SmartTranscript of S.127 Committee of Conference – 2025-05-29 – 2:10PM

[Chair Marc Mihaly]: Welcome everybody back to the House Senate Conference Committee on out s one twenty seven, the omnibus housing bill. It's still the twenty ninth, Thursday, and we received the house conferees received from the senate conferees a response to our response. And now the house is going to go over our response to your response. So Tennis. So you want to bring it up? [John Gray]: Let's do it. John Gray, office of Legislative Council. Hopefully clear here. So, again, like earlier today, the changes you're gonna see highlighted are changes against the last draft so these will be changes against the senate proposal. So the first thing to note is in our affordability contract, the house is acceding to the senate's durational requirement for the affordability piece. This will be picked up both here and in the moderate income housing development that's that preserve affordability until all indebtedness has been retired for the project. So you're not going to see any highlighting because that's agreeing with the that's agreement between the house and senate conferees. Same piece on moderate income housing development, same durational requirement, and that's pages three and four. The first change you're actually going to see is in the housing infrastructure agreement section which is on page seven. And this is the much discussed subdivision four related to primary residency. What you'll recall from the Senate proposal earlier today was there's a two pronged approach which distinguished between owner occupied and rental housing and said that for owner occupied you would need to ensure that it's initially offered exclusively as a primary residence and that for rental, for for rental housing it would be for the duration of the, until that indebtedness is retired. What you see the house proposing here is just applying the same durational requirement to both owner occupied and rental housing so that's what this subdivision for [Chair Marc Mihaly]: is [John Gray]: and it's saying provide terms to ensure that it's off the any housing unit is offered exclusively as a primary residence until all indebtedness for the housing infrastructure project of which that housing department is part has been retired and really the way to think about it is earlier there was this distinguishing between owner occupied and rental and it's applying the same durational requirement that the senate had proposed for rental housing also to owner occupied. So it would apply across all categories which is why you now just see one sentence rather than two prongs. [Speaker 2 ]: So we might not have addressed it in our proposal to you, but my one of my concerns was always that we're asking the municipality to do this. [Speaker 3 ]: And and it needs to be the housing department, at least, like [Speaker 2 ]: I mean, the terms and sufficient remedies or the an ordinance, this I think we have the only way that anyone's gonna be able to do this outlined in the next section. So I I don't think we're in disagreement. I just think we not try to ask for other terms and remedies. I mean, who are you asking? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: To clarify. K. Let's clarify something. Okay. What we're talking about here is the not talking about the low, moderate, middle, mid, mid income. [Speaker 3 ]: I know. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. We're talking about oh, Yeah. There. We're clarified. Yeah. Okay. So this is the [Speaker 3 ]: primary regimens. Okay? Mhmm. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: We, in our committee, added if the municipality so elects an ordinance, actually, in response to our sense that towns, while they didn't like this, they wanted flexibility as to how to do it. One way they can do it is they could put in a in their contract that all housing has to have a a covenant that runs with the land. And then it's just they don't they're not doing it. It's just happening because it's in the contract. If I'm a developer that I I'm the one they have a contract with and I'm the developer, then I put the I when I sell houses or rent houses, the. But I also we wanted to allow the municipality if this was a municipality wanted to adopt ordinance to do it and enforce it. It's it could but it doesn't have to. So that's why the phrase if the municipality so elects was put in just to give them an option. So if you use It was it's just runs with the land. And the question of who enforces it down the road if, you know, their son and neighbor wants to complain about it, then the town could enforce the covenant. I think there'd probably be a private right enforcement. [Speaker 2 ]: You don't need language that says provide terms, remedies, or a municipal ordinance for it to be flexible. What we have done at the end is and that you seem to have accepted is [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Sorry. [John Gray]: The sub b is actually an error on my part. I meant to delete that. This was trying to consolidate into one section. You're you're talking about subdivision b on line nineteen. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Right. Or That's if you're referring to that that page. [John Gray]: Be gone. I just texted Cameron to [Speaker 2 ]: rental housing? [John Gray]: Yeah. Because it's now being brought together in the house's proposal. It's that either owner occupied or rental [Chair Marc Mihaly]: language. Which is I'm just gonna go on for a minute. Just a minute. So Big b. Big b. It's sold in the offer. I know we're saying it's gone, but I still wanna look at your line. Okay. I could that's okay. It's offered exclusively. It has been retired. [John Gray]: It's the Proviso. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Provided that this completion can be verified. The one thing we could do here could you go back up? Yes. Wait. I don't have any objection. I don't know about anybody else. I hate to do this on the fly, but we're trying to reach conclusion to I have no I have no objection just to say provide that. The second [Speaker 2 ]: part. Our Just no. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: The second b is gone. See, what we've done is we've combined a and b. You had an a and b. We combined them into one. And if you're worried about the words provide terms and sufficient remedies or if the municipality so elects, etcetera, we strike all of that. [Speaker 3 ]: Oh, yeah. Okay. We [Chair Marc Mihaly]: just put provide that any housing unit with it, etcetera. [John Gray]: Oh, okay. [Speaker 4 ]: Got it. Within the structure, it's a housing infrastructure agreement. Yeah. Right. The clearly identifies who is the developer. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: A [Speaker 4 ]: within that agreement [Chair Marc Mihaly]: is providing the agreements provide that. Mhmm. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. And if you I mean, I suggest, but it's not critical to me that you keep the condition is satisfied by a landlord certificate or homestead declaration because that's currently the only way we know. I don't think it's a good idea to let a neighbor if there's a [Chair Marc Mihaly]: primary residence on the account. But if there's some extension. [Speaker 5 ]: Next page. Is look at [Speaker 3 ]: over to the next page. That Top of the page. [Speaker 2 ]: This is what we do right now in the property transfer tax to ensure something is not being used exclusively as a second help. This is the only way we have to know that something's not a second help. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So you would add to the paragraph above. Mhmm. Let's go back again. [John Gray]: So you [Chair Marc Mihaly]: he he would add I'm sorry. Go ahead. No. I was [Speaker 5 ]: just gonna say, I think you're trying to say the sufficient remedy is the end of b. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yes. We could I'm just trying to line this with this. We could just combine them and say, after the semicolon, then go back, we could put [Speaker 3 ]: Provided that this condition should [Chair Marc Mihaly]: be satisfied. This condition may be satisfied. Are you with me, John? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Thanks, Roy. [Speaker 2 ]: So you need just the highlighted language the bulk of the highlighted language now. [John Gray]: Did you wanna make the change to the first clause there? So it would just be provide that any housing unit within the housing building be offered exclusively as a primary residence, etcetera, provided that this condition shall be satisfied by Same. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: He said, I would say may. [John Gray]: Right? Works either way. Works better. Yep. [Speaker 2 ]: Better like May. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I do. I thought that was May. [Speaker 2 ]: Right. [Speaker 3 ]: I think that would be that answers our needs. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Okay. [John Gray]: Yeah. Sorry. Just writing the [Speaker 3 ]: Our first But somebody who's my [Chair Marc Mihaly]: official memory with that bridges. [Speaker 3 ]: Spoken. [John Gray]: Next piece we come to is the buck war test. This is on page eight. The earlier senate proposal was to have exempted from the buck core test projects that satisfy the affordability criterion what the house is proposing is something slightly narrower you'll note that the affordability criterion includes both affordable housing developments and moderate income housing developments this is saying we could exempt those that are affordable housing developments. So not the moderate, but it would exempt, from the buffer test those that are affordable housing developments. The next thing is the project criteria. We have this dual pronged structure for a floor area threshold and then this alternative for determination meaningfully addresses the status [Chair Marc Mihaly]: of this. Page eleven? It's nine. Sorry. Nine. [John Gray]: And the the threshold the Senate proposal had been fifty one percent down from the sixty five percent of the House that before and then the Senate isn't sorry the House is now proposing sixty percent [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And I'll just add that we we really I mean, our intent here, I guess, probably even wasted my notes since it's obvious. Our intent is really to make sure that it's mostly housing. But the two, paragraph, sub paragraph two, we felt really gives enormous flexibility. Instead of that, we thought that's our we're afraid that fifty one, it's you know, like, it sounds like it's commercial. It could be it's just as easily commercial with housing, and we didn't wanna pay that. So sixty plus the flexibility, that's that's what's behind the work with us. Plus the flexibility too. Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: I just point out, you can have a commercial downstairs and a residential upstairs, and that's probably gonna be common in rural areas. Exactly. With the second provision, [Speaker 3 ]: not a hill that I yep. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. [John Gray]: I'm gonna jump down to page Eleven. Ten and eleven. Yep. And the first the first thing to note is something you don't see highlighted. House is agreeing to the flat ninety day from site visit. On page eleven, some conforming changes on lines four through six that's that carve out from the buckboard test the, just the affordable housing development so you need to pick up that language here. Something you aren't seeing highlighted is on line nine [Speaker 3 ]: I'm seeing [John Gray]: it the the chip final application deadline is two thousand and thirty five so and then what you do see here is reinserting the house or the house is proposing to keep its proposed limit. [Speaker 2 ]: Well at first I saw twenty thirty. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: This [John Gray]: limit that you see here is structured differently just for readability purposes the same limit that has been in the house proposal along what is new is on page twelve subdivision three which is just asking Pepsi in two thousand and thirty to after your first years of implementing to come back to the committees of jurisdiction with a recommendation on an appropriate limit based on what the annual approvals have been for the program in the first years of the program. [Speaker 4 ]: Just wanna put a little more color on that. We were trying to make it relatable, for some of the house members. If there was a housing project that been discussed about sixty to eighty million dollars, that I think we all know about, anywhere from a thousand to fifteen hundred units, depending on which configuration to look at. Over the lifetime, that increment, that increased increment increased value would have an increment retention of about seventeen million dollars, just to put [Chair Marc Mihaly]: it in perspective. So if there is a forty [Speaker 4 ]: now we're at a sixty percent originally when we looked at it. So it could have a higher incremental retention. But just to look at the bat the the large investment that that project represents and what the increment is over. So if you say seven even say it's twenty million over a forty or or a twenty year period, then that's still twenty million left in the approval of the cap. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. I don't know if you I do long No. I [Speaker 5 ]: I've been racking my brain around the cap. You know? I get a nice hour ride home each night, so [John Gray]: I get to think about a lot [Speaker 5 ]: of things. And previously, before I was in finance committee, I was on education when I first got here and then ways and means. So education fund near and dear to my heart. And all the mechanics of the education fund, I was just thinking about how does this cap work if we're talking about retention in these TIF areas? And I kept coming back to twenty, thirty percent of something is better than a hundred percent of nothing. So I always kept coming back to that, and I'm thinking about if you get past the but for that these developments wouldn't come to fruition without this financing, that we wouldn't have the housing where people get moved to Vermont, work in our jobs that are open, and, you know, spend money on our stores, spend money on our restaurants, buy cars and trucks. All those are consumption consumption taxes, and those all go to the Ed Fund. So those are all monies that would kinda backfill that TIF retention. And I just feel like we shouldn't limit the growth of housing based on the cap. So that's kinda where I am when I was trying to figure out forty, fifty, sixty, no cap, is that there's other parts that are in play with the consumption taxes in the Ed Fund. And like we saw in the the chart yesterday is that the Ed Fund actually got a hundred and sixty million dollars that wouldn't have been there [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. [Speaker 5 ]: If it wasn't for CHIP. Yeah. So I just keep coming back to cap Yeah. Or CHIP. Yeah. [Speaker 2 ]: The chart. [Speaker 3 ]: I just keep that chip. [Speaker 5 ]: Just a So I just keep coming back to these housing projects wouldn't happen without the infrastructure, so we wouldn't have that money anyway. [Speaker 4 ]: Yes. And there is always the philosophy that those developments might happen somewhere else. So it comes down to that, don't you care? [Speaker 5 ]: In another state. [Speaker 4 ]: Or it comes down to that philosophy philosophical difference. And if he has Tom Kabat, you'll get a much different answer in terms of the state of our legislative economists. So I understand your perspective. What we're saying, alright, let's we even put in here in the next section, let's revisit the cap in five years and say, do we need to increase it? And so we've already got a five million dollar booster if Pepsi finds that seventy or forty million isn't enough to come back and say we need five million dollars extra. Yep. But so, I mean, we hear you that it may not be enough. Let's so let's try to do that. [Speaker 2 ]: So we figured ways and means wouldn't be sympathetic to brandless growth. So we have an alternative proposal, which is that we exempt affordable and moderate housing projects from the cap. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Right. And we went halfway there. [Speaker 2 ]: You didn't go there. That was the but for test. This is the cap. [Speaker 3 ]: This is the cap. But we we're proposing that the cap exclude Affordable and moderate. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Oh, affordable and moderate. Yeah. Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: It's not been in any of our proposals. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: What does that mean? Decisions. [Speaker 4 ]: That is not something that we [Speaker 2 ]: This study hasn't been no. You have the proposals. [Speaker 4 ]: We haven't brought that forward as a proposal to you. It's not something I think they would be willing to agree on. [Speaker 2 ]: Did you ask your Convergeys that? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: We have discussed it, and this offer doesn't have it in. We we're really at the point now where we all know what everybody's thinking, and we thought about this and talked about it. And in this offer, it's not here. [Speaker 3 ]: So in this offer, you're you're offering a revisit in five years. [Speaker 2 ]: I know. And we had taken out the cap every time. So we're trying to offer a a very halfway position. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: You could live with a cap with these kinds of things if we exclude. Okay. Alright. That's really valuable to know. [Speaker 2 ]: Thank you. [Speaker 3 ]: Right. That's I thought. We well, actually, we have to share that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. But well We [Speaker 2 ]: can share that. [Speaker 3 ]: We're actually we're all [Chair Marc Mihaly]: sharing things that we hadn't quite this moving over [Speaker 3 ]: three o'clock today. We're now asking lower by hand. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Right? [Speaker 2 ]: It's but it's obviously come up throughout the process. And I think you have a lot of sympathy for that from your own. Right. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: There were discussions [Speaker 2 ]: not ways and means perhaps. [Speaker 4 ]: There were discussions really early on. We talked to some affordable housing advocates, and the concern was that the cap wasn't high enough. But when then when we actually crunched the numbers and showed what the retention was involved in the cap, that alleviated some concerns. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Some of those concerns. [Speaker 2 ]: No. So you know our [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I'm just giving you a history. But we appreciate the five year review. [Speaker 2 ]: And we know you're gonna consider this. Yes. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And also yeah. I mean, it wasn't on the table now. It's complicated. [Speaker 3 ]: It's on the table. And And there's scones on the table. I know. I've already had mine. Thank [Chair Marc Mihaly]: you very much. Okay. We're with the utilities council. Is there more? [John Gray]: There there is more. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yep. Okay. [John Gray]: Next piece to jump to is the increment retention percentages which will be on page sixteen. [Speaker 3 ]: That's better that's getting better [John Gray]: So the the latest we've seen in the senate proposal for the various retention percentages have been seventy five and ninety percent and what you see here is seventy and eighty percent which is a change from the house's earlier position of sixty five and eighty. So bringing up standard projects to the seventy percent where the figures currently we are with affordable projects eligible for this eighty percent. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So it sounds quite strict. [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. You didn't wanna lift the cap. [Speaker 2 ]: We don't wanna go below seventy five. Here we are. Taking it all into consideration. [John Gray]: Info reporting. I'm going to patient nineteen. I think the sole update to the annual report is what you see highlighted at the bottom of the page on line nineteen adding that that report should include the aggregate lifetime educating proper tax increment retention that is approved that year. That's a figure that would be available under this contract with the CAPTICAP in place. And so can we just let you know what are you actually approving in a year in total, lifetime extension? [Speaker 2 ]: Do we have to come back and approve this every year? [John Gray]: This isn't something you approve. This is just [Chair Marc Mihaly]: What is the report? Couldn't this be incorporated into your annual report? [Speaker 2 ]: Oh, approved by Vepsy. [John Gray]: By Vepsy. That is okay. [Speaker 2 ]: Another yearly. Supposed to see that we have to do. Put it in there. [John Gray]: Annual report. That stuff up as [Speaker 3 ]: this. Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Makes sense. Yeah. I mean, it's just it's just it's part of it's addressing in part the concern that seems to be on both sides of the table. But but where are we with this cast? Which we have a and where are we with these projects? I think we made all the Yeah. Yeah. It's also Right. [John Gray]: A change you're not gonna see highlighted oh, I should talk about what's highlighted first. You see some strangely colored highlighting. I'll let you guys speak to this. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Strange. It's dark and hard to read. [Speaker 2 ]: I'm just I'm ready to let this one go. People may see many emails. Yeah. [John Gray]: Yeah. So leave as is? [Speaker 2 ]: No. Take it out. Take [Chair Marc Mihaly]: it out. Are we okay taking it out? Yes. So you Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: You know, it's interesting looking at the TIF report. It does this almost already, but not not specifically to housing within that project. So you're right about [Speaker 2 ]: that. Yes. [Speaker 4 ]: Yes. But but But [Speaker 2 ]: they can do that in a couple of years. So we'll we'll keep in touch with [Speaker 4 ]: It's helpful to know even within that project by the parcel number [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. [Speaker 4 ]: What the valuation is on that, and that's possible. We're already doing it with TIF. [Speaker 2 ]: Right. I was trying to get more specific, [Speaker 3 ]: but you can do that in [Speaker 2 ]: a couple of years. Yeah. [Speaker 3 ]: Which is why Jessica was able to tell us that South Burlington development, you know, the TIF district, its value is fifty two percent. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. Yeah. Right. Gobsmacking. Actually, we're taking that out. Okay. Yeah. Just hold camera. Yeah. I'm taking the webinar. That's okay. I can't read it. [John Gray]: Rulemaking, page twenty two Yeah. Probably looks larger than it is. This adcedes to the senate request for November fifteenth deadline for that guidance but ask that it be you know published at that time and provided to the committees of jurisdiction. The last change is the tips sunset section obviously these only the house proposals have contained this section that's affecting twenty seven. Which starts on page twenty seven but the actual highlighting is on twenty eight. The previous house proposal had been for this, TIF district sunset to be two thousand and thirty one aligned with the earlier house request for the CHIP final application deadline at the end of two thousand and thirty one. Now you're seeing that aligned with the chip final application deadline of twenty thirty five. And that is it. And being real, I need to leave. I'm gonna let Cameron do whatever he's [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. We actually have a few pieces [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Mhmm. That we haven't discussed yet. [John Gray]: And I just sent him the things that we talked about. He's already made the changes. [Speaker 3 ]: Thank you, John. Thank you [Chair Marc Mihaly]: so much, John. Good luck. [Speaker 4 ]: Good luck. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: What are you without going into it yet because I'm on the. What are you what do you guys wanna talk about? [Speaker 2 ]: On this or anything else? [Speaker 3 ]: I think we just wanna make sure we go through the new language that Cam is gonna present, which we didn't actually have time to do before. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: And which is right. And [Speaker 3 ]: then I think we probably need to talk. [Speaker 2 ]: Well, do you want us to list out the the studies, the [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Right. [Speaker 2 ]: The meanings of what you [Chair Marc Mihaly]: number one. That way, we'll go along with you on just postponing the whole appeals. Okay? Thank you. Two, there are I I regret it's with real regret. I I have to say at the moment, enough complexities have emerged with the universal design study that I don't see resolving time frame we're talking about, which is immediately It's really regretful since it's been in our it was in our all our bills in the budget everywhere, but there have emerged problems, which I do not see resolving today, and I think we are at the end. I wanna resolve things today. So, I think we're gonna have to let that go. [Speaker 2 ]: I would just say if Elizabeth is watching, there's an open seat on the access board for division of fire safety. It it really does look like the constitution that she wants, and I would hate something else to be happening. So [Chair Marc Mihaly]: There are other things happening too. I think what is influencing me. So Yeah. Let's just say [Speaker 3 ]: stuff happening. Okay. I I [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I regret. The heart of the sausage. Okay. [Speaker 3 ]: And Elizabeth and Mike are in touch, which is good because the person opening. Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: So I don't know how. Maybe the BAA. I'm not sure what we're gonna okay. Will be fifteen thousand extra dollars. Yeah. Yeah. I can. [Speaker 3 ]: So The TIF sunset is out? Sorry. Twenty thirty five. They moved the TIF sunset to twenty thirty five. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: We made it should've kept it for Terminix. We moved all the sunsets to twenty thirty [Speaker 2 ]: Oh, sorry. I missed that part. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Twenty thirty five. Thought that was good. [Speaker 2 ]: We thought [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Okay. Well, we don't have a conversation [Speaker 3 ]: about that. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Do you want is there is there language given what I just said It's our [Speaker 3 ]: same language because [Chair Marc Mihaly]: we just need to confirm Right. That we have. The the number two. [Speaker 3 ]: Yes. Fine. And has new language. Have you've seen it because we gave it to you this morning. It's fine. And I think that there's one other piece that you had in the infrastructure. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: That's what we've used. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. Housing targets. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: That's fine too. [Speaker 2 ]: Okay? We'd like to use what we've asked for. [John Gray]: Oh, never mind. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: We don't wanna have [Speaker 2 ]: a fall out. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Unless you have your parachute with you. [Speaker 3 ]: I might [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Oh my god. I thought she got I thought I [Speaker 3 ]: thought we would wanna open [Speaker 2 ]: the window, but someone's sitting on the window. So Oh, yeah. Yeah. Okay. I thought there was some kind of, like I did not choose. I'm sorry. Worry. [Speaker 4 ]: About this. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Mhmm. Okay? I want to keep Okay. I wanna just bring up our website. While everybody's here, it does not relate directly to the subject of this s one twenty seven. But in four ninety four seventy nine, you had the whole section on [Speaker 3 ]: Credit. Rent credit scores. Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: It is our my intention with the permission of my fellows here to strip everything out of four seventy nine except that, including the stuff on Stormwater? Stormwater. Stormwater. It's the all goes out. Yeah. All that's left is just that one provision. Introduce it tonight as an amendment to four ninety five. Get it out of the house tomorrow over to you tomorrow. Is that okay? [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. What's four ninety five? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I mean, four seventy nine. It's it's Oh, right. It's the house itself. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. I know. That's right. Do. Tomorrow four ninety five. Evening. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Yeah. I don't know. Tomorrow, we're gonna do it. Yeah. Tomorrow tomorrow morning with with Allstate's passage. Allstate's the passage over to you. Okay. Thank you. Alright. [Speaker 4 ]: And, actually, we only have to put on it once. Yeah. Because it's your counter. [John Gray]: Yeah. Right. [Speaker 3 ]: Right. Yeah. It's your We're gonna [Chair Marc Mihaly]: need cochair. We're gonna need a somehow get together for a straw poll. Okay. I don't know if you need [Speaker 2 ]: Four seventy nine. You [Speaker 3 ]: got things to it. Yeah. We got a whole thing from the developmental disorders. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: But our committee Okay. Out. It's so sorry. To make sure they still get something. Okay. Should we is it Griffith for us mutually to take a break Yeah. Right now and come back in what? And [Speaker 3 ]: then it's Griffith Did you hear from Ashley? One twenty two. Let me see. I I had my problem. Silence. I'm being good, you know, trying to be good about. That's the problem. That's one zero eight. Yeah. One zero eight. Okay, Ashley. Sure thing. Yes. So our bill is gonna be up. One twenty two is gonna be up first. There may be some debate, but we could be back here probably by three fifteen. Okay. K. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Three fifteen, it is. We That's it. [Speaker 4 ]: May I send this conference report to our editing team to have it edited? Or [Speaker 2 ]: missed anything? The VHFA thing, is that gone? [Chair Marc Mihaly]: The VHFA thing is out. [Speaker 2 ]: So we've taken care of everything now. [Speaker 3 ]: I think all the the non chip things we've taken care [Chair Marc Mihaly]: of. The VHFA is out. [Speaker 2 ]: Let me just look at left [Speaker 3 ]: on CHIP. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: Let me just look at my non CHIP list. I mean, I'm just Keep [Speaker 3 ]: losing pens. Yeah. To the back. And the housing yep. I think we're in. And the date yep. [Chair Marc Mihaly]: I think we're all set. Okay. So you guys, three fifty. Right? Yeah. Okay. We are we are in reset.

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of S.127 Committee of Conference – 2025-05-29 – 2:10PM

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