SmartTranscript of House Ways and Means 2025-5-22 10:30AM

Select text to play as a video clip.

[Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: Good morning, Ways and Means. Thanks for your patience [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: with us gathering this morning. We're gonna reschedule the report that we were gonna hear that got lost in the fire alarm kerfuffle. And we're going to hear an amendment to s one twenty seven in a moment, but just wanna let folks know that we are likely gonna get referred s one twenty two on the floor today. And, we'd like folks to really come back right after the floor even if the floor goes on the later side to work on that. It's also possible we won't get that referred today, in which case that won't happen. And then we're gonna do one twenty four ideally before the floor tomorrow morning. And so, like, really starting promptly at nine tomorrow morning because we wanna keep both of those moving so that we can finish the session. [Speaker 2 ]: Is that it for housekeeping? It is. Okay. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: With that, represent with represent Sebelia, we do that before you answer. Folks, the amendment is posted on the [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: committee page. [Speaker 3 ]: Good morning. Morning. Good morning. [Member Charles Kimball]: So this amendment is being proposed, well, on behalf of members of the royal caucus. And first, I wanna start, and it's being proposed to the amendment offered by representative Kimball, granting, etcetera. So first, I wanna start by saying, on behalf of the Folke Baucus, thank you for the changes in that amendment to location criteria and removing the chipboard. Both of those are really meaningful and, appreciated. There were a lot of challenges that the rural caucus found with the original Ways and Means amendment, and had discussion about, the process that we used to see if there was a consensus position, rather than, you know, reverting to no housework was to [Speaker 5 ]: ask [Member Charles Kimball]: our caucus members to rank in order of importance, the the issues that had been identified, we've done that, and the top three issues, were put into an amendment to you. So these reflect the the biggest issues with the rural caucus members, not all members, and not all issues. So we are proposing five instances of amendment, but effectively for three items. The first is to expand improvements to include electricity infrastructure. And for those of you, I'm not sure why that what why that has been removed from the senate version, but, we have in the state of Vermont, one investor owned utility, two rural electric cooperatives, and then, I should know how many, but many, many municipal utilities. Those are all different types of electric utilities. Their costs are passed on to ratepayers. Again, we only have one investor owned electric utility. Our rural cooperative utilities, are really struggling, to keep up infrastructure, modernize infrastructure, etcetera. Last year as a part of the res, one of the things that we did to save money, really the biggest thing that we did to save money was to remove group net metering, which those folks who were here will recall was a very big issue for housers who use those funds for development and to make sure that the housing that they're building has renewable power and is lower emitting. And and that feels important. You know, I think there's still more work to do as part of the energy transition and getting fair rates across the state. We do not have the same rates across the state. So when we're thinking about our housing crisis that we have, and we are talking about financing infrastructure, we are really perplexed as to why we would not include electric infrastructure. It's just really, we're perplexed. Why we would include broadband, which I think is important as well, obviously. But as I said yesterday, broadband's not going to power your refrigerator. So the second is on lowering, the floor area threshold to fifty one percent. We had this year, one of our members, come to us and say that they thought it was really important that we started to think about what we would do with more empty buildings in rural communities. When we think about, the demographic shift that we've seen, when we think about increasing pressure on, regulating land use, when we think about what's happening with our school buildings. We already have vacant buildings in rural Vermont, municipal buildings, and we expect that there could be more. And, those are really, really important if they are reusable in those communities. And we are worried about the usable floor space, thresholds in terms of, that for that's that. So that is why we are proposing that the minimum [Member Rebecca Holcombe]: floor area threshold be fifty one percent. And thirdly, we've provided three instances of amendment [Member Charles Kimball]: to remove the by four for the CHIP pieces, both in, the reference to the application section, that that's the third instance of amendment. The fourth is removing the actual but for test, And the fifth is the rulemaking directive for the but for test. First of all, complexity. Second of all, housing crisis. So that's it. That's my explanation. [Speaker 5 ]: Can you tell me more about why [Speaker 2 ]: you wanna remove the butt foot? [Member Charles Kimball]: Complexity, housing crisis. So, you know yeah. For rural communities, [Member Rebecca Holcombe]: I'm [Member Charles Kimball]: gonna choose my words, chair Kornheiser very carefully here. Sometimes I don't. It's a little confounding to a lot of us, the question of this question, like, why we would ask this question in a housing crisis in Burrough, Vermont with a cap that already exists, which we have done nothing to met. So we understand that there's a desire to, have guardrails. I think I spoke to you know? I don't I don't know that I spoke to the effect that the guardrails may be having on our housing crisis. I certainly think we have to do our job and hold people accountable. So [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: For the purpose of the but for is just a simple question of, is this public money needed