SmartTranscript of S.127 Committee of Conference – 2025-05-29 – 9:10AM

[Chair Marc Mihaly]: Kristen, RB five. Welcome everybody to the House Senate Conference on S-one hundred and twenty seven, the omnibus housing bill and it is the twenty ninth of May, Thursday and here we are still. What we're gonna do this morning is first thing is the the senate presented to us yesterday a really well thought through, thank you very much, complete proposal, which really helped us. We met last night and have a proposal to give to you. The limitation is although we will be using this side by side, the problem is the side by side only shows where we still disagree. Oh. And the the bill isn't yellow lined. So what we're gonna do is actually just walk through our list of what we're doing because there's [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: a number of areas where we're saying that we're gonna work with your wife. Okay? This proposal that we have from you is only on tax increment plan. Yeah. Although we can talk [Chair Marc Mihaly]: a little bit about other stuff. Okay. Yeah. This is I'm focusing on today. This morning, we're focusing on the chip. Okay. And so I'm going to ask and so [Emilie Krasnow]: You know, actually, it shows There's a show. Right? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. It shows a different sense [Emilie Krasnow]: of how well this is our new This is for the Jonkisch. [John Gray]: Yeah. Let's have John introduce what we're looking at. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Alright. John, you wanna introduce am I a mischaracterized No. No. [Joseph Parsons]: Not at all. So John Gray up to lead us to counsel. What you have is a side by side that shows the differences between the senate proposal from yesterday related to chip and the health proposal related to chip from this morning that's new to you you also have a standalone doc unhighlighted that is just the health proposal for the chip sections probably most useful to look at the side by side if the request is to see a doc that shows the changes against the house's former position I have something that can do that but I think what is most useful is probably just seeing the differences between the two proposals the thing that you won't see in the side by side is evidence other than what you know to be the case from the different yesterday of where concessions have been made because those will not be highlighted sections. Right? Those are changes that the health proposal is accepted from the senate proposal. It doesn't show up as highlighted because those are not the same. So I'm happy to explain what those are because I can just walk through depending on how you guys [Chair Marc Mihaly]: are perfect. What I'll ask Charlie to do is to walk us through the you partition issue by issue, which is the some of which I guess could be characterized this concession. Yes. Yes. We'll take it from there. Okay. How are you? Good morning. [John Gray]: So good to see you. Right out of Bushcare, isn't it? Fact. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. In fact, wonder whether we've gotten to be looking at yesterday's side by side just which will show area so language that we are agreeing to Well, So do it any way you want. Thanks, Jerry. [John Gray]: So, this just shows remaining points of disagreement. So we wanna talk about the things we do agree on. One is we're we are adopting your version of affordable housing. So as you have described it, and you'll see that on page one. We still are maintaining the house position of in perpetuity. That is our proposal back to you. So that and takes us through that first one, improvements, on page two. Slow you down for a minute. Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So in other words, yours, you know, your schemata of how do you define affordable housing, your mixed income, you know, the excuse me, the low, moderate, middle income, all that we're adopting. [John Gray]: Okay. On page two, in terms of improvements, we have added the word reconstruction. On page two, you'll see improvements means, and we really looked at what the definitions were within the TIF rules to look at that. Reconstruction is part of that. And then we just removed everything that was limiting or describing those specific things. It's fairly it does not limit those. So as long as it's in service of the chapter to create low and moderate housing goes back to nineteen o seven, the section of the bill. And so that's very expansive. So [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. Thanks. [John Gray]: Okay. Keep going. The purpose, which is [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Nineteen o section nineteen o seven. Give us a page of your price. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Page four. Sorry. [John Gray]: Just pass the definitions. No. Oh, it's pass the definitions. Oh, it's okay. The purpose is on page four. [Joseph Parsons]: Of the side by side. [John Gray]: Of the side by side. Sorry. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Oh, that was I [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: thought you're working from there. Brad? [John Gray]: Page four of the side by side. So we accepted your proposal to remove the word pilot. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: K? So in [Emilie Krasnow]: the interest of time, we should just go to the disagreements because these are Well, [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think I know. [Emilie Krasnow]: I think [Chair Marc Mihaly]: it's important to hear what they have what they have agreed to. Sorry. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: I I'm sorry. I was on this. So Yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I started the side by side. We are going with the we are removing pilot on page four. So there is no difference between your purpose and our purpose. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: I don't [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Look at the bottom of very bottom [Emilie Krasnow]: there's no difference. Oh, I'm sorry. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: I'm really sorry. I'm at this point. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Got it. We're we're going through this way because it doesn't necessarily jump out where we made a change that where we agree. Okay. Go on. [John Gray]: And number five, we are still proposing to include in the description of the housing development site and any immediately we're not agreeing to end any immediately contiguous parcels. Number [Chair Marc Mihaly]: k. [John Gray]: Page seven. Oh, so I'm missing it. Seven. We still have in here the concept of bonafide domicile and perpetuity, and that is another point of disagreement where we have. The but for, we agreed to are we there already? Yeah. On the but for, which is on page eight. That's good. Yeah. Is it, PJ? Yeah. The test. I've seen So ours adopts what you had proposed. So it takes out all the different three [Chair Marc Mihaly]: guideposts. Remember, we had more language Right. And which we thought was terrifying. We thought was obfuscating, and so we're committing it and going through that. [John Gray]: At the bottom of page eight, a favorite of mine to change criterion to criteria because there's more than one. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. I I I'm thrilled. I get thrilled. It's really fortunate. Yeah. [John Gray]: And that's too. Yes. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Where we're told them that. [Emilie Krasnow]: Good. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. He slipped it in. [John Gray]: And then on page nine, because we're talking about how to identify the amount of this floor space. So it gives VBTSE the ability to either determine it's at least sixty five percent of the floor area of the projected housing development's dedicated housing, or the projected housing development meaningfully addresses the purpose of section nineteen oh seven, which goes back to the nineteen oh seven secondtion of the purpose on this page. Sorry. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: It's fine to me. Okay. So I still So we have a we have a second a second Yep. Provision, which basically said they have discretion. [John Gray]: So if it doesn't meet the sixty five percent, I was like, alright. Can you just determine that it still meaningfully contributes to meeting the housing needs? Question about the sixty five percent. Does it I don't think it does, but does a parking garage count as floor area in the building? Perfect. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Good question. That is exact that is exactly the reason that we think that sixty five percent is gonna have to be defined in guidelines or something like that by Vepsy because every time you use that kind of thing, that's exactly the kind of question [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: why maybe Which is why we didn't want we [Chair Marc Mihaly]: didn't wanna we didn't wanna get into the detail of of it. I mean, I think there's a strong argument that, you know, what if it's podium parking? What if it's a separate you know, I mean, that's the kind of thing they can deal with. But then they could probably deal with with figuring out Yeah. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: The rest of it without a percent [Chair Marc Mihaly]: per square. We think that there's we in this proposal, there's a percent because we think there needs to be some clear definition, and we don't think substantial does it. [John Gray]: On the bottom of page nine, we still are retaining the idea of a cap using the lifetime education property increment retention. So you'll see that on additional points of agreements disagreements on page ten. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Sorry. So it's we haven't changed the cap. No. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: I just can't read it. In the lifetime [John Gray]: Education property tax increment retention. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: That's a definition that excuse me. That's just part of what's necessary for the app to obtain the cap. Yeah. [John Gray]: On page ten, after our discussions yesterday, we agreed about having a longer timeline for FAPC to approve or deny an application. So not later than sixty days following the site visit conducted as part of the application's review, provided the council may extend this period by not more than thirty days in extenuating circumstances. So that gives enough to that two months. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: But sixty days after the site visit. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. Right. With the And an additional thirty days if they need it. If possible. Yeah. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Sorry, Chris. What were you saying? [Speaker 6 ]: No. I was just saying with the addition of thirty days if they need it for an extension. [John Gray]: Right. K. We still have alright. The batch four was still in there. And then the December thirty first. We still have in this proposal to you the the program length at five years. And then we yep. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Sorry. I lost. [John Gray]: Oh, I'm sorry. Page ten. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Yeah. I'm still on [Chair Marc Mihaly]: page ten. [Emilie Krasnow]: Yep. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: And so you're still on you're you're still at two twenty thirty one? Correct. [John Gray]: Yep. Two thousand and thirty one. Two thousand and thirty one? Yes. And I'm sorry. The item above number one, that was the meets the buck four test, the process requirements, either of the project criteria as, Senator Meadows pointed out, either that sixty five percent or meaningfully contributes, to the housing needs of the community. Yeah. So it's an either or in that situation. So, the limit is still forty million. I believe, Pat Titterton from the joint fiscal office has offered to meet with anybody and talk through the math. If you wanna go over that, that might be a better use of time outside of our committee of conference. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Also, it's it's not literally in here, but you all know there's an extra five million that the government made, but it's forty million plus forty million a year plus an extra five million a year if necessary. [Emilie Krasnow]: Just to be clear, the spreadsheet that Pat did was for sixty percent increment retention, which [Chair Marc Mihaly]: is now [Emilie Krasnow]: no longer in your proposal either. [John Gray]: That's true? Right. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. [John Gray]: Okay. That can be adjusted. Alright. Okay. So now we are on to page go through twelve, thirteen, and on to page fourteen. You had asked for a different increment retention of seventy five and eighty five. We were at sixty and eighty. We came up to sixty five and eighty. That's our proposal at this point. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Sorry. And that is [John Gray]: On page fourteen on line Yeah. Paragraph b, subsection one. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Is that right? One and two. Two. Whatever's for you. Subsection b. Alright. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: B one and two, you've got sixty five percent and [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Eighty percent. Yeah. Percent. [John Gray]: And that's that section, so it's all reprinted there. And so page seventeen. Alright. This one is I need help with on this one. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Oh, good. You can't read it either? That describe, you mean, the bottom line? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. On the criteria. This particular [John Gray]: Yes. Okay. Right. So on the report annually, so we're looking for a report that describes the common reasons applicants to the community and housing infrastructure program failed to secure approval for tax increment financing, and includes for each housing infrastructure project approved pursuant to the subchapter of the following. Now we're on top of page eighteen. So we had discussions about really wanting to know what's working and what's not, not just the statistics on the ones that were approved. So it's not a necessarily detailed analysis, but it's we're looking for feedback. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. Charlie's working or not working. Feedback. That's what's working at Hudson. [John Gray]: Sorry. Yes, Hunter? Charlie, on the bottom of page seventeen [Emilie Krasnow]: Yeah. [Speaker 6 ]: We're talking about project projects that failed to secure. And then number one is the date of approval. [John Gray]: Yes. That's on the the entire report. [Joseph Parsons]: Oh, okay. Okay. Thought it stopped. That's the ones that failed. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Gotcha. Okay. Gotcha. For for the ones that didn't you know? So I'll just get that different capacity. Right. Or, you know, why they did you know, was it was it that they couldn't demonstrate to to produce the Internet? Was it that what was it? I just wanna know what's going on. We can fix Yeah. [John Gray]: And if you remember on page eighteen, there is an item that's missing because it was something that we took out. That was our requirement that the report include all the units that have been sold and offered. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: No way. [John Gray]: So that was problematic language that you had pointed out to us, so we adopted what you had proposed. And then go with the number five on the right hand side. As you can see, that's sales price for initial offering to renting housing units. Right. And then the other difference are the eleven that you had suggested we agreed to, which is an evaluation of the amount of brandless growth attributable to housing development and the amount of brandless growth attributable to value appreciation. And C is still the sunset of January fifteenth two thousand and thirty one. We changed the date to because that was errantly written as two thousand and thirty, so it was caught by alleged counsel to to align with the other part. So and then, again, on nineteen, one of my favorite changes is changing criterion to criteria. Yep. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: What is meaning to know what scratch is? [John Gray]: And on page twenty, if we go to that, you'll see the removal of the shall for rulemaking. And it is really there, because of assurances that it was just a normal part of the process. We asked the Vermont Economic Progress Council to issue guidance for the implementation of the subchapter on or before November first two thousand twenty five. I imagine they may be able to issue it sooner than that based on the discussions we've had this done. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Are you there? Are you there? Yeah. So [Emilie Krasnow]: just how we thought was that the plan, if this works Yeah. That you'll be starting to implement January one. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: That's true. [Emilie Krasnow]: So then if you work backwards, you're gonna need some guidelines for people to understand how the application is gonna work and [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. [Emilie Krasnow]: And what they can do. So that's why we put a, like, a November one deadline that you think that you can do it quicker or you need more time. But without them, sooner they get done, the sooner that applicants get those guidelines, the easier it would be for them to apply. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: And I see that Sam has walked in the room. I would hope then they could be distilled and translated in some ways for not that you're uneasy to understand, for our nouns and all municipalities so that we make it really something that is useful and [John Gray]: the last thing that we have not changed at this point is the sunset of TIF. So that's still at December thirty first two thousand thirty one. So that is our counter proposal on Chip. Chip. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: As as to non chip. Sorry. Where [John Gray]: Not highlighted because it was not different. Yep. You don't have a countervailing also. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: And just for my I'm sorry. I'm just slow there. This is what I can do. We had a fire alarm with the capital policy. So anything that happens to me right now today, you have to predict. Awesome. So where is the sunset? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Berry Berry Animal. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Berry Berry. Sunset. Right. Okay. Got it. That's it. [Emilie Krasnow]: Can I ask a question of the affordable housing community? Yes. Going back to page seven, I just see Chris. I think BHFA is watching as possible. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Oh, I Okay. Case you're not here. [Emilie Krasnow]: So on page seven, where it says any housing unit within the housing development be offered exclusively as a bona fide domicile in perpetuity. Or I think it was represented to us yesterday that this exists elsewhere in statute. I [John Gray]: don't think that was ever represented. [Emilie Krasnow]: So this is a new concept? [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: It is our petition. It it it's an but it's a new concept, and it's one I'm not sure housing community supports. Okay. [Emilie Krasnow]: I'm just asking. Do you is this is this how you draft spending affordable housing language, a bona fide domicile in perpetuity? [Emilie Krasnow]: That doesn't sound familiar to me. But [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Chris, for the record. Chris Donnelly with. Thank you. [Emilie Krasnow]: Did did you consult with the affordable housing community in drafting this language ways and means? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: No. Because it's about it's not about affordable housing. [Emilie Krasnow]: I Did you talk to anyone in the housing community? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yes. Who was that? I don't I don't think that cross examination about this is really meaningful at this point. It's our position. We've given you where we are. Yeah. No. If you disagree with it, then make it counter [Emilie Krasnow]: I mean, I I think it's helpful to know who you talked to to write this language, but I don't think it came out of your committee. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think this [Emilie Krasnow]: is a piece of this is [Chair Marc Mihaly]: This is part of ways and means. I [Emilie Krasnow]: Adopted by the house. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: The other the other issues are the non CHIPs issues I just wanna mention. Let's let's I don't it's not worth it at the moment. The reason is when you go through it, you'll see the two major issues that are out there are appeals [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Right. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And I need to talk to Ellen. And I haven't I've asked Ellen to come by, see if she can come by, but she hasn't. So when I talked to Ellen There's a reference. See how we can come back to you. And the I have to talk to representative Burrows about the issue having to do with universal design universal design. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Hear from Chad this morning from VHFA. Okay. And so I don't go away. So but, I [Chair Marc Mihaly]: mean, we're I can't do that here. I need to just talk with each of these people, and then when we get back together, we'll be in a position talking about that. [Emilie Krasnow]: I still I think it's a relevant question to ask who weighs and means heard from to draft bonafide domicile in perpetuity. [John Gray]: Senator Ram, I think we expressed yesterday that our intent was to make sure that any public funds used to create housing would be for primary housing in perpetuity. That was the position of the Ways and Means Committee, or that is the position of the House as voted by the House. [Emilie Krasnow]: But you didn't hear from anybody? [John Gray]: We took a lot of testimony. I can't tell you specifically who testified in that specific word or that concept, but we took a lot of testimony over the weeks and months. [Emilie Krasnow]: It would be a very new housing concept, so it it is relevant to us if you didn't hear that this is a phrase commonly used in any of our housing policy. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Or in fact And [Emilie Krasnow]: we have many other affordable housing grant programs that don't use this language. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I understand. I've practiced law in this area for thirty years, and I have seen many restrictions placed on properties using a simple covenant. A covenant is a very common way of doing things. [Emilie Krasnow]: Have you seen bonafide domicile and perpetuity? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: It doesn't matter. It's the same thing. It's easy. Banks, lawyer the banks, the property lawyers, and the real estate agents are the ones who effectively administer it. [Emilie Krasnow]: And did not testify on this. Yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think we should. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: So do that. Yeah. We're good. Yeah. But the non chip, it we're down to just the appeals and universal study and everything else. [Emilie Krasnow]: I have some language on immigrant care housing that Cameron worked on. I have confirmed that the landlords association it works for. I have not confirmed with migrant justice that it works for them, but I think we're getting closer. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. [Emilie Krasnow]: And that's you have that. Our position [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Is that the Our position is to stick with the language in one twenty seven. That is to just list the three options, not showing any preference for any one of them one layer of the [Emilie Krasnow]: That's still in this. It's section two as we discussed yesterday. Yep. That's the change. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: It's the number two is the challenge in the, fair housing. [Emilie Krasnow]: It's on page nine. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Page nine of the [Emilie Krasnow]: Whatever my proposal signed by signed. You. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: But no. It's just the issue was in in number two, which is highlighted in yellow, which we need I think we need to update that language. [John Gray]: Is it a position of or [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. This is we've left it. We'd love to see your proposal. [Emilie Krasnow]: That's right. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Yeah. And I think Pam has [Chair Marc Mihaly]: right now. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. Pam has Thank you. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I'm sorry. So at this point, at this point, I think we should pray. Right. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: And I I just wanted to say on universal design, Chad did confirm that they had supported the notion that it be very focused. But I sent off Chad's comments to my devoucher, so we may hear that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Alright. Can I just add ask one more question about bona fide, domicile in perpetuity? Did you [Speaker 6 ]: hear anything in ways and means about how that affects value for the homeowner? Because, you know, I've been in real estate deals where Yeah. People won't go forward with something based on covenants that are out there. [John Gray]: Yeah. So we didn't and then my personal experience is working with a nonprofit that creates housing permanent housing for permanent residents, and that in looking at a deed restriction to restrict it to just primary residence does have an effect on value. It does. We did not receive testimony on that, but this is that program is copied over after programs that are unveiled, also in Bozeman, other places throughout the country, to protect primary housing. In terms of the impact on market value, it varies. Some of those programs actually have a market unto themselves, and it's a very fast turnover market. [Speaker 6 ]: Did you hear anything about, you know, if it has to be a bonafide domicile, did you hear anything about folks that, you know, have an older state and maybe they wanna go to Florida for the wintertime so they're not gonna be a full time Vermont resident? Would that kick them out of that housing that they're in? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: No. They could rent it out, but they can't rent it out short term. I think that but to answer in the spirit of what you're saying, yes, I do. My own view is that I agree with Charlotte. It affects value. And in fact, one of the things we're dealing with in Vermont is this explosion of short term rentals is because short term rentals generally do create, you know, they're more profitable. So if we want to regulate in any way short term rentals, we're going to be reducing property [John Gray]: value. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: From what they theoretically can be. It's just a choice. If we don't do that, well, then we are stuck with the short term rentals. It's one or the other. Or seasonal. I mean, because I would say [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: short term rental and seasonal [Chair Marc Mihaly]: ownership is really huge. Yeah. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Eighteen percent or seven percent. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Right. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: The other piece I just wanted to bring up in the non chip stuff was the VHFA language on off-site construction. They if you see Chad's email to all of us this morning, they do not support keeping the language in if there's no money. The HFA. The report? Yeah. I'm just saying there are two pieces. The first piece was about confirming that they had supported the very focused universal design language, and the second piece was if the HFA does not have the capacity, we would kindly ask the conference committee to remove this section of s one twenty seven unless there are resources made available to complete the work. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. We'll have to I think we have to talk to them. Assume for your purposes that it's in because that is a is a complete one hundred and eighty degree change of their position. I wanna know more I wanna know more about it. Okay. [Emilie Krasnow]: Yeah. That's that's what they told us. That if there were no resources, that's why we [Chair Marc Mihaly]: took that off. What they told us. So I'd like to There we go. There we go. [Emilie Krasnow]: It's just not a misrepresentation. No. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I'm not saying it's a misrepresentation. I know that. I would never think that. No. Absolutely. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Alright. Okay. We are going to go off and confer and talk to and do our vote on Pinskode, and then when do we wanna reconvene? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think that Whenever you're ready. You wanna pick a time an estimated time and then the excess. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: I'll say eleven thirty. Okay. I think that's safe. Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Alright. [Emilie Krasnow]: As long as we have counsel. [Joseph Parsons]: I don't know what my life will be like. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. [Joseph Parsons]: I'm on right now. I'm I'm I'm told that things are happening and I need to talk to someone, but I am here now. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: Okay. Might you join us in the cloakroom Yes. Twenty minutes? [Emilie Krasnow]: Let's do it. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley]: That's even on the same floor, and you have to go by the slideshow. So if you have any downtime, make sure you check out the slideshow. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. We can now we're in the steps and

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of S.127 Committee of Conference – 2025-05-29 – 9:10AM

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