Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Good morning and happy May 1. This is the House of Appropriations It is indeed Friday, 05/01/2026. It's just after 10:00. We're back from the floor and we are going to take up S-three 25. Our goal is to vote it out this morning. So we have all the people we need. Ellen, take it away.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen Chittendenkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel. I'm here on S-three 25, and I'm going lead to regional planning in Act two fifty tier jurisdiction. But I would say most, if not all of this bill, is directly related to Act 181 of 2024, which I suspect you all have heard of. So the version that house environment voted out was draft 8.1. And I have a section by section summary for you as well. It is dated May 1 today because yesterday's version had a couple of typos of it. I lost those. So Okay. I'm sorry. No,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: but that's great to end it. And you have a new one. Okay. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would you like me to share screen?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Sure. I'll share the screen. I wonder, do we want to go through the whole bill or do people rather do it section by section? Or do you have a preference? Section by section? Yeah, it seems like it's pretty thorough when I read it. And then if we have other questions, we've got the UN committee policy people.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. So the first handful of sections repeal a number of sections from ACLIN 81. So the first section repeals ACLIN 81 secondtion 19, which is the road jurisdictional trigger, also known as the road rule. This would have created a jurisdictional trigger for road construction under Act two fifty. That is being repealed so that it never takes effect. Under Act 181, was set to take effect later this year. However, it is being deleted so that it never takes effect. Section two is repealing Section 21 of ACT 181 which created the definitions of Tier two and Tier three. Those definitions and language also have not yet taken effect, so they are also being gotten rid of before they have gone into effect. Section three amends the effective date section of Act 181 and so it gets rid of the effective dates for those sections I just mentioned that have not yet taken effect. But what it also does is it changes the effective dates for sections twelve and thirteen, which is the language related to the creation of a new Act two fifty Criterion 8C, Force Locks and Habitat Connectors. One is the definitions related to that and the other one is the actual criterion language. That is being pushed back from taking effect 12/31/2026 to 01/01/2028 and that will give the board additional time for public outreach and development of the rules associated with criterion 8c. Section four repeals Act 181, Section 22, which was the rulemaking process for Tier three. Section five repeals Section 34, which was the Tier two area report, which was asking the Land Use Review Board to look at different things within tier two's jurisdiction and make suggestions on how those could be changed. So next, starting to amend some of the statutory language. Section six is amending 10 BSA sixty-eighty one, the exemption section of Act two fifty. And this is the section of law that has the interim housing exemptions that were created in Act 181. They are extending the existing sunsets on those exemptions from 2027 until 01/01/2028. The exemptions that that covers are up to 75 units of housing located in the Newtown Centre, Sproat Centre and neighborhood development areas with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, sewer water appropriate soils, up to 50 units of housing on 10 acres or less within one quarter mile around a village center with zoning and subpoenaed bylaws, sewer, water, or soils, or up to 50 units of housing in an urbanized area along the transit route. There's also another specific amendment to this exemption. Let's finish this There's an additional language added to this exemption. So currently there's a requirement for these 50 units of housing to be built on 10 acres or less. This is also specifying that to qualify that housing, including any of the incidental land around it, needs to be on 10 contiguous acres

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: of land. Right, your question?

