Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Good afternoon. Members, we are returning back to our work on senate bill three twenty five, regional planning and act two fifty tier jurisdiction. We have two amendments, to take up. We will start with the member from Chester, representative Carlton, who offers an amendment to the report of the committee on environment that the first assistant clerk emailed to members today at 09:26AM. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage, and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Chester.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Madam speaker, thank you for the opportunity to bring this amendment. I wanna thank the committees that I spoke to this morning. It is a very brief but riveting read if you saw it in your email. This is a modest ask. It is it addresses the interim exemptions for residential construction in the tier one areas. The the amendment changes the length of those exemptions from 2028 to 2030. This brings them into alignment with the housing targets, the targeted needs that we've identified, which are certain goals by 2030. It is consistent with the recommendation of the senate. I am making this I'm making this recommendation with small and mid sized communities and small and mid sized developers in mind. It may be that the willingness to undertake a massive endeavor, not sure whether it will succeed, is unique to representatives making floor amendments. This is not how developers think, and it is not how their investors think. We have assigned, essentially, given target numbers for housing to every community in the state, including all of our rural communities, many of whom are looking at the numbers and are a little bit staggered by them. The smaller communities with less capacity and the smaller rural developers that they will rely on for the size projects that they want, that they deserve, they are going to take longer to move through the process we have set up. And my concern, and I've spoken to it in other contexts, in other places in the building, is for rural Vermont, which is most of us. The rural communities are as concerned about affordable housing as anybody else. We have tasked them with goals. They need our help. We need them to meet these goals. They need the smaller developers to help them meet these goals, and what they need from us is the confidence that the timelines are achievable. There's a great deal of work that has to begin way before a project is undertaken. If we're going to meet goals by 2030, they need to start now, and they need to know the timeline is sufficient. Thank you. Oh, I'm not done. Sorry. I tend to not look at my notes. Again, it is a this is about the rural communities. And though I die a little bit on the inside every time I hear these words, respectfully and nicely ask that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Chester requests that when the vote is taken, it'd be taken by roll. Is the member sustained? The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. Member from Middlebury.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Your committee on environment spent a a fair amount of time thinking about this, this change in the dates. And I I guess at at the sort of succinct the most succinct way of summarizing how we got to, including it in the underlying bill, or strike all amendment and then also, voting it down in committee is that, essentially, these exemptions are no longer necessary after the one a and one b areas are stood up and towns have the opportunity to, to opt in or out or, for those exemptions if they so choose to. So for that reason, our committee asks you to support our no vote on this amendment.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Fair Haven.

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Madam speaker, Ways and Means usually struggles with floor amendments because we rarely have time, rarely have time, to hear fiscal analysis. Although representative Charlton stressed the plight of mid sized developers, Ways and Means found this amendment unfavorable by a straw poll vote of nine two zero.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Pultely?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Point of inquiry, madam speaker. Did the member from Middlebury state what the vote out of committee was?

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Pultely, I do not believe so. Member from Millebare.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you. Our vote was seven for seven to four opposed to the amendment.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is shall the report of the committee on environment committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Chester. Are you ready for the question? Member from Barrytown.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Madam speaker, we're here today to consider what Vermonters have been asking us to do. And the chair that reported the bill earlier said something along the lines that putting three twenty five to to fix one eighty one was part of the process, and that couldn't be any further from the truth. The fact of the matter is act one eighty one was forced through during a supermajority. Opinions weren't considered, and Vermonters have spoken up. And they've said

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Rockingham, what is your point of order? Member, can you please use your microphone? I believe the member is imputing the motives of one of our chairs. Can I see members at the podium, please? The House of Standed East. Will the House please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Rockingham, I find your point of order well taken. Our rules prohibit us from indulging in personalities and imputing motives. I will ask the member to restate her comment. Thank you. Member from Barrytown, floor is yours.

[Rep. Gina Galfetti (Barre Town)]: Thank you, madam speaker, and I apologize to the member from Middlebury, but I will return to the fact that act one eighty one was passed, and went through the process, and there were a lot of dissenting voices and opinions that were given on act one eighty one, in the first place, and I find it heartening to see that now that Vermonters have become activated over this issue and reached out to their representatives, representatives are are listening to what Vermonters have to say. And I think that it's important as we continue in this process to remember that no matter what a committee has decided, we are all sent here by our constituents to make decisions based on what they sent us here to do. We're all equals, and we all have the ability to read and consider legislation and make, judgments on how bills should be amend amended and adjusted, despite what committee votes are or what other elements may come into play. We're here to represent the Vermonters, that sent us here. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If oh, member from Stowe.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I'd like some clarification on two issues. You know, part of one eighty one had to do with the house response to the housing crisis and move forward to increase density and construction on a whole a cross section of housing stock in Vermont. So with your permission, I'd like to interrogate the presenter of three twenty five, if I may.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Middlebury is interrogated.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member, I so I would just like to remind you that we are on the amendment. So if it is indirect a direct question regarding the committee discussion on the amendment.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Okay. Would you would it be more appropriate? It has to do with the timelines of the amendment, but it has to do also with the value gained for this housing challenge in tier one a and tier one b. So perhaps the I should interrogate the presenter of the amendment, and he or they may know the answer to the other question.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Chester is interrogated.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yeah. Thank you, madam speaker. My my question is, how many communities that are contemplating adopting the category of tier one a or one b have completed that process?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: I would have to ask the LERB directly for that. They are not present, but I don't have that number.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: And Madam speaker, does the presenter know if any communities in Vermont have adopted the rules of tier one a or tier one b?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: As I understand it, future land use maps, are prerequisite to making those adoptions, are not complete and won't be complete until later this year.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: So, madam speaker, not one map. I thought we heard that there were districts that had completed them. But you're saying that there are no maps and no districts to this date have moved to adopt the tier one a or one b status?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: As I understand it, the process for mapping is complete in the the districts, the yeah.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, may I have a brief recess?

