Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You went to BBA.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: We're live. Oh, is that right? Yeah.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. This is the Vermont House Committee of Commerce and Economic Development. It is Friday, 04/10/2026 at 09:05 in the morning. And so we use this half an hour before going to the floor to hear from our legislative intern. Abbott, good morning, and thank you for joining us. Thank you. Abbott Sales, UVM intern. It's gonna be fairly short for me this week, but I'm just gonna talk about a couple things, couple bills that they're discussing in Senate economic development, starting with H211, Actuating to Data Brokers. This was introduced by Representative Priestley earlier this week. And now we're just going to go over some discussion and questions that they had, specifically from Senator Rand Hinsdale, asking if there will be a bigger impact, if there could be a bigger impact on this type of personal data collection and individuals just continually opting out.

[Abbott Sales (UVM intern)]: Just a little bit concerned that opt out might not have as big an impact as she would like to see. And the response was from Ryan Krueger that the data broker industry right now most likely won't get completely banned. But there is some legislation in Maryland that is experimenting with banning data being collected for non essential business practices. But it's too early to tell the full impact of that yet. But there are some places working on that. Another question from Senator Brock as to the disclosures, some concerns about whether or not people are going to know that this takes effect. The disclosures will be on the AG's website and on the data broker's website. Those are the only real concerns that came up in the overall committee sentiment. It was very positive towards the bill, but they are going to have more discussion. And moving on to H512, event ticketing. They heard from Lauren Wayne, who's with State Theater Presents in Portland, Maine, and she was very positive about this bill. Maine passed LD nine thirteen last year, which is similar and cheap. So very highly of that saying that it worked. It also has a 10% cap, and it requires upfront pricing information and advanced speculative ticket selling. So that was seemed pretty informal committee. There were some concerns, especially from Senator Chittenden, about the 10% cap being on the original price of the ticket before or after fees. It seems like the 10% would be after fees, but that's just a topic that continues to be discussed. In the committee. And Senator Weeks asked a question, just a little bit of pushback about whether resellers could sell tickets to each other back and forth over and over to keep raising the 10%. In the case of Maine, that hasn't really happened yet. If they face situations like that, they typically refer it to the AP's office in Vermont. That might not end up being a big deal, but it is something they were talking about. And Lorne Green also pointed to EU and UK ticketing legislation. EU doesn't have a price cap, but they do have some policies that focus on clear disclosure and defending against deceptive practice, specifically any ticket selling. And The UK has the 100% price cap, you can't resell above that. The legislation in Maine and page five throughout, Rawls and Middle. They also heard a couple stories from Vermonters who are victims of deceptive ticket reselling practices. Overall, they were largely positive about the bill, but there's going to be more discussion to come there. And that's all I have for this week. Any questions for Kevin?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Thank you very much.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: And Bailey just sent her