for this project? If it's not needed for the project, then why would we put it into the project? Mhmm. And so I I don't I guess I don't understand what's confounding about yeah. There's absolutely housing crisis. Absolutely. We should spend state money to fix the housing crisis all over the state, especially in rural areas. I just don't understand how the but for is an impediment to that at all. Like, I just genuinely don't get it, and I have continued to not understand it throughout many conversations. Representative Feltos? [Member Martha Feltus]: I would have the same question because in the big when we ask for this housing infrastructure agreement with the municipality, you need to outline all of the costs and all of the structure and all everything that would go into that. And it would seem to me it would be evident in that kind of information that you need this additional supplemental financing mechanism in order to make it all work. So I don't see why I don't I don't see why that's a burden or why that's an extra step that needs to be done. It would seem to me that the information would all be there, and it would be, okay. Yeah. Right. You're we need this to make that work. I just wanna make sure that we indeed are spending it that way because I'm sure there are some housing developments that can go forward that don't need this additional for a different population than than what you would be [Member Charles Kimball]: Probably a certain region of [Member Martha Feltus]: the state. Certain regions of the state and certain populations. I think that might [Speaker 2 ]: happen. Representative Russell? [Speaker 3 ]: Yeah. Thank you. Thanks for Enunciating these things. Having been associated with tips and but I was for quite a long time, I wouldn't wanna take the language out. There's a couple of reasons. Some of them are pretty plain English. As I said to some people, I think one advantage of working through the exercise of writing up an answer to but four is simply to get all one's ducks in a row. And I think if nothing else, but for impels applicants to do just that, to get all the ducks in a row and and clearly articulate why they wanna do what they wanna do. And also in in plain English, that exercise, I think, separates the we from the chat. Some applications aren't so hot, you know, and others are well presented, and they should be awarded for that by saying that these tests that's my short version, but basically, I'm sticking with that. Thank you. [Speaker 2 ]: Representative Nathan. [Member Rebecca Holcombe]: I've spoken about this in committee before. Both the Vermont leads the cities and towns approves of removing the buck four test [Member Charles Kimball]: Mhmm. [Member Rebecca Holcombe]: As well as the information that we got from the state auditor that gave us four examples of Pepsi not following through on their DUC four test. So, again, that's why I would I would support the removal of the DUC four test. [Speaker 2 ]: Oh, gosh. Everyone. Yeah. Reginald Windsor. [Speaker 8 ]: I have also been very skeptical of the but fors in the past, partially from what the auditor told us. And it's rather very theoretical, and it's a bit of a meta question. There's no strict text for what is or is not a but for. My curiosity is, from a rural caucus perspective, how do you see the but for disproportionately disadvantaged being disadvantageous to world? [Member Charles Kimball]: I would say, in this case, rural communities is a very expansive language here. I mean, I think most the fact that we have this housing crisis is attributable to a number of factors, including some of our own policy choices. And so how do I see it disproportionately? I have I work in an area I don't work on development projects, but I work somewhere where they do work on development projects. And, I'm aware of what it takes. I am aware of colleagues, not that I work with, but, in our area that have literally taken [Speaker 8 ]: pay cuts to [Member Charles Kimball]: get a project across the finish line. I am I don't know how some of these people sleep at night. They're literal heroes in the places outside of our most dynamic and densely populated regions. So complexity, it's already incredibly hard. These types of policies, when you bring them forward for other areas, they become they really make the legislature seem like they're they're really out of touch with the reality on the ground. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: I wanna make sure that represents the time [Speaker 2 ]: to get to the other two committees to not hold up our floor time. So representative Brandon there. [Speaker 5 ]: Okay. I'll try and be brief. I wasn't I I didn't understand what you were saying in the second instance of amendment of going to the fifty one percent. And you mentioned empty buildings in communities already. I certainly know what you're talking about. But were you saying that you thought those empty spaces should be renovated into housing and not not the sixty five percent, that that that's the reason why we should back down to fifty one? [Member Charles Kimball]: I think we should provide as much flexibility as possible. That's fine. [Speaker 5 ]: How would those empty buildings [Member Charles Kimball]: provide flexibility? The lowering this threshold lowering the threshold for the floor space? [Speaker 5 ]: Fifty one percent. I'm just trying to understand. [Speaker 2 ]: Yeah. No. No. No. I no. [Member Charles Kimball]: I know I'm making sure I understand your question. Yeah. Yeah. I think the lower that threshold is, the more flexibility there is. And in rural communities with these large white elephants, if in fact they are able to be reused, it may be that it's gonna be mixed mixed use. And yeah. So just providing as much flexibility as possible. Does that make sense? [Speaker 5 ]: So you're saying one of these buildings are empty and maybe a little rundown Yep. Redone. Not building new property, but putting in the new infrastructure that you could allow Mhmm. And building them not just to be housing, but also something else in the other forty nine percent. [Member Charles Kimball]: Yeah. Right now in, Wilmington, there is an old high school that's been, renovated, as