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The house will stand in recess until the fall of gavel. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Member from Stowe.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I'd I'd like to withdraw my question to the amendment sponsor and in inquire or interrogate the presenter of three twenty five.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Middlebury is interrogated.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yeah. Madam speaker, I'm standing here because like everyone in Vermont, we as a state, and whether you're extremely rural communities or urban centers, are struggling with creating the need to create affordable, achievable, entry level, moderate income housing for Vermonters as soon as possible. So regardless of the pace of one a adoption, if any communities do, or one b, I'd like to ask the reporter of 03/25 if they believe by extending out into the future to 2028 as opposed to 2027, that would encourage more communities to be able to step up to the challenge of creating the housing that Vermonters need, or would we lose capacity under the the deep language of January that given that the pace of adoption of the maps or completion of the maps is still churning along. But I'm trying to focus my question is how this amendment timeline change may positively or negatively incentivize the creation of the housing that we need so badly?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank thank you for the question, member. I what we what we've done in in our strike all amendment with the dates for the housing exemptions is line them up with enough time after the future land use maps are available to communities for towns to have opted in. I think you brought up a a number of interesting points, which is that the exemptions, the temporary housing exemptions that we passed as part of act one eighty one are not limited to workforce housing. They are not limited to affordable housing. They are market rate housing exemptions. We will get a report back. Getting it's getting a little late in the day, but I think it's in '27, on what types of houses are being built under the exemptions. How much do they cost? And and where are they? I think this is a critical part of the conversation we need to be having. We need workforce housing for Vermonters who wanna live here year round, and we need to make sure that that's that's how we're using our investments in our water and sewer capacity. That's how we're, you know, streamlining permitting to the extent that we do to accommodate those housing needs. Those are the real needs in our communities and for our employers that we should be focused on meeting. A future legislature can always extend the date. I would argue that having the dates line up is is much more it gives more certainty to the regulated community, but it surely gives us a chance to consider if these exemptions are having the intended outcomes or not.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Thank you, member, and thank you, madam speaker. It's not hard to observe in my community that the average house that's being built currently, and there are many, are in the 1.5 or 1.7 and up range. None of these are accessible to homesteaders or young families. And when I drive on the interstate and go by through Chittenden County, I see some pretty extensive apartment buildings near Dorset Street going up. And I don't believe that that's what's serving the kind of housing it'll serve rural Vermont and, frankly, even Chittenden County average homesteaders. So I I believe that the spirit of January and the housing in act two fifty reform is is well intended. But as you say, member, we have no control over given that we have high inflation, and we have very high interest rates, and we have tariffs, and we have a lot of factors globally that have impacted the cost of creating housing, higher labor costs. I was just trying on this given bill an amendment today. What what if this amendment on timelines could possibly help shift the need to where it's most needed by reducing triggering act two fifty or other regulatory barriers. Thank you, madam speaker. Thank you, member.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Chester, member from Fairfax?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Fairfax)]: Thank you, madam speaker. As a member who sat in the general and housing committee for the last four years, I've heard time and time and time and time again that we need housing. We don't need specific types of housing. We need every type of housing. I stood here two years ago, and I said, yes, Vermont is always going to be great at McMansions. We're also be going to be great at subsidizing housing. We need middle the missing middle. We need to address all housing. So regardless of what kind of exemptions or housing these exemptions are going to allow, guess what? We need them. And I'm hard pressed to believe that this amendment doesn't align because it does align with our housing targets of 2030. So just as a reminder, as I stand here, Vermonters need housing. They need affordable housing. We need workforce housing. We need housing. There's no inventory. And as an additional reminder, our affordable housing, one unit, is about $500,000. Don't know about you, but to me, that's not very affordable.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from East Montpelier.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, I just wanna share a little bit about the conversation that happened in our committee on this topic during review of the senate bill that originally had the dates of 2030 in them. We really talked a lot about the alignment in the original act one eighty one of the temporary housing exemptions. They were designed, it seems to us, as to align with the time frame that municipalities and regional planning commissions were implementing portions of act one eighty one to develop tier one a and one b areas. And that this is really effectively the whole act one eighty one was centered around the ability for the state to delegate to these areas of municipalities the oversight of of development and housing in particular for one for one b areas. And so when we looked at the senate's dates of 2030, which had come over with dates to extend rule making around tier three and road rule to 2030. And then we were changing all of that and repealing those sections of the bill, and we looked at the time frame for municipalities and regional planning commissions to do the future land use maps and and request one b from the land use review board. That is sort of set all those land use future land use area maps are set to be done at the end of this calendar year, and we wanted to not allow the temporary exemptions to immediately end in 2027. We wanted to give space for municipalities who maybe hadn't gone through the process yet to request the one b status to be able to do so in 2027, and that by 2028, that delegated authority would be fairly complete. It was really never the intention for these to be ongoing exemptions from act two fifty. We also really liked the timing with 2028 that it allowed us next session to look at information about the housing that's being being built within the exemptions and to be able to again make changes then if if need be. And so that is why our committee generally was, unanimously supportive of the 2028 dates. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Chester? Are you ready for the question? If so oh, member from Heartland.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Hartland)]: Madam speaker, we have a 150 members. And if you include the senate, that's a 180 members. And I'm guessing that means we have a 180 different ideas about how act two fix 50 might be fixed or corrected, probably more than a 180 different ideas. Passing legislation, passing an amendment on the floor, a floor amendment in any bill is almost always a bad idea. We often make mistakes. In a a piece of legislation as massive and complicated as act two fifty, passing a floor amendment without a due committee process could really lead to really horrible unintended cost increases. So I really urge members to vote no.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Derby.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Madam speaker, I believe, can I inquire the presenter of the amendment?

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Chester's interrogated.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Maybe it's been going on so long. I'm a little confused, but is this the same amendment that came out of the senate earlier?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: 2030 is the date that came out of the senate.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Derby)]: Thank you, member. So the senate heard this language and passed it out of their body, I believe, unanimously, and then it came over here. So I think it was vetted pretty good over on the senate side. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Arsenault, Williston. No.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order? Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during a roll call and when the clerk calls your name please answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Chester? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Austin, Nicole Chester. Bailey of Hyde Park. Bartholomew of Heartland, Bartley of Fairfax, Rebecca Obanuski, Byron River Gens, Bishop of Colchester, Black of Essex, Bloomley of Burlington, Boston of Westminster. No. Basha Clarendon. Yes. Putnamary City. Yes. Boyden of Cambridge. Yes. Brady of Williston. No. Branagan, Georgia. Brigham, Saint Albans Town. Yes. Brown of Richmond. No. Burditt, West Rutland. Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington. No. Burrows of West Windsor. Yes. Burditt Cabot. Campbell, Saint Johnsbury? No. Canfielder for Haven? Yes. Carris Duncan to Lightningham? Yes, ma'am. Casey Montpelier? No. Casey Hubbardton? Yes. Chapin East Montpelier? Charlton and Chester.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Yeah.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Christie of Hartford. Gina at Burlington. Coffin at Cavendish?

[Rep. VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Cole of Hartford. No. Helen of Cornwall. No. Cooper Connell. Corcoran or Bennington? No. Critchlow, Colchester? No. Demarra Venusburg? Yes. Dickinson of Saint Albans Town? Yes. Dobrovich, Williamstown? Dobrovich, of Essex. Dillon of Essex Junction. Dillon of St. Johnsbury.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Donahue of Northfield, Duke of Burlington, Durfee of Shasbury, Eastes of Guildford, Emmons of Springfield, Feltus of Linden, Galfetti of Berrytown, Galfetti Essex, No. Goldman of Rockingham, Goodnight or Bratibro? No. Gilson and Norfield? Yes. Branagan Jericho? No. Fear of Bennington? Greg Burditt? Yes. Hangover? Yes. Harper Glover? Yes. Harvey Castleton? Yes. Hedrick of Burlington? No. Higley of Lowell? Yes. Holcomb of Norwich? No. Cooper Randolph? Houghton of Essex Junction? No. Howard or Rutland City? Yes. Holland or Rutland Town? No. Wood Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester? James of Manchester. No. Gisenska Burk. Yes. Keyser, Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock. No. Kletner, Burlington. Corcoranagan, Carris now, South Burlington. No. Weber Morgan. No. Lila Shelburn. No. Belona, South Burlington. Nope. I'm on a Morristown. Yes. Arusha Franklin. Lipsky of Stowe.