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: report and I posted it. Yes, thank you. Okay. I sent it to Jonathan.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Not a problem. Good morning, Bailey.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Good morning. Bailey Davis from the Northern Interior Committee here. What I went over this week was primarily Senate Bill three twenty five, and that's currently in the House and Environment Committee. So I was referred to them. In this time we have, it's very hard to obviously cover everything because there's been public comment on it as well. But I'm primarily going to cover some of the witnesses that they've called. So first and foremost, Kirsten Sultan and Alex Windham, they're members of the Land Use Review Board, and they've presented some of the changes that they've come under after the passing of Act two fifty, or after Act two fifty's changes went into effect. I don't know if you remember, I testified about Act two fifty earlier this session. And so a lot of this is in relation to that. This typo on the version that you have, it says like council member count, it's like a double item text, did that twice. But basically, it testify on the board's authority to determine appropriate criteria for some of those Act two fifty regulations. And they testify that legislation should specify the authority's waiver rights, and that's in order to not have lag or build up in terms of the government's system. The second witness is Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns. And she primarily discussed road rule, which road rule in Act three twenty five is the idea that it's trying to restrict sort of on new roads to reduce sprawl. And a lot of people, and I'll get into it a little bit later, she kind of had an issue with that, that it's going to cause problems with zoning for local municipalities. And then as we get into later, a lot of farmers in rural areas also have a big issue with that. And so in terms of zoning, in Act two fifty, and I'll get into that later when we talk about the chairperson of Let's Build Homes, Mario Weinberger. He's obviously former mayor of Burlington. He also has a similar issue as Samantha Sheehan did, in that in Act two fifty there's exemptions to certain areas served by water and sewer, but people like Mario Weinberger, for example, argued in his testimony that we should actually just completely get rid of the, not the exempt, supportive expansion of the exemptions to serve basically all areas that are served by municipal water and sewer, as opposed to just some areas. That's related to tier one, two, and three zoning, particularly tier one, that fast growth area. Mario Windham also called Kirk, he repealed that road rule in a direction of Root Zone. So Root Zone stands for Residential Opportunity Overlay for Towns, and that should be expansion of that by right. So if you're in that certain area served by municipal water and sewer, you have almost approval by right, then that obviously would spur expansion, which is really the whole argument made by his organization, Let's Go and vote. It's trying to reduce the regulatory oversight and try to curb the demographic prices and housing production. So I'm going move on to Sam Lincoln. So Lincoln, is kind of what I was talking about when it came to agriculture, particularly that road rule where it restricts new, particularly long roads. And that would be a huge issue when it comes to farmers because obviously farmers typically rely on some of the improvements to rural roadways. And so if there's restrictions to that through that road rule, then it would be, of course, a restriction on their ability to do their work. And I mean, I'm going open up any questions. Think, I don't know if you guys would also want to hear about my report last week. I know I didn't get to get a chance to come in and talk about that, but if you guys have any questions about that, I'll follow-up on that as well. I have

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: a question about this. Your

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: report says Vermont has had wind flaws on the books. It's not a typo. Which section is that in? Think it's in the second page, that first little paragraph. I think this is from the report from Samantha Sheehan. What I did was I, or sorry, Mario Weinberger, it's from his, I mean, upload the PDF as well. I was just curious what wind laws are. That's just from his fitness testimony. I mean, I can look into it for sure in more detail. I'll just try to make a kind of a general overview. I know it's very complicated for the amount

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of time we have here,

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: but it'd certainly take me a lot more time.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Questions? The

[Unidentified Committee Member]: wine burger, it's less built on just talking about the mood zones. And that's just like that's just there.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Identity. That's a thing there. I think it's been talked about by a few different people, but I know it's definitely something that's been in sort of the, in terms of this area, it's something that's kind of been thrown around, just like common phrase, and that's something that they are advocating for.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: Yeah, Three Flight has a study in it to create root zones.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Who would they consider?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: I think the idea is the town creates areas that allow by right housing. It's an overlay in a town, so it's beyond Act two fifty exemptions. It's basically marrying yeah.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: I think it has to do with that support of the expansion. It's that expansion of the Act two fifty exemptions. And

[Unidentified Committee Member]: but did I hear that it was still tied to the existence of municipal water and sewer?

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Yes, so I mean, under the current or under the Act two fifty exemptions, the original ones that was one of the, I guess the free credits to getting that exemption would be you'd have to be served by municipal water and sewer, But there are places that are served by municipal water and sewer that wouldn't get that exemption. It doesn't

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: let's go homes. Want to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: extend the exemptions to those areas that

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: do have municipal warrants. But not any other All areas served

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: by municipal water, considering. Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's our criteria. I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the way it's set up now it's that you also have to be recognized as a world. So by your regional planning commission. And then on top of that, if you're not in a flood zone and don't have, and you have municipal water and sewer, then you can get the tier one B and eventually tier one A. So I can see a situation where they're just not in one of the regional planning commissions growth zones. Even though they have town water and sewer Right. They can't take advantage of tier one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And so this this would enable those areas expansion. And I guess my thinking is, you know, knowing some of these small towns, they they don't have municipal or anything. So they there are lots of their towns that housing would be in the zone.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: There can be tier

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: one being for that. I know, but that's why

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was asking about their proposal, it seemed to me, what I was hearing was that it was limited to areas that do have water and sewer, which helps some towns, have some places, but probably not others.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: The thing is, like you said, there could be tier 1B without water and sewer, but there can be not tier 1B with water and sewer. Obviously, we'll just expand that from an arbitrary zoning.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just for clearing up, I'm not sure. It sounded like you said that it was the regional planning that choose what goes in what areas, but the towns submit their plan to regional planning. Regional planning combines all the plans. So the towns are fully

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They are. Yes. You have to opt in.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: Well, they're fully using. Correct. They choose to have RPCs collate it, but the LERB then reviews

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: and Yeah. If we

[Unidentified Committee Member]: have a vote, like

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But that but it's not nobody else is putting them into just areas. The town has to request. Correct. Yes. It's that these areas are right.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: But the alert also has to hit them quickly. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So sometimes you're seeing that as the regional plans are submitted, the order is sending back with some modifications to areas that have been designated by municipality and the regional planning commission. So people are kind of scratching their heads like, why would a portion of Killington's TIP district be excluded from that? We're just learning as we go. So I can see why something like a root zone allows for an additional layer of municipal decision making, knowing that you're gonna get what you say

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: you want, which I think is important.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: Yeah, and I think the idea of root zones too, is to also marry kind of eight zero two homes program. So it's really also about building code and zoning. So the idea is the state creates a code, the towns adopt it for these root zones, and then certain What fits the state code can then be built by Wright in those root zones. So for example, all of the designs that are in the eight zero two Homes, missing middle homes catalog, if that was part of the state code that was adopted, someone could just build it by right in those areas.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Are there any other questions? Any questions related to right to repair right now? Because I didn't get to a comment last week.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Speaking about Raicher at Bear, we signed it. There was a new article. Who sent that out? Gabby. Oh, I did, yeah. About John Deere in Colorado.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possible Jonathan Cooper)]: Yeah, was thinking, can pull it up. There's a lawsuit.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Oh really?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Yeah. It's pretty interesting.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Yeah, when they did my report last week, I know there was what I talked about in front of me, but I know I talked about was was obviously certain groups that are going to challenge those laws, but there's been lawsuits based on other things that could have been used to challenge those as well. So I think maybe that's what about.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, it came out on Wednesday, the article about philosophy.

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: You sent that at the, I probably didn't mention it to him, but yeah, he just kind of looked that. It's a cabinet in the face. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It didn't seem like, so when we were considering the build, had a lot of discussion about, my introduction to the term is manufacture, and I can see that servicing versus manufacturing being an area of significant disagreement between the parties about whether we're going to shoot us this or they went, I can imagine OEMs should be like, oh that's with manufacturing or something like that.

[Bailey Davis (Intern, reporting on S.325)]: Yeah, just keep it because if you, let's just say you had a tractor, and you had to believe you build the engine, you can see that it's manufacturing as opposed to repair. So that's one of big things. Think there's a specific out of Colorado law that targets agriculture. But yeah, and I mean, want to kind of make a tangent, the end of it, but basically even though those laws technically protect, again, for right to repair, there's still ways that companies can still manufacture things in ways that can't be repaired, but it doesn't violate right to repair, that's just how they made it. As long as they provide you with the parts that technically can repair it, even though you can't necessarily repair it yourself, it still technically doesn't violate the principle. Any other questions?

[Michael Marcotte (Chair)]: Great. Thank you, Taylor. Thank you, Chittenden. These guys are only with us for a couple of weeks. Great. I'll still be around. Come up? Come up. We're good. Okay. So we're on the floor, think. It's 09:30. Think it's estimated we'll be out there till eleven We have J. Ramsey coming in and allowing him to talk to us about a couple of different things that may. So, I'm not sure yet if we anything for this afternoon. We'll know more when we come back at eleven So, if have any questions? Okay, so we're on the floor at 09:30, back here at eleven or whenever the floor gets Well, eleven for sure, we get out the floor before eleven, you will be back in here for eleven. Jay's scheduled for eleven. It's after eleven, come right back here. If we have to eat into the lunch hour, then we could take a longer lunch hour. It's something we're doing anything.