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: For the 50, does it have to be an NDA also?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, the 50 is for either are for village centers with zoning. So the NDAs above are up to 75.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: So, what this section does is extend the date by a year where they are exempt from Act two fifty? Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Thank you.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the other interim exemption is the third bullet. So currently there's an exemption for all housing within downtowns if they have permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, sewer water or appropriate soils. So yes, all three of those bullets are being extended until 01/01/2028. Section seven amends 24 VSA 4,460 gs. This is language that is related to Tier 1A and it's adding clarifying language that when a so under Tier 1A, if a municipality has been granted that designation, the area that's part of Tier 1A is exempt for Back to 50 jurisdiction because the municipal zoning will be the review in that area. This is clarifying that when a municipal permit in that area of the exemption is being updated, relevant permit conditions from an existing Act two fifty permit are to be added to the municipal permit so that they can be enforced as part of the municipal permit. That language has already existed. It is just being rephrased slightly to be very clear about that. Section eight is section of the Act 21, Section 14. This is the rulemaking provision for criterion 8C. It is pushing back the date which the rule is due until 06/15/2027, and that goes with the effective date above, which is going to be 01/01/2028. So, the rules will be due and then the law will take effect after that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: And that 8c is up above forest plots and habitat connections. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section nine is a session law provision asking to create a public engagement plan. So it directs the State Natural Resources Conservation Council to work with the Vermont Council on Rural Development and the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts to develop a recommendation for a public engagement plan on issues related to working lands and critical natural resources. There has been critique of how public engagement on some of the Act 01/1981 things went. So this is to develop a public engagement plan that could be used in the future to look at these issues. So there's an appropriation here. This is the only appropriation in this bill. It's for $30,000 to the State Natural Resources Conservation Council for that plan.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: And that's why we have the bill. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 10 is creating the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. So this would be a committee to oversee environmental permitting at both the Landscape the Agency of Natural Resources. It would have three members from the House, two members from the Senate, and be able to meet up to six times per year outside of deception. Their duties really are just oversight to meet with both of these agencies and fear about their permitting processes and issues that are going on. There's no veto power associated with them or any other Other direct verbs for this committee other than oversight and meeting with the agencies.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: And in the bill itself, it talks about how they're chosen and when they start, things like that? Yes. And it's

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: currently sunsetting 07/01/2029.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: If the bill is that there's something about per diems?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, there is per diems for the five members on this committee.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Right, which probably can be absorbed by the general assembly budget. Probably that's in we'll talk about that when we get to the fiscal note. Yeah.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Wayne? No thinking or discussion of the reporting to the legislature or anything? They have a charge other than looking?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. It's being added to the the placement statute where there are other joint standing committees. And so it's not necessarily like a study committee where they have a specific report back. It really is an oversight to monitor agency permitting processes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: So we have the joint technology oversight committee and the health committee and Pensions. Any number of things. They don't

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: come report back to the Just trying

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: to draw the nexus to how they actually perform a function that's useful.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: I don't know how to answer That's all right.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: I think

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you could hear from the members of the committee what they were thinking, but a lot of the work of ACQUA-one hundred one was happening during the op session. So should something like that happen again, would be a committee which Sometimes

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: looking at something does have an effect.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: You can't expect what you don't inspect.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Yeah,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: so thank you, Yacovone. Don't worry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: You're already kind of headed down the path of the logic behind this, but also in just thinking about what is the role of the legislature in oversight and thinking about standing up a new professional board and just having better communication that is also transparent and open to the public. So we may people will say, couldn't you just do that on your own? But meetings that would be live streamed, just like this one, that the public could actually see and engage in. And also, as legislators, we hear issues about ANR permitting or Act of 50 permitting in the off session. Often those results in the well intentioned change to statute, and it's my hope that this committee can help resolve some of those issues more in real time and avoid constantly coming back and changing statute to do that. Great. Thanks.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 11 is another session law provision. It's a few reports from the Land Use Review Board. It is based on some of the reporting they were required to do in the tier two area report, but it's a bit narrower. So first they'll report back later this year on active 50 jurisdiction over commercial farm activities, which is an issue that comes up pretty regularly. There's another report on looking at the impact of mitigation of primary agricultural soils and that one is due next year. And then the third one is about the effectiveness of jurisdictional triggers and criterion 9L of Act two fifty in addressing sprawl and strict development.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Can you remind us what 9L is?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is about sprawl and strict development. And so, prior to 8c, this was the most recent Act two fifty criteria that was created and it looks at the impact of growth in areas and making sure that it is not a project that's not contributing to strict development or sprawl.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Which is defined? Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, next there are a few changes related to regional planning that were added in Act 181. So section 12 is amending 24 BSA 43.48, which is the statute that establishes the process for the Land Use Review Board reviewing and approving regional plans. And so the amendments in this section are creating a separate process for review of plan amendments. And so because this review process was new, there wasn't necessarily consideration of amendments beyond minor amendments. And so because the Land Use Review Board is going to be newly doing this review of plans, this creates a process, a slightly shorter process, if a regional planning commission needs to make amendments to their plan instead of going through the full review process. So basically, there are fewer public hearings on a plan amendment as opposed to a full plan. Additionally, there's language in here about enhanced energy planning for regional plans, and it's the identical language that was an H-nine 40, which the General Assembly passed. And so it matches the language that was already passed about making sure that that step, what is currently a separate process for regional planning commissions to develop enhanced energy plans will now also be incorporated with the Land Use Review Board's review. Section 13 makes multiple amendments to 24 BSA 4348A. This is part of the regional plan that establishes the land use categories that are part of the regional plans. And so there's a few amendments here made tweaking some of the language around downtown and village centers, including traditional or historic areas, stating that towns may have more than one center, being clear about that, striking references and adding references to the smart growth principles.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Then So, is this referring to the maps that the RPCs have been doing for the last couple of years? Yes. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So, they requested a couple of pieces of clarifying language to some of these categories. Okay. Yep. There's also a couple of small amendments in the village center one, making sure that the references are consistent to municipal or public water or wastewater and language about supporting development to meet the housing targets. And then the rural category, it's striking references to the conservation goals as well as striking inclusion of tier three in the maps.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yeah, in my particular regional planning commission, there's been a lot of discussion about these categories, whether it's rural conservation or rural agricultural or rural general, and how the planning commission divided those up. And up here, there was some methodology established by Verve of how you figure those out. And it was just very confusing and local input was that the regional planning commission was not following the methodology and not respecting certain designations as current use. So therefore it should go in the conservation category as opposed cultural category and a variety of those things. So does this help clarify some of that?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: I'm not sure. Chair Sheldon, do you have any comments about that?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Which section are you talking about?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Suspect, I think it's section 13.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: Section 13 and there is a comment here that it amends the rural conservation category to strike reference to conservation goals.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Which section on the