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Logan of Burlington.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Long and Uffin. No. Long and Milton. Yes. Leaders of Lincoln. No. Luno of Saint Albans

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: City. Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: McGuire of Rutland City. Yes. Malay of Pittsburgh. Yes. Farcott of Coventry. Yes. As of the Thatford. No. McKenna Montpelier. McCoy and Pultany. Yes. Miguel de Port. Nicholas and Milton? Yes. Mollie of Callis? No. Meniere of South Burlington? No. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Morgan Emma Milton? Yes. Morris of Springfield? Nope. Morris of Bennington? Laura Weston. No. Roeke of Putney. Roeke of Putney. No. Nelson of Derby. Yes. Nielsen of Brandon. Yes. Niagara Of Bennington. No. North Of Ferrisburg. Melissa Wolcott. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien of Tunbridge. Yes. OD Burlington. Yes. Oliver Sheldon. Yes. Wilson of Starksboro. Page of Newport City? No. Parsons of Newberry? Pezzo of Colchester? No. Pinson Aldo Dorset? Yes. Patrick Heinzberg? No. Powers Waterford? Bridget Burditt Pollack? Yes. Quinby of London? Yes. Rachelson of Burlington? No. Sekowitz Randolph? No. Shia Middlebury? No. Scully of Burlington? Sheldon of Middlebury? No. Sebeliad Dover? Yes. Susie of Barrytown?

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Hyde Park)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Southworth Of Walden? Yes. Square Of Underhill? No. Steady Milton? Yes. Stevens Waterbury? No. Stone Of Burlington? No. Sweeney Shelburne? No. Tyler V. Corcoran? Yes. Taylor Munden? Thomas Tomlinson?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: No.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Torrey Martown. No. Walker Swanton. No. Wasses at Kebery C.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: No.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Waters Evans and Charlotte. No. Wells Brown, Nathan? Yes. White Of Weitzfield? No. White Of Bethel? No. Winter Of Ludlow? Kupner Burlington. McKenna Montpelier. Parsons in Newbury. And Taylor Munden.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 66. Those voting no, 76. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the report of the committee on environment. Now the member from Williamstown, representative Dobrovich offers an amendment to the report of the committee on environment that the first assistant clerk emailed to members at 01:49PM. This amendment is also posted on the house overview webpage and paper copies are available at the main table. Member from Williamstown.

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Thank you Madam Speaker. My amendment is fairly short. It amends section six subsection d d by inserting a new subdivision number four, and it reads as follows. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary until 01/01/2031, no permit or permit permit amendment is required for the subdivision for the construction 50 units or fewer or housing with at least 20% of the units with mixed income housing or mixed use development. Constructed or maintained on track or tracks of land located within areas of a designated village center and within one quarter mile of its boundary served by public sewer or water services or soils that are adequate for wastewater disposal. However, the legislative body of a municipality may vote to not grant the exception for individual projects. So for some background information, act one eighty one includes provisions for immediate exemptions from act two fifty for residential development often referred to just as the interim exemptions to encourage new creation in the short term while the regional planning commissions work on municipalities to draw the future land use maps which would inform the permanent Act two fifty exemption exemptions in tier one a and one b areas. To benefit from the interim exemptions, municipalities must have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. The following areas are eligible for the interim exemptions under act one eighty one at present but only until 01/01/2027 as the current law stands. Designated downtowns, they have no cap on projects. Designated downtowns plus half mile buffer, no cap on projects. Neighborhood development areas in new town centers capped at 75 units, designated villages centers plus quarter mile buffer. They have some conditions. The area must have municipal zoning and subdivision bylaws and be served by public sewer or water services or soils that are adequate for on-site septic and are capped at 50 units. What does this amendment do? It makes the interim act two fifty housing exemptions established in act one eighty one more inclusive by allowing communities with designated centers without permanent zoning or subdivision bylaws to benefit from the interim exemptions. This amendment provides an opportunity for a municipality to opt out of this benefit, putting it fully in their hands. Why does this matter? Many village centers in rural Vermont do not benefit from the interim act two fifty exemptions because municipality does not have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, which there are approximately 60 of those municipalities at this time. Both of that, both of those requirements, both are requirements of the Act 181 interim housing exemptions. This amendment affords rural communities that meet all other criteria with the exception of zoning, the same opportunities of places like Williston, Burlington, Middlebury, and so on. How does this amendment help? By increasing the number of communities that benefit from the interim housing exemptions, we can focus near term housing growth in more of the areas that are already developed and can continue to encourage home building in dense areas including in rural Vermont. Madam speaker, this amendment makes it easier for Vermonters in every corner of the state including our rural towns and communities to responsibly grow their community, build more homes, support economic development, and keep and attract working families all while treating housing housing like the crisis it is. And for that reason, I ask when the vote is taken, it is taken by role. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Williamstown request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by role. Is the member is sustained. If the member is sustained, when the vote is taken, will be taken by roll. Member from Middlebury.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Similar a similar amendment was in the senate bill as it came over, so we we did have time to contemplate it, although it was a floor amendment on their side as well. I think it's important for members to understand that 50 units of housing in a small town in Vermont that doesn't have a zoning or development review process, That's a lot of houses, that could be dropped on a on a community that was relying on act two fifty to review larger developments. Also, you know, the member did a little work and found out there were 60 of these towns, although I'm unclear if how many of them have water and sewer. So I'm not sure the universe of towns this actually applies to. It seems unlikely that towns without zoning or subdivision bylaws have have water and sewer. Further, act one eighty one exemptions were never intended to exempt developments entirely from review, which is why they were, grant granted to communities that had had development review in them. It's very unclear how the voting portion of this would work. I think it would rely on on the developer perhaps having to go to the select board. It's unclear to me. Finally, the land use review board looked at this, and they do not support this because it actually could put low income Vermonters at risk, since 20% of the units would be mixed income or lower income focused. There's no development review to afford to assure that these units would be built in appropriate places. So with that in mind, our your committee on environment voted this unfavorably on a vote of seven. Four, we voted, and we ask for your support in voting no on this amendment.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Williamstown? Are you ready for the question? Member from Barrie City.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, may I interrogate the member from the committee of jurisdiction who just spoke? I don't know how to ask that question.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you asking to interrogate the member the member from again, I wanna remind members that it's the scope, of this amendment. Member from Middlebury is interrogated.

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Barre City)]: Madam speaker, I think I understood what was said about people of low income, and I just I'm just curious who makes that determination of what's appropriate for a location for someone with low income.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Well, the the appropriate location for any of this housing would not be reviewed if there's no development review. So it but this does include affordability. That's why I made that point.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you member from Bay City?

[Rep. Jonathan Cooper (Barre City)]: Sorry. Thank you, madam speaker.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Milton.

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Grand Isle-Chittenden/West Milton)]: Madam speaker, there are roughly, as we heard a few minutes ago, 60 municipalities of Vermont that don't have zoning. I have towns in my district like a lot of you do that don't have zoning. They're part of that 60. Under current statute, as we heard, it's not permissible for them to take advantage of the act one eighty one interim exemptions. And one of those towns in fact does have some water and sewer capability. This amendment would allow them would would not allow them to take advantage. I would allow them to take advantage of these interim exemptions much like our bigger towns and municipalities in this state do. So once again, I would hope those folks that like myself that represent rural Vermont would take that in account and would vote yes with us on this amendment. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Williamstown, a member from Hartford?

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Madam speaker, this language virtually unchanged came over from the senate in s 03/25. Your environment committee reviewed this language at the time and agreed to strip it out of s three twenty five. S three twenty five then was voted out of the environment committee unanimously 11 to zero. This so this is basically bringing back something that the committee has dealt with in a bill the committee voted out unanimously. But it's back with a change, and that is the last sentence. However, the legislative body of a municipality may vote to not grant the exemption for individual projects. This is an ambiguous provision. I don't quite understand what it means. Seems to give the the the municipality the ability to just veto certain projects if they want or make certain projects get a permit while others don't have to. Certainly, if I were a developer, don't know if I would build in a community where there was so much uncertainty about the project and what permits I would need. For all those reasons, I would vote I would encourage everyone to vote no on this amendment. The committee did the work to vet this. The committee voted the bill out unanimously, and I think that we should vote no on this. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Cavendish.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Thank you, madam speaker. First, I'd like to thank the member from William Sound for bringing this amendment forward. Second, I'd like to admit that I am chagrin for not bringing it forward myself as my town is one of the ones that would benefit. One of my towns, Cavendish, would benefit from this. We have water sewer. We don't have zoning. We're working on subdivisions, the bylaws. But we don't have the zoning, so we get left out. Or Vermont gets left out and excluded from the same benefits that the bigger cities have. Simple for because we don't have zoning. I'd like to say there there's at least nine that I found already from members in this sitting in this body that their towns would benefit. I would urge the body to approve this amendment. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Arsenault, Williston. No.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats. Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes in conversation during a roll call. When the clerk calls your name, answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. The question is, shall the report of the committee on environment be amended as offered by the member from Williamstown? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Austin at Colchester. Bailey, High Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Bartley of Fairfax. Rebecca Winooski. No. Byron River Gens. No. Bishop of Colchester. Alright. Black of Essex? No. William Lee of Burlington? No. Boston Westminster? No. Basha Clarendon? Yes. Boonew Berry City? Yes. Buena of Cambridge? Brady of Alliston. Yep. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Brigham, I'm Saint Albans Town. Yes. Brown of Richmond. No. Burditt, West Bretlin. Yes. Burkhardt of South Burlington. Burrows of West Windsor. No. Burditt Cabot. Campbell of Saint Johnsbury. No. Canfield for Haven. Yes. Carris Duncan and Whitingham. Casey Montpelier. No. Casey Hubbardton. Yes. Chapin at East Montpelier. No. Charlton at Chester. Yes. Chrissy at Hartford. Gina at Burlington. Coffin at Cavendish.

[Rep. VL Coffin IV (Cavendish)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Cole of Hartford? No. Conlon and Cornwall? No. Cooper Ponnel? No. Corcoran of Bennington? No. Critchlow of Colchester? No. Demar of Unisburg? Dickinson of Saint Owenstown? Yes. Dover Beach of Williamstown? Yes. Dodge of Essex? No. Dolan of Essex Junction? No. Dolgin of Saint Johnsbury?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Donahue of Northfield. Duke of Burlington. No. Durfee of Shaftesbury. No. Eastes of Guilford. No. Emmons of Springfield. No. Feltus of Linden. No. Galfetti, Marytown. Yes. Garifano, Essex. No. Goldman at Rockingham. No. Goodnight, Bradborough. No. Ghostin on Northfield. Yeah. Granny at Jericho. Yeah. Gregory Bennington. Yeah. Greg Warfarefield. Yes. Hengal Briggsier? Yes. Harbett Castleton?

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Hedrick of Burlington?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Burlington)]: No.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Higley Abloh? Yes. Holcomb of Norwich? No. Cooper Randolph? Put in the best description. Yes. Howard or Rutland City? No. Holland or Rutland Town? Yes. Hood Hartford? No. Hunter Manchester? No. James of Manchester? No. Gisenska Burke? Keyser, Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock. No. Klepner, Burlington. Kornheiser, Brattleboro. No. Crestmont, South Burlington. No. Labor Morgan. Yes. Lylea Shelburn. No. Alone to South Burlington. No. Amon Morristown. No. LaRussia Franklin. No. Lipsky of Stowe.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Logan of Burlington. Long and Newfane? No. Long and Melton? Yes. Leaders of Lincoln? Yes. Uno of St. Albans City? Yes. Maguire of Bretlin City? Yes. Malay of Pittsburgh? Yes. Marquardt of Coventry? As in a Thetford? Calvin. McKenna Montpelier? No. McCoy Pultney? Yes. Miguel Liburdport? Nicholas of Milton? Yes. Mollie Callis? No. Midyear, South Burlington. No. Morgan Ela Milton. Yes. Morgan Emma Milton.

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Horse Springfield.

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Shoot.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Horse Eve Bennington. Yes. Mora Weston. Roeke Putney. Of Brandon. Yes. Nigro Bennington. Yes. North Of Pittsburgh. Yes. Noise of Volkert. Yes. Nugent of South Burlington. Yes. O'Brien Pumbridge. O'Dea Burlington. Oliver Sheldon. Yes. Olson of Starksboro. No. Page in Newport City. Yes. Parsons in Newbury. Pezzo of Colchester. No. Pensanola Dorset. Yes. Patrick Hinesburg. No. Powers of Waterford? Yes. Bridget Yes. Bailey of London? Yes. Richardson of Burlington? No. Is that correct to Randolph? Shay in Middlebury? No. Skelly in Burlington? No. Sheldon in Middlebury? No. Sebeli in Dover? Yes. Susie in Berrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Squirrel of Underhill? No. Steady in Milton? Yes. Stevens of Waterbury? No. Stone Of Burlington? No. Sweeney or Shelburn? No. Haglia Via Carrint? Yes. Taylor Amanda? Thomas and Vanusky? No. Torrey Northtown? No. Walker or Swanton? Wausau's at Zacaberry City? No. Waters Evans in Charlotte? No. Wells Of Burlington? Yes. Wider Wagefield? No. What about the No. Winter at Ludlow? Yes. Wood Of Waterbury? No. At Cavonia Morristown? No. Chrissy Hartford, Gina Burlington, Donahue of Northfield, Coffin of Burlington, Parsons in Newberry, and Taylor Mendon.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For purpose of explanation, member from Glover.

[Rep. Katherine Sims (Glover)]: Madam speaker, I voted yes on this amendment because I cannot fight for local control and education if I'm not also willing to for local control in housing development. I have faith that our local select boards will be able to make the best decisions for their communities in terms of zoning and larger scale housing projects, and we'll also be able to use their own discretion about which projects should be approved and which should not. We all know we need more housing to fill our local schools to keep our communities alive, and so as an advocate for education, I have to fight equally as hard for housing.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 60. Those voting no, 83. The nays have it and you have declined to amend the report of the committee on environment. Now the question is shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on environment as amended, member from Middlebury.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Thank you madam speaker. S three twenty five is a good compromise, that benefits all parts of the state. We've listened to Vermonters. We've made several changes to address their concerns. And because this is a really important bill, I ask that when the vote is taken, it be taken by roll.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Middlebury request that when the vote is taken, it be taken by rolls. The member sustained. The member is sustained. When the vote is taken, it will be taken by roll. The question is will the house please come to order? The question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on environment as amended? Are you ready for the question? Member from Dover.

[Rep. Laura Sibilia (Dover)]: Madam speaker, I just want to say that I really appreciate the work that the committee has done on this and will continue to do on this, and

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: I will be supporting this bill.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Will.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I also appreciate, the committee's, work on this. I tried to write down as fast as I could the number of folks that testified. I was glad to see it was a large number and a mixed number as well. I think that's a concern for me. A lot of times, believe that whether it's the attorney for the LERB, the Monroe Conservation Districts, the Natural Resources Council, the Audubon Society, the Preservation Trust, ANR, LERB itself, all these folks are in this building, generally, at at many times, and and there's more. And and I guess, you know, my concern is when we talk about listening to the people, the general public and so on, I think that doesn't happen a lot of times. And I think what happened this time with Act 181 and in particular this S-three 25 is folks out there in the rural communities did start to listen and there was a group effort to make folks understand. And Madam Speaker, if I could, I've received, four letters as well as, yourself, madam speaker, maybe other members have received them as well from four of my towns. And if I could, I'd just like to read some of the highlights.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: You may.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Lowell)]: And again, this is through no encouragement of my own. This is something they came up with unless they maybe read one of my op ed pieces in regards to facts and figures in regards to 01/1981 and other legislation. So this from the town of Jay. We, the select board of the town of Jay, are writing to you to express our deep concerns and trepidations regarding act one eighty one. Our objections extend to act 59 and act one fifty three, the Global Warming Solutions Act, which is the parent legislation of both acts fifty nine and one eighty one. We believe that act one eighty one does not respect constitutional rights of property owners in Vermont nor are the financial incentives equitably distributed to rural towns such as Jay. The lack of input and open dialogue from rural Vermonters who live and work on 60% of the land being regulated has been very concerning as is the lack of transparency regarding the underlying purpose of the legislation and the identification of the nonelected consultants and developers who were involved in creating and influencing these acts for their own financial agendas to the detriment of rural Vermont. Act one eighty one as well as act 59 removes the individual town's ability to grow in the way that best meets the needs of their residents, landowners, and businesses. Again, that's just a piece of it. This is from the town of Irisburg. We are writing on behalf of the town of Irisburg to call for the full repeal of act one eighty one twenty twenty four and a fundamental overhaul of act two fifty to exempt families and small businesses trying to make a living on their own land. Currently, these laws do not protect Vermont. They cripple the very people who steward its land, landscape. As a select board representing a rural small town, we urge you to support House and Senate efforts to repeal the road rule tier three designations immediately. We do not need a delay until 2030. We need a permanent exemption for families and small scale developments that are the backbones of our rural community. This is from the town of Eden. The select board of the town of Eden writes with deep concerns and growing frustration to express our strong opposition to act one eighty one. We urge the general assembly to repeal and substantially amend this law before it causes irreparable harm to rural communities like ours. Eden is one of the largest towns in Vermont by land area spanning over 64 square miles. We have already contributed significantly to the state's conservation goals through widespread enrollment in the current use program and the recent permanent protection of more than 6,000 acres in the Eden Forest project. We support smart conservation, but act one eighty one goes far beyond reasonable balance. While the state has set a housing target of 70 new homes by 2030 for Eden, act one eighty one tiered system expanded act two fifty jurisdiction, restrictive road rules, and aggressive mapping requirements making meeting the target nearly impossible. The law simultaneously demands growth and blocks that ability to achieve it. This contradiction has created serious unrest among our residents. Many Eden townspeople are deeply worried about the future of our community. Some are actively discussing how they can work around the new restrictions. Others are talking about moving away entirely, and a growing number are even speaking of outright ignoring the law. Again, just a piece of what was there. This is from the town of Lowell. This is not about large scale subdivision or commercial development. This is about the ability of rural Vermonters to sustain their communities. The road rule disproportionately impacts towns like ours, effectively discouraging the kind of thoughtful incremental growth that keeps rural towns viable. The law select board recognizes the importance of environmental stewardship and responsible development. However, act one eighty one is writ has written shifts too far away from balance. It risks undermining rural communities by making it harder for families to remain, build, invest in the places that they call home. Again, madam speaker, four out of my eight towns, and I'm sure maybe more are gonna respond, but, you know, this is this is what they're saying now. This this is these are the towns that that these acts are going to affect. And and it maybe is late in the game, but, again, like I said, and some of them mentioned it in here, the folks that are down here, that are down here all the time, you know, cruising the halls, reaching out to the chairs of committees, representative, whatever it might be, it's a it's a tough gig to come up against it when when these folks are out there just trying to to make ends meet and and move their towns along. So, again, I hope that gives you a little perspective of of what's happening out there. And, yeah, I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to, address some of the concerns from some of my towns. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Hartford.

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Madam speaker, I rise in strong support of s three twenty five. S three twenty five is a bill that reflects this body's willingness to listen to and to hear the concerns of Vermonters, to engage with them and take their concerns seriously, to work in a bipartisan way to address the concerns of those who reached out to us about the road rule and the tier three designation specifically and the future of rural Vermont more generally. As a new member, it was very impressive to see the passion and organization of the people who came and testified before our committee and who reached out to us. Finding the right balance between incentivizing housing construction and protecting Vermont's natural resources and rural character, it's not easy to do, but it is vitally important that we try. And when it becomes apparent that the balance we've set is off kilter, it's a virtue to be willing to change course. It's easy to dig in your heels. The hard work is listening to the voices in opposition, taking those concerns seriously, and being willing and able to take a different approach. S three twenty five shows that this body is responsive to the concerns of Vermonters. Have we found that perfect balance yet between development and conservation? I don't know. But but certainly s three twenty five shows that we are willing to continue to work, continue to discuss and listen even if that means that we ultimately have to change course. I also support this bill for what it does not do. It does not repeal act one eighty one in full and keeps those provisions that will move us towards our housing and conservation goals. My district is a rural one, but I also represent people who live in Hartford, which has and has had for decades neighborhoods that are densely built, that are connected to public water and sewer, that provide access to public transportation, and are within walking distance of food co ops, restaurants, theaters, places of worship, community centers, and health clinics. This is the type of development we need in Vermont and that act one eighty one encourages. If s three twenty five recalibrates that balance that we struck in act one eighty one, it does so in a thoughtful and deliberate way that is responsive to the concerns of and leaves untouched those parts of act eighty one eighty one that promote thoughtful and mindful development. S three twenty five is a well considered, well drafted bill, and I'm happy to support it, and I ask that the body do the same.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member, Franco.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Madam speaker, I rise first to thank the chair and the members of the environment committee on the bill that we refer to as s three twenty five. And I also thanked him for inviting me to testify even though that was on age 70. It was the first time in four years where I've had that honor. And I really want to urge the body to support this bill. The the critical steps of repeal and amendment, I fully support. And I'll end by saying we were told by an individual who was giving counsel on another issue, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This bill today is much appreciated and goes a long way to, improving some of the barriers that, we faced prior. Thank you, madam speaker. The

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on environment as amended. Member from Castleton.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Thank you, madam speaker. While I consider myself an optimist, I wondered if we would ever see this day. I rise today in strong support of s three twenty five. The damage inflicted on Vermonters by act one eighty one cannot be undone in one afternoon, but the legislation before us takes meaningful strides in the right direction. As I reflected on how we got to this moment, I wanted to take a moment to speak to the movement that inspired the changes we are considering today. Extraordinary everyday people. Everyday Vermonters came together, not on a partisan basis, but united by a cause they believed in. Helping rural Vermonters and our farmers should not be political. It is the furthest thing from it. The changes we're voting on in s 03/25 did not originate here in Montpelier. They came from the fields, the forests, and the back roads of rural Vermont. When act one eighty one passed in 2024, Vermonters across the state, farmers, foresters, small landowners, and local officials raised their voices. The concerns we have been hearing are not new. We have been hearing them since the day it passed. But only recently had those concerns truly been heard. Vermonters said the timelines were too aggressive. They said the tier structure didn't reflect the reality of how rural communities play in, grow, and govern themselves. They said they needed more time, more flexibility, and more of a seat at the table. Today, finally, we are listening. S three twenty five makes meaningful responsible adjustments to act one eighty one. Most importantly, repeals provisions on road rule jurisdiction in tier two and three structures that were simply not ready for implementation. And critically, it invests in public engagement, real, neutral, statewide engagement so that the voices that spoke up when act one eighty one passed will continue to shape what comes next. Rural Vermont finally has a seat at the table. Like many of my colleagues, I've been hearing from thousands of Vermonters to support this bill. But for the first time in a long time, Vermonters are telling me something new. They are telling me they have hope. In closing, I wanna say how proud I am of the relentless advocacy from my fellow Vermonters. This effort was not based on republican values or democrat values, but on Vermont values. The people of rural Vermont did not come to Montpelier armed with lawyers and lobbyists. They came with common sense, with deep knowledge of their land and their towns, and with a legitimate concern that decisions were being made for them, not with them. Today, their voices have been heard, and they have been vindicated. I urge the body to support s three twenty five. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member for Milton.

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Grand Isle-Chittenden/West Milton)]: Madam speaker, similar to the member from Lowell, I too had two of my six communities select boards reach out with letters in support of s three twenty five. Am I brief read the brief letter from one of my towns?

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You may.

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Grand Isle-Chittenden/West Milton)]: The select board of the town of South Huron writes in support of repealing portions of act one eighty one, specifically tier three and so called road rule. These provisions represent an unfair taking of private property through state imposed restrictions on development that go above and beyond the current effective protections provided by local zoning, state wastewater and storm water permits, wetlands, delineation, and existing act two fifty law. Many South Shore residents are likely unaware of the full implications of act one eighty one is written. For this reason, the select board believes this legislation is at best premature and at worst an attempt to advance policy without meaningful input from key stakeholders namely Vermont's property owners. While we support tiers one a and one b which properly relax act two fifty permitting processes to encourage housing development, we strongly oppose the expanded regulatory reach imposed by tier three and road rule. And like this has been said by a couple of the speakers before me, this is, as I described in a report I put out recently, probably the single biggest grassroots effort I've seen in the state of Vermont in recent times.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Pultely.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, just a couple years ago, many of us gathered in this chamber to vote whether or not to override the governor's veto of h six eight seven, a bill that would become act one eight one. The debate back then centered around much this much of the same issues that we have brought to the majority's attention in the last few weeks. Primarily, those issues, things like the road rule and the tier system would cause significant harm to our neighbors in rural Vermont, slowing slowing growth at a time when we need to build more housing, attract new businesses, jobs, and economic activity to places that have fallen behind and do not fit into the Burlington Montpelier corridor. Because, madam speaker, that Vermont needs our help, and we need to listen to them when they tell us they are hurting. I would be remiss if it if I did re did not remind everyone of what the former member from Granby and my former passionate roommate said that day a few years back prior to the majority voting to pass h six eighty seven without regard for the real and specific concerns we had with the bill. Representative Williams said, I am from Essex County. This bill is a perfect example of how legislators don't care about us. I am ashamed that this body is excluding, minimizing any part of the state. So don't come up to me today and ask how I am. The answer is I am sick and afraid and defeated and angry and sad. There you have it. Don't ask because you have no idea about what you are doing to my county and the rest of the other 70% of Vermont. Representative Williams was able to put into words how many of us felt that day. We need to listen more way before a bill is passed. We need to hear citizens when they say they cannot afford to pay more in property taxes, when they cannot afford their rent or mortgage, health care, or their electricity bills. We need to pass laws that make it easier to live here, not harder. This body passes bills that become acts, like act one eighty one and property tax increases, and then wonders why we cannot keep young people here, why our population is stagnant, and why those who can afford it spend half the year in Florida in order to avoid the very taxes we impose. The changes we are voting on today are positive, but they are not a net positive. We are just going back to where we were before act one eighty one. And those of us who were listening then and still are today can tell you that the song remains the same. Taxes were too high then. Red tape was too complicated then. Act two fifty was too expensive and burdensome then. And now we are just back to where we started. So I want to be very clear. This is not a victory for the legislature. This is not a win for housing or regulatory reform. We have so much more to do before we even scratch the surface, and we would be wise to take the governor up on any of the dozens of ideas he and his team have put forward in the last nine years to move the ball down the field and move Vermont forward. We just offered five amendments to this bill. All were common sense amendments and would have made Vermonters' lives easier when dealing with permitting requirements and building much needed housing. The action today simply recognized we went in the wrong direction and choose to fix it, for which I am grateful. But this is a victory for Vermonters who too often stay silent, who wake up every day and work hard, care for their families, and volunteer for food drives. They serve the PTA, the volunteer fire department. They coach little league and serve on the select boards. This is a victory for them because they finally stood up and said, enough is enough. They took time away from their jobs and families to come to Vermont, the the state house, the people's house, sent an email, wrote us messages, and showed many in this building that their voice is more important than lobbyists and activists. And I hope they do not stop because Vermont needs them and their voices more than ever. I will vote for this bill, and I am thankful for those who are willing to admit they were wrong and change course. While I appreciate the hard work of the committee, the work is not done on this and many other issues.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? Member from Essex Junction. Madam speaker,

[Rep. Karen Dolan (Essex Junction)]: I am voting yes on s three twenty five because the goals of act one eighty one reflect core Vermont values. We need more housing. We also need to protect critical natural resources that make our state healthy and resilient. We heard loud and clear that more Vermonters wanted to be involved in creating these policies. We also heard loud and clear that both housing and a healthy environment are key to our economy. With more time and more public engagement, Vermonters from across the state can help shape the solutions. The changes to act one eighty one in this bill will ensure that we get these priorities right, and I urge the body to vote yes.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Are you ready for the question? If so, will the clerk please call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Arsenault of Williston.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Yes. That's the issue.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Two minutes. Will the house please come to order and members kindly take their seats? Will the house please come to order? I would like to remind members that we are in the middle of a roll call vote. Members and guests are prohibited from using computers, phones or any type of electronic device. Please refrain from the passing of notes and conversation during roll call. And when the clerk calls your name, answer in a loud and clear voice so the clerk can accurately record your votes. Question is, shall the house propose to the senate to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on environment as amended? Will the clerk please continue to call the roll?

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Austin of Colchester. Bailey of High Park. Bartholomew of Heartland. Yes. Bartley of Fairfax. Yes. Rebecca Vonusky. Yes. Myrong of Vergens. Yes. Bishop of Colchester. Black of Essex? Yes. Bloomley of Burlington? Yes. Bosland and Westminster?

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Pasha Clarendon? Yes. Boonton of Cambridge? Yes. Brady of Williston? Yes. Branagan of Georgia. Yes. Branagan of Saint Albans Town. Brown of Richmond. Yes. Burditt at West Rutland. Yes. Burkhardt at Battleboro. Yes. Burkhardt South Burlington. Burrows of West Windsor? Yes. Burditt Cabot?

[Rep. Leland Morgan (Grand Isle-Chittenden/West Milton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Campbell, Saint Donsbury? Yes. Canfield of Fairhaven? Yes. Carris Duncan to Whitingham? Yes. Casey Montpelier?

[Rep. Joshua Dobrovich (Williamstown)]: Yes, sir.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Casey Hubbardton. Yes. Chapin East Montpelier. Yes. Charleston of Chester. Christie of Hartford. Gina of Burlington. Coffin and Cavendish. Yes. Cole of Hartford. Colin and Cornwall? Yes. Cooper Ponnel?

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Corcoran of Bennington? Yes. Critchlow of Colchester? Yes. Demar of Venusburg? Yes. Dickinson of St. Albans Town? Yes. Doverville at Williamstown? Yes. Dodge of Essex? Donahue Northfield? Duke of Burlington?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Durfee of Shaftesbury? Yes. Estes of Guilford? Yes. Emmons at Springfield? Yes. Feltus of Linden. Yes. Galfetti, Barrytown.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Lowell)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Garifon of Essex. Yes. Fulmer at Rockingham. Yes. Goodnight, Branagan. Ghostland of Northfield. Yes. Granting of Jericho. Yes. Greer Bennington.

[Rep. Zachary Harvey (Castleton)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Greg Burkhardt. Greg Burkhardt. Harbaugh Glover. Yes. Harvey Castleton. Yes. Hedrick of Burlington.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Higley of Lowell? Yes. Holcomb of Norwich? Yes. Cooper Randolph? Yes. Houghton of Essex Junction? Yes. Howard or Rutland City? Yes. Hall in Rutland Town? Yes. Houghton of Hartford? Yes. Hunter Manchester?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Middlebury)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: James in Manchester. Yes. Cassandra Burke. Yes. Keyser, Rutland City. Yes. Kimball Woodstock. Cluttner, Burlington. Corcoraneezer, Betteborough. Yes. Cresno, South Burlington. Yes. Lebar Morgan? Yes. Lilia Shelburne? Yes. Malone in South Burlington? Yes. Lamonta Morristown? Yes. Laresha Franklin? Lipsky of Stowe?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Logan at Burlington? Long and Newfane. Yes. Long Milton. Yes. Peters of Lincoln. Yes. Bruno of Saint Albans City. Yes. You. Maguire of Rutland City.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Malay of Pittsburgh. Mark of Coventry. Yes. As in a Thetford. McKinnon Montpelier. Yes. McCoy Pultney. McGillibr McGillibrport. McLissa Milton? Yes. Mollie of Callis? Yes. Meniere of South Burlington? Yes. Morgan Allen, Milton? Yes. Morgan M and Milton? Yes. Orsie Springfield? Yes. Morrissey Bennington? Yes. Burrows Westin? Roeke Putney? Yes. Nelson and Derby? Yes. Nielsen and Brandon?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Stowe)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Niagara Bennington? Yes. North Of Fairsburg? Yes. Lloyds of Wilket? Yes. New Gina South Burlington? O'Brien and Tunbridge? Yes. O'Brien Burlington? Yes. Sheldon? Yes. Olsen of Starksboro?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Chester)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Page in Newport City? Yes. Parsons in Newbury? Pezzo of Colchester? Dorset. Yes. Patrick Hinesburg. Yes. Carris Waterford. Yes. Priestly Bradford. Yes. Bridget Burt. Yes. Quinby of Linden. Yes. Rachelson of Burlington. Yes. Seco of Randolph. Yes. Shia Middlebury? Yes. Scully of Burlington? Yes. Sheldon of Middlebury? Yes. Cecilia Dobrovich? Yes. Soussey, Berrytown? Yes. Southworth of Walden? Yes. Square Of Underhill? Steady Milton. Yes. Steven at Waterbury. Stone Of Burlington. Yes. Sweeney of Shelburne.

[Rep. Kevin "Coach" Christie (Hartford)]: Yes.

[House Clerk (roll call)]: Taylor Vieckar. Tomlinson of Winooski? Yes. Tory Morton? Yes. Walker Swanton? Yes. Wasses at Cabaret City? Yes. Waters Evans of Charlotte? Yes. Rosa Bradenton? Yes. White Wagefield. Yes. White Bethel. Yes. Winter at Ludlow. Yes. Woodwater Berry. Yes. At Gavonia, Morristown. Christie Hartford, Gina Burlington, Donahue of Northfield, Klepner excuse me, Kimball Woodstock, Klepner Burlington, Madeline of Thetford, Parsons in Newbury, Stevens Waterbury, Taylor Mendon.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: For purpose of explanation, member from Wilson.

[Rep. Angela Arsenault (Williston)]: I voted yes to s three twenty five with appreciation and respect for the committee's work and out of respect for the Vermonters who advocated for their needs and shared their opinions. Unfortunately, that's not what I see happening when it comes to education transformation. I urge all members to reject the ill conceived notion of forced district mergers and instead embrace the work of the education committee and the voices of thousands of Vermonters who've needs and shared their opinions.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Hyde Park.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Hyde Park)]: Madam speaker, in my regions, projects don't fail because demand process is too difficult. S three twenty five begins to reduce the friction, and that's why I supported it. But for many don't communities like mine, this is only a starting point, not a solution. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Fairfield.

[Unidentified Representative (Fairfield)]: Thank you, madam speaker. Far too many times, the minority has raised concerns and been ignored only for us to be back here fixing the very same issues brought up in the original debate. While I'm very happy with the steps we took today, the real answer is for us all to listen to each other a little more while setting our political and ideological differences to decide to truly allow ourselves to come at each issue from a more open perspective.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Saint Albans City.

[Rep. Joseph "Joe" Luneau (St. Albans City)]: Madam speaker, I supported s three twenty five as it recognizes that our current system is not producing enough housing in many parts of Vermont. This was not about weakening standards, about making sure the system works in places where housing is not being built. That said, our work needs to continue in this regard.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Ferrisburg.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you, madam speaker. I voted yes on s three twenty five because housing is not just about buildings, it's about people. In too many parts of Vermont, we are not attracting or retaining working age residents. And without housing, that will not change. This bill takes a step toward addressing that reality. But if we're serious about reversing demographic decline, s three twenty five is just the beginning, and we will need to go further.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Members, please listen to the results of your vote. Those voting yes, 141. Those voting no, zero. The ayes have it. And you have proposed to the senate to amend the bill. Now the question is shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for that question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Members now we'll turn to House Bill nine fifty three which is an act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Patton. The bill was referred to the committee on government operations and military affairs, which recommends that the bill ought to pass. The member from Burgens, representative Birong, will speak for the committee. Please listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Rep. Rob North (Ferrisburgh)]: H nine fifty three, an act relating to approval of an amendment to the charter of the town of Panton.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: Member from Virgins.

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: Madam speaker, h nine five three proposes to approve an amendment to the charter of the town of Panton to adopt procedures for the recall of elected town officers. This proposal was approved by the town of Panton's voters on May 15, and now I will go over the corresponding sections. This can be found on page twenty four thirteen of the calendar or the legislative website. On to the proposal itself, chapter one twenty nine f, the appendix within 24 VSA for the town of Panton proposes to lay out these provisions for the recall of town officers. Section to a, any elected town officer may be removed from the office subject to the following conditions and procedures. Subdivision one, a written petition signed by not less than 15% of the registered voters of the town seeking the removal of a town officer and requesting a vote of the town at a regular or special town meeting called for for the purpose of removal. This shall be filed with the select word or the clerk's office. If the petition is not filed more than sixty days or not less than forty seven days before the next regular town meeting, the select word shall place the question of whether the elected officer shall be removed on the warning for the next regular town meeting. Otherwise, the select ward shall call a special town meeting to be held within forty five days after receiving the petition. To vote on whether or not the elected officer shall be removed. In either case, the vote shall be held by Australian ballot. Subsection three. When the petition when the petition to removal is approved by the majority of the votes cast at the regular or special town meeting, the town officer named in the petition shall cease to hold office. The officer shall be removed only if at least as many registered voters of the town vote to approve the petition as voted to elect said officer in the most recent election wherein the officer was elected or at least one third of the registered voters in the town in the town vote, whichever is fewer. A vacancy resulting from the recall of an officer shall be filed in the manner prescribed by law. A recall petition shall not be brought against an individual more than once with any twelve month period. And finally, section three, it is effective upon passage. Your committee on, government operations and military affairs heard from the bill sponsor, legislative council, officer of legislative council, director of intergovernmental affairs, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and the town clerk slash treasurer town of Panton. The bill was voted out of house government operations and military affairs favorably

[Rep. William Canfield (Fair Haven)]: by a

[Rep. Matthew Birong (Vergennes)]: vote of ten zero one, and I ask for the body's support.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and third reading is ordered. Next is House Bill 46 which is an act relating to the Rare Disease Advisory Council. The senate passed the bill in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Essex.

[Rep. Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Essex)]: Thank you madam speaker. I'll remind members that we passed H 46, an act relating to the Rare Disease Advisory Council last year. This bill establishes a rare disease advisory council or RDAC, which is an advisory body that gives the rare disease community a stronger voice in state government. Our DACs address the needs of rare disease patients and families by giving stakeholders an opportunity to raise awareness and make formal recommendations to state leaders on the most important issues they face. The senate's proposal of amendment is on page two four one three of today's calendar, and it makes several updates. Section two b shifts almost all appointments of council members to the commissioner of health. This section also staggers the council's five year terms and updates vacancy filing rules, term starts and end dates and allows multiple terms. Section two d adds explicit requirements for assistance from the Department of Health and provides more details related to those to that assistance. Section 2F includes a technical amendment ensuring the meetings comply with Vermont Open Meeting laws. And finally, section three of the Senate proposal adds new provisions focused on long COVID resources and supports in Vermont. It directs the development the Department of Health in collaboration with the University of Vermont Medical Center, the Vermont Medical Society, and the Department of Disabilities Aging and Independent Living and individuals with lived experience to identify and share best practices and training resources for primary care providers, expand access to peer and community based supports for patients and develop recommendations for long term disability supports for Vermonters experiencing long COVID. Your house human services committee concurs with the senate proposal of amendment on a straw poll of nine zero two and ask for your support.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The question is, shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Up next is house bill five eighty two which is an act relating to adult protective services. The senate passed the bill in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Molliekhardt.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (South Burlington)]: Thank you, madam speaker. You can find the amendment on page twenty four seventeen of today's calendar. The senate proposed a single change to the definition of fiduciary in the adult protective service statute. As passed by the house, subdivision 36 b defines fiduciary to include among others an agent under the power of attorney or an advanced directive. The senate amendment strikes the phrase or an advanced directive from that list. The bill already defines representative to include agents acting under an advanced directive, so the amendment eliminates a redundancy and ensures advanced directors are captured under the correct term. The committee on human services voted nine zero two to accept the senate's proposal, the proposed amendment and ask for your support. Thank you.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is shall the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. All those opposed please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment. Next is house bill seven seventy eight which is an act relating to dam safety. The senate passed the bill in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is found it is printed in today's calendar. Member from East Montpelier.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: Madam speaker, we, our committee review received and reviewed the senate proposal of amendment, and we concurred with it with one very small one word further proposal of amendment. I think I have that right. It's the first time I've done this. So just quickly, this is the dam safety bill, and the changes that the senate made were largely pretty minor. They made a change in section two regarding state of Vermont emergency operations planning pilot project report that the set of emergency operations plans for each dam shall include instead of an emergency operations plan for each municipality, it would just shall include actions for each municipality. And then really the most substantial change is just below that where they took a list of entities that we had included that we were expecting the division of emergency management or their contractor to coordinate with in developing emergency operations plans. We had wanted to make sure certain entities that were sort of regional or statewide in nature would be included, including things like search and rescue partners, a swift water rescue providers. And they took that out at the request of the division of emergency management and used instead a term called the whole community that is defined in a federal emergency management guidance in 2011 and is referenced. And we heard the explanation of of why, and we were comfortable with that change. However, in the editing of that sentence, it went from it now said the division shall coordinate with and collect

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: input from the whole community that would be inundated if the dam were to fail.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (East Montpelier)]: The They hadn't changed the end of the sentence that said talked about parties that were in the regional area that would be inundated. So we would we are proposing just to change the word inundated to affected. So it would read, the division shall shall coordinate with and collect input from the whole community that would be affected if the dam were to fail. The rest of the changes are fairly technical in nature, changing things under still in the report section, looking at engaging facilities that has vulnerable populations such as schools, shelters, and unhoused to engaging the managers and administrators of facilities since we don't really engage buildings in conversations. And then there's another list that got shortened and then some clarification about emergency operations plans should be completed. Previously, said for state or federal dams in Vermont that are high hazard potential dams. And again, we don't like complete them for the dam. We complete them for the municipalities downstream of the dam. So that was changed in a number of locations. And that really is my summary of the changes from the senate proposal. So just, again, we we, I believe, voted eleven zero one to sorry. Eleven zero zero to concur with the senate proposal of amendment with that one word change as a further proposal of amendment.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: So the question is, shall the member from East Montpelier moves that the house concur in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment thereto. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have concurred in the senate proposal of amendment with further amendment there too. The final bill, on our action calendar today is house bill nine forty nine which is an act relating to homestead property tax yields, the non homestead property tax rate, and technical changes to education finance. The bill passed the senate. The senate passed the bill in concurrence with a proposal of amendment that is printed in today's calendar. Member from Brattleboro.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Brattleboro)]: Madam speaker, your ways and means committee received and reviewed the senate's changes to h nine forty nine. There were significant differences between our versions of the bill, including the uses of general fund dollars, a significant change in the excess spending threshold, and the inclusion of new exemptions and carve outs. There are also changes to total education spending. On a straw poll vote of ten zero one, your house ways and means committee moved to refuse to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and request the committee of conference be appointed.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: The member from Brattleboro moves that the house refuse to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and that a committee of conference be appointed. Are you ready for the question?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: If

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it and you have refused to concur in the senate proposal of amendment and requested a committee of conference. Pursuant to your action, the chair appoints the following members to serve on the part of the house. The member from Brattleboro, representative Corcoranheiser. The member from Woodstock, representative Kimball and the member from Linden, representative Feltus. Members that completes the orders of the day. Are there any announcements? Are there any announcements? Seeing none. Member from Pultely, can you please offer us a motion to adjourn until Thursday, May 7 at 1PM?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy (Poultney)]: Madam speaker, I make a motion this body stand in adjournment until Thursday, 05/07/2026 at 1PM.

[Jill Krowinski (Speaker of the House)]: You have heard the motion. Are you ready for the question? If so, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All those opposed, please say nay. Aye. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And this body stands in adjournment until tomorrow at 1PM.