a community space. There's a large gym that is used. There's a bunch of office space. There's still a lot of room there. In theory, you could put some housing there. But Yeah. These you know, we wanna make sure that there's as much flexibility as possible because these aren't massive buildings, and they're existing structures. And [Speaker 5 ]: so That building doesn't have water, sewer. Is it on the road, have a sidewalk? Those are the things CHIP will provide. Mhmm. Won't do anything else. Mhmm. Building, the changes, the turning classrooms into kitchens, that has to be funded by the builder. Mhmm. [Member Charles Kimball]: Right. So in that instance, yes. It does. But in other buildings, it may not. So [Speaker 2 ]: Representative, did you have a question? I I agree. I've heard a lot from a lot of small towns around the complexity and the challenge, and we've heard from a lot of developers that part of the challenge around building your capital stack is that you have to have so many layers to get there. And I just keep coming back to, why do I ask for if we're gonna spend twenty cents out of the EdCon Mhmm. Or twenty million Yeah. Why not just reduce the general fund transfer Yeah. Pull it off a more progressive base Yeah. [Member Charles Kimball]: And do [Speaker 2 ]: a grant program? Because you would have those grants there tomorrow. You wouldn't be doing this complicated, complex, bureaucratic stuff that people don't have the time to deal with. You'd be thickening the layers and not narrowing the layers and putting more of them in. I mean, it gives this whole approach is just burdensome to you. Yeah. [Member Charles Kimball]: I mean, conceptually, that's not what happens. We grow the grand list and then reduce the amount of growth over time. So front loading, the reduction in the growth of the education funds, seems pretty cumbersome in this moment, where we're looking really hard to, reduce property taxes, and it seems pretty difficult to calculate also. [Speaker 2 ]: Well, we're we're reducing it either way. And we are using the funds to build housing. The question is what's the most efficient way to use those dollars to get them out as fast as possible because people can do the work they do. Yeah. We chose. I mean, I've been loud and clear. I wish we had that hundred and twenty million for something constructive. No button intended. But I, you know, I I don't under I don't understand this because to me, the complexity is we picked a pretty hard tool to use, and we also pick one that isn't frankly gonna work if your community isn't growing anyway. [Member Charles Kimball]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think we probably all would agree that the ed that the ed fund needs our grand list to grow. And our grand list are not gonna grow. And the values in our communities are not going to improve if we don't add housing, if we don't address a number of things, including modernizing our infrastructure, hardening our infrastructure, improving our education system, making sure that we have sustainable healthcare. So no silver bullets, right, representative Kimball? But, you know, this fundamentally, is this is growing the education. It is not taking money out of the education fund. It is slowing the return of that growth into the education fund. And so I understand, and appreciate your passion on the education fund, which I share. But it is fundamentally not taking money out of the education fund. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: I I I I'm gonna interrupt because we have argued this point more than one needs to in this room. I think the more fundamental the different fundamental question that represent Holcomb is asking you is just that, like, tax increment financing is really complicated even as simplified as it was as it came over from the senate. And a grant program isn't. It's like, why hasn't the rural caucus pushed to just, like, give dollars to communities instead of this, [Speaker 2 ]: like, fairly complex thing? It's not that we're getting people who are rushing to tell us how great this is, they're not rural communities. Mhmm. I'm just telling you, it's it's people who've got large planning offices who are already in. Oh, I'm aware. And so my so question [Member Charles Kimball]: is why not why haven't rural caucus talked about grids? So I think we're in a pretty tight budget area. I mean, I don't see any big grant programs being proposed this year on Well, [Speaker 2 ]: there's two higher up in the bill. And but, you know, again, it's gone, but we could have used that hundred and twenty billion. [Speaker 8 ]: Mhmm. [Member Charles Kimball]: Thank you very much. Welcome. Thank you. And and, madam chair, I do want to make sure that we are explicit and clear about, the work that your amendment, brought forward on location criteria and the shipboard. Thank you very much for that. Thank you. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: We don't need motions for shuffle, so I appreciate the judgment. Thank [Speaker 3 ]: you very much. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: I feel like we've all discussed all of these issues twelve ways to Sunday, but if anyone wants to say any final words, you're more than welcome to. Okay. [Speaker 2 ]: You mean to call the role or are we just gonna do straw poll with hands? [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: Reply question. Why, like, final questions? What's paralyzing? [Speaker 2 ]: No worries. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: Can I ask if we're gonna defer to Let us I think we can just reference? Okay. And the motion is to find the amendment unfavorable. So all those in favor of finding the motion unfavorable, please raise your hands. We see your hand, Carol. Thank you. All those in favor of finding the amendment favorable. Thank you. [Speaker 2 ]: So the struggle is nine two [Speaker 5 ]: zero. Thank you. [Chair Emilie Kornheiser]: Folks, we are hypothetically finished.
Select text if you'd like to play only a clip.

This transcript was computer-produced using some AI. Like closed-captioning, it won't be fully accurate. Always verify anything important by playing a clip.

Speaker IDs are still experimental