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: And the tiers of the areas. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is section 11 on there because

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: it was typo.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: I was like, there's nothing. Oh, got it. Sorry, there's a typo that I was distracted by. So this Mark Grove paragraph is just kind of being moved to a better location and then amending the plan. I don't think it's going to solve your problem. But that's the kind of thing the oversight committee could do, which is understand the interface between guidance from the LERB and where the RPCs are trying to do their new work, which is it's old work, but it's trying to get on the same page and be more consistent across the state. So there was already a regional plan that presumably had conservation categories in it before we started this, but that people may be seeing them differently or more aware of them, which was actually one of our goals, is to get people more interested in planning. And that's just like oh, so I'll just make a pitch. And one of the things we hear a lot about is the concern about appeals. And the one of the overarching goals of act one eighty one is to get Vermonters involved in planning from the beginning so that they understand what the planning and how that leads to zoning and how that might lead to a development next to their house. So being engaged from the beginning so they they are part of that process rather than at at the end when it they feel like it's negatively affecting them. But I would say, from what I understand of your question, that it would be, because it's an updated process, it's that interface between the guidance from the learner and them getting feedback, because they're just learning too.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Okay, thank you.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: John, did you have Just sort a comment, I had a meeting about when he went to his family, and I was here earlier this week, and kind of to Marty's thread here a little bit here, the depth of the medium term is in terms of what it relates to the map and the map to the actual physical outlay of the town. And I think just one of the pieces of feedback that I bring back here today here with us is, you know, once things get a little more settled here and this all moves on through here, it's providing municipalities with more of that real specific definition of the terms as it relates to the maps. As those things continue to get developed, there's lot of municipalities, they kind of hear about this in the news here, they're trying to figure out what's what here and try to follow the language that we're looking at here. And if you will confuse it here for sure, you know, what's what, what does it mean here in relation to actual physical layout of our municipality, it's just a really important next thing is the appropriate time to have happen. And that's just one of those things that sometimes It'll evolve. Yeah, yeah, it kind of evolves over time, but we're not always best in whatever passes here, and in more layman's terms, so to speak here to the municipalities, because that's how they operate.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Well, Planning Commission's have a big role.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: They do, and they try to figure this out here too as well, the more specific, you know, we've got the key things as far as mapping can be helpful. Yeah, thanks. We need to be some of that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Okay, continue, Alan.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, section 14 is adding the SMART Growth Principles to the definition section of chapter 117. They are identical to the smart growth principles in chapter 76A, but they're now being used in chapter 117 as well. Section 15 is a session law provision. It extends all of the regional plan and municipal plans that are set to expire either this year or next year and moving their expiration date until December 31 to make sure that in case there's any delay in the review process that they don't expire and there isn't a gap. Section 16 is repealing 24 BSA 4476 formal review of regional planning commission decisions. This statute is not functioning technically well because in 2010, the body that used to do the formal review of regional planning commissions was repealed. That body hasn't existed in a long time. And now you have created the process where the Land Use Review Board is doing some of the things that were addressed in the statute by reviewing regional plans. Section 17 starts some of the amendments to the Community Investment Program. So, Section 17 is amending 24 BSA 5,801. This is the definition section for the Community Investment Program. This is a successor program to the State Designated Area Program. So the changes here are lining up some of the definitions to make sure that they are cross referenced to 4348A to make sure that those definitions are being used consistently, including the definition around sprawl repair, downtown and village center, and state designated neighborhood. So, if

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: a town or village is currently a downtown or village center, they will stay, that designation will stay? Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and so they'll be rolled into the new investment program, but under that program, areas are eligible to become a designated area. Okay.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Great. Thank you. But yes,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all the existing ones, the pre existing ones will flow into the new program. Section 18 then amends 24 BSA 5,803, also part of the designation area, the Community Investment Program about downtown centers and village centers. So it strikes some of the language around the regional plan needing to identify the downtown and village centers eligible for designation. It also adds that both the department and the Community Investment Board shall provide comments on these areas during the Land Use Report review process with the RPC. And then it also strikes some language that is redundant with 4348A about pre existing non conforming designated areas. Section 19 is related to the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit Program. It adds language clarifying, not changing the law, clarifying what is already true, which is that in the guidance for who can apply for these tax credits, it's making clear that only those areas that are or are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places are eligible for these credits. So, under the Community Investment Program, one of the incentives that are available to towns that have a designation is the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit Program. However, that program itself has its own eligibility requirements. It currently requires that the buildings need to be at least 30 years old. But as I just mentioned, in the new community investment program, additional areas are eligible to be designated, which are not currently necessarily that old. So there was some confusion about whether or not some of the new areas would be able to apply for the tax credits. But the requirements of the tax credit program are not changing. They still are only available to those buildings that are old enough to be eligible for listing on the National Historic Registry. So, is not a change but a clarification.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: So, should that say are eligible to be listed on the National Register?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, possibly. Okay,

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: I just didn't know if I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: was misunderstanding it. Okay, question.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yes, Tom.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: So, Alan, so just to be clear, Downtown Waterbury has a downtown has designated downtown. Not all of the buildings are 30 years old. So would so the area would still qualify in general. And they are on the national register that was established in the '70s, the early '70s. But the idea is that any new building, if they were to apply if they were to get tax credits, would be a completely different program that they need to apply for, not the downtown village tax credits. Yes. But if there's a new town center in, say, South Burlington, where let's just say most of the buildings are new, but there might be an older building scattered within there, they can get that designation and those buildings might still be available to receive a downtown If

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the building itself is eligible, it could apply for the tax credit. Yes.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Just the building, not the whole area. Correct. Okay.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: Just trying to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, no, is a clarification of what is already true. Yes.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Yeah, no, it's just,

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: is it flush or is it full house? It's a different situation.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Thank you.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 20 is then adding an annual report to the community investment program so that there can be an annual summary of the board's activities related to all of these incentive programs. Section 21 is a session law provision. It's asking the Department of Housing and Community Development to report back on issues related to municipal zoning appeals and permits related to discretionary review. This report was in the Senate version but has been updated to include a couple other things, including asking for them to report back on data on housing built under the interim housing exemptions and Act one eighty one. And that report is due in January. The last section is updating 3BSA Chapter 73, the Environmental Justice Chapter. It is pushing back some of the deadlines in that chapter. And so the agency's annual spending reports are being delayed by one year until 01/15/2029. ANR's environmental justice rules are being delayed a year and a half until 01/01/2029. The rules for other agencies are delayed two years because they will be based on ANR's rules, and that's 07/01/2030. And then the mapping tool is being delayed until 01/01/2028. And the effective date is 07/01/2026.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: Any questions? Yes, go ahead. Can you give us further information on the environmental justice concept and what this does? Sure.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in 2022, the legislature passed the law establishing three VSA Chapter 73. It asks ANR, working with an environmental justice advisory council and an interagency council to develop community engagement plans, as well as rules for the state agencies to adopt so that they can achieve meaningful participation in their agency processes. Also identifying in their annual spending reports how they have been spending and looking at whether or not environmental justice focused populations have been receiving proportional spending under agency programs. So there's a couple of different aspects of the environmental justice policy. Part of it is about meaningful participation of all groups, including the marginalized groups that fall into the environmental justice population, as well as making sure that there has been proportional spending of agency resources on those marginalized groups as well.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: I'm sorry, I must have missed all that. How did we define environmental justice or environmental justice groups for marginalized environmental groups?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So it That

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: is this chapter, should I? Sure.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is in 3BSA chapter 73, all those terms. 3BSA? 3BSA? Yes, it's in the I'm looking at that. I don't

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: if it goes up. Oh, it's 72. Oh, it?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, look how many typos we found today.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: It only goes to 72 and there was some 73, so I just

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: So 72 is the correct chapter?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yeah, title three, chapter 72 is at the bottom. First they identify environmental benefits, environmental burdens. Income is part of it, the population.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it established that there is a state environmental justice policy, and then it directs the agency of natural resources to lead the state's work in incorporating this policy into rest of state government and identifies a number of state agencies that also have to specifically adopt rules based on these principles to make sure that there is proper meaningful participation from groups as well as proportional spending.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Thanks. So those are all

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations)]: pushed out to '29. I know in our area, our regional planning commission worked hard with, I think, ANR and others, And on the Smuggler's Notch Road, below where the trucks get stuck, but out there a ways, they put in a really great wheelchair accessible walking park that goes out into a wetlands area, and it's really impressive.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: It dawned on me that

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations)]: I was to try to reach populations that typically have a challenge enjoying that, the wildlife.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Okay, all

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations)]: I'm sure there's others in the state.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: It's the reference in the language is correct. Just on the summary sheet. So it says

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yeah. In the language, it says 72. Okay. Thanks for checking that, John. Doesn't have to go back. We don't have to have an amendment. No. We're amending a statute that doesn't make sense.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: The chapter doesn't exist.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Any other questions for Ellen at this point?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Don't go too far, but we'll

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: have Ted come up and

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do the joint, sorry, the

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: fiscal one.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: Oh, one other question. In the original 03/25, I think, from the Senate, they had extended some things to 2030. I understand you brought them all back to 2028. Oh, correct. Except from this very last one, I see here it's just January. What were those that got moved from the Senate version of 2030

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: back to '28? The language in section six on the interim housing exemptions. And they had also delayed tier three in the road rule.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: They delayed those things and

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: helped This them. Right, that's right.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: We sort of went one step further in the house. Okay, great. Great. Thanks so much. We lost temperature.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Could you let me in Thank Zoom you. I was debating introducing myself for the record as slowly as possible.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: I scare

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: you all that. Ted Barnett, joint fiscal office. Running through the fiscal note, the main fiscal impact that we unfortunately don't have an estimate for requires comparing fee revenues that would flow to the Act two fifty permit fund in the current law structure established in Act 181 compared to what would be happening in this bill. So very high level in Act 181. The idea is that interim housing exemptions would exist and provide projects exemptions from Act two fifty process and paying associated fees while communities and regional planning commissions were doing their mapping work, that would flow into tier one a and one b areas, which had tier 1A areas were fully exempt from Act two fifty, tier 1B areas. Projects with fewer than 50 units were exempt from Act two fifty. That was kind of the establishment. And then the inclusion of tier three, the road rule, jurisdictional trigger, and forest blocks and habitat connectors would increase Act two fifty jurisdiction, which would bring in additional permit revenue for those fees. So that was the current law structure. This, by maintaining interim exemptions for a year longer and maintaining those tier one and one areas means that the revenue losses under Act 181 would persist, but because you don't have the tier three and road rule jurisdictional triggers, you wouldn't see the increased fee revenue. So compared to Act 181, you would see this bill would create less permit revenue going to the Act two fifty permit fund, which goes to support permit review activities to the LERB and ANR. So we don't know how much. It ultimately depend would have depended, right, on how many projects would hit would fall in those tier three areas, would hit the road rules or a jurisdictional trigger. And so we didn't have an estimate in 01/1981 in the fiscal note. And we yeah. There's no way to know how much additional revenue

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: you would have gotten into that construct. It's very speculative. Exactly.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Does this mean there's a possibility that LERB or whoever would come into the general fund for funds because they don't have the permit funding?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so the Land Use Review Board is supported through general fund and special fund. I have it in my notebook here because I wrote it down. So in current, in FY '27, their budget request was 4,300,000 in general fund and 1.5 in special fund revenue. So it's possible, right, by maintaining this, there would be a little additional general fund that would be required to support the Land Use Review Board, though would also note that by I mean, they still have a lot of work to do in this whole process, but by not having to review projects that are happening in tier three areas, there's a little bit of a less than admission I haven't checked in with LERB and whether that would net out. But that's yes, your question is correct. It is with less fee revenue, It's not. Might be a

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: higher We don't really know because the work is changing as well.

[Rep. Martha “Marty” Feltus (Vice Chair, House Appropriations)]: Right, except that now the LERB is a permanent five member full time commission as opposed to the part time.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Right, which we're already funding that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: Right, we're funding that.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: So that won't change and that will they'll have their annual increases and all of that sort of thing. So that's already in the budget.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But yes, that would obviously, as in next year's budget, as they're coming in with their budget requests, continuing to see how interim exemptions are sugaring out and the process of It's my understanding that the interim exemptions are pretty closely reflective of the At least in I've seen testimony from Charlie Baker from regional planning commissions that interim exemptions are lining up to some extent with tier one a, one b areas. So it might kind of forward on over, and you might not see too much variance with the current structure, but hard to know.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Okay. Yep. Great.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Section nine, so this is the it would task the state Natural Resources Council with hiring a contractor to develop a public engagement a plan for public engagement. So yes, it's a $30,000 appropriation that Ellen mentioned to you all from the general fund. I will note that in the Senate version of the budget that they just passed, they included $100,000 appropriation to the Land Use Review Board for public engagement in consultation with- So

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: it's in the budget, we so don't have to find it somewhere else.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. So that is, I think, maybe, I don't know, I'm looking to James, a point to think through on the committee of conference between those two pieces.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: So the lawyer

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: was getting an extra 100,000 for this bill.

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: Correct. In the budget bill.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Right. And it looks like we don't need 100,000.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: Also noted that the LERB is adjacent to the statistical LERB is the receiving activity appropriations of budget. I believe 03/25 would appropriate this to the natural resources conservation. Yeah. Yeah. So that that could also be

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: We can we can fix that in the budget. So would receive the appropriation. I'm counting. I need to remember that. So the money's been accounted for. That's always a good thing.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly. Yes. And we spent yeah. We certainly chatted about this in the office to make sure we're lining up and all lining up in the right place.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Great.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep. The joint legislative environmental oversight committee, they would meet no more than six times during adjournment unless approved by the speaker of the house or pro tem of the senate. And so for six meetings, those five members would receive $8,000 per year if they have all the six meetings. And the committee would cease to exist on 07/01/2029. So there are a couple years that the committee would be meeting during adjournment.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: And the general assembly budget can handle that.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Yep. I

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: would say in the near term, it's hard to know session to session, the volume of study committees that are placed. So I don't want to necessarily speak for going in the 2028, whether that is still true.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. I know.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Some years we have 43, and some years we have seven. But so far for this fiscal year, we're okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly. And then section 12, this is a fee situation. So, it adds language that non minor land use map amendments would be filed as part of a regional plan amendment. It would occur a $295 fee created in Act 181, which I had the wrong date reference there. It is Act 181 of 2024 and deposited in the Act two fifty permit fund. We don't know how many amendments would be filed but wanted to flag, but it does. The bill references that fee created in 01/1981 and these map amendments would incur a fee. This is for the LERB to kind of defray their costs in reviewing these land use map amendments. Yeah. And then finally, the end of the note includes language that Ellen did a great job of explaining for the Downtown and Village Tax Credit Program and how the clarification we included in the notes since it could read as a change to the scope in that program, but we wanted to emphasize that it really is clarifying language.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Well, we're covered with the money. It's always a good thing. Any questions for Ted on the fiscal piece? Thank you, Ted. Of course. We have two members of the environment committee. Do we have any other questions for them at this point? Are people feeling that they understand what they need to understand for the bill? Justice is a reminder, this passed out eleven-zero out of House Environment, passed out ten-one out of Ways and Means, and Rep. Kansfield is the reporter of the bill from Ways and Means.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mike?

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: I'm to entertain

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: If I'm ready to entertain both of you. So moved. Moved. And seconded by John. Any further discussion?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just a comment. Really thank the committee for the work. It was a big heavy lift, and you took a whole lot of input, I very much appreciate your efforts.

[Rep. David Yacovone (Member, House Appropriations)]: Section by section is very helpful.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yeah, thank you all for your hard work. I know it was hard in lots of ways, but here we are. Yes.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: I just suggest that we can maybe discuss a possible amendment to removing the appropriation from the note considering that there is currently money in the budget for this purpose for outreach?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Is there a reason that we would need to take it out of budget, out of here?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: There any reason they can't we're be

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: talking the committee to discuss and decide that there is currently funding for the outreach contemplated in this bill in the budget. Right. It's currently 30,000 for that same purpose in the bill as it's before you can. So you may wish to consider an amendment to just make sure

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: that there's no double absorption. I

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: don't think there'd be a double. We do that often with putting it and we just accounted for it. We account for it in the budget.

[Unidentified committee member or staff]: You could just carry it. You could remove it from the budget and know that it's carried separately.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Yeah, I think we can do. I don't really want to do an amendment if we don't have to. And that seems like it's not. I think there's another way we can work that unless I see Ellen waving wildly, which I'm not. So I think you can do it with a budget piece. Really? Just keep it in touch. Thank you for identifying. I'm very thinking.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: You know about it when you go to conference, you know?

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: Right, absolutely. Right. Tiffany has notes on her spreadsheet. I'd see them, and Trevor will talk about it when he presents it on the floor. So I think we're set. Thank you for raising the issue. Any other comments, Commissioners? Seeing none, is the clerk is ready? Please call the roll.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: Representative Bluemle? Yes. Dickinson is absent. Representative Feltus? Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Representative Laroche? Yes. Representative Mrowicki?

[Rep. Michael Mrowicki (Member, House Appropriations)]: Yes. Representative Mike? Yes. Representative Squirrell, yes. Representative Steven?

[Rep. Thomas Stevens (Member, House Appropriations)]: Yes. Deputy Yacovone? Yes. Deputy Shy? Yes.

[Rep. Trevor Squirrell (Clerk, House Appropriations)]: 1001.

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: 1001. Alright, did our part in Trevor's reporting to Trevor. Thank you all. Thank you for coming down. And you all send a text to the speaker and to the chair so you have it. We appreciate all your work. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Good job, everybody. That's all we have in committee, but let

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: me just see. So the Committee of Conference is meeting at

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: 01:00 in the Senate. We are going to just have an organized meeting. You're welcome to watch. I don't think this one will be particularly exciting, but we'll open up with a little notebooks. And then, Autumn, do we have anything else at this point for next week? No. We don't. So we will be getting bills and we may be getting some bills. Don't know if any committees are voting out bills we're going to get, but they're voting out today that we would get early next week. So I'll keep you posted if I hear about anything, but I know there's a few bills on

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: the list of things that

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: are going be coming our way. I'm just not sure of the timing from the other committees. So I'm thinking toward the end of next week, we'll probably have some more bills to take a look at.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what we got. So, Tuesday

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: 10AM on the floor.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair, House Environment and Energy)]: I just don't think we're going

[Rep. Robin Scheu (Chair, House Appropriations)]: to have an emergency where we need to meet before ten I will take it from there.