right? But in terms of I mean, like I said, our members are Vermonters in of themselves. I don't think anybody has any interest in, you know, making Vermont strip mall America. Right? Yeah. [Frank Nack ]: Thank you. [Mark Mahali ]: That all very much. Yes. [Sarah Mierhoff ]: Thank you so [Mark Mahali ]: much. I'll tell you what, why don't we take a five. With the five minutes break? I [Emily Pausnow ]: love that. [Leonora Dodge ]: You're always welcome to sit down. No. We [Emily Pausnow ]: do not have [Mark Mahali ]: yet enough chairs for more than one person. You can add someone. Do you wanna [Frank Nack ]: I don't need to join the [Mark Mahali ]: And I don't know, dude. You know, and I would try to Cincinnati and people are useful. Say everybody who'd been ever been a colonel was always a colonel. [Leonora Dodge ]: Oh, from mayor.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-01-15 - 9AM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: