Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Live. Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We're gonna shift gears and start talking about s three twenty five with, I think it would be good to do a reprise with our legislative council on the sections of three twenty five and and have q and a based on testimony we've taken and and also thoughts on sections. But additional to that, many of I think all of us actually have now hard copies of Act 181, and if there are sections of that that we want to look at with legislative council, we could do that after this, unless someone has a reason to do that before this on a section they want to hear.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Ellen check out the Office of Legislative Council. S-three 25 is still as passed by the Senate, so there haven't been amendments yet.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Did you want start at the where did you

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: want to start at the beginning? Okay. So this is an act relating to regional planning and Act two fifty to your jurisdiction. The first section is an intent section. So it says the General Assembly finds that 2024 action resolve number 181 represented a substantial restructuring of Vermont's land use review framework. This act is intended to provide technical clarification, transitional certainty, and implementation alignment consistent with the of Act 181 and without altering its underlying policy goals. So you may want to consider as you make changes if you if that section also needs to be adjusted.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. And so from here on out, can just do high level what the section does and then see if there's questions about it. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two starts with the amendments to Act two fifty. The first one is in 10 VSA 6,000 and one(three), which is the definition of development under Act two fifty, which are the jurisdictional triggers. And so the first change that's being proposed is at the top of page two, which is pushing back the implementation date for the road construction jurisdiction and also called the road rule. Currently in statute, it is going to take effect this 07/01/2026. And then also within the statute itself, it says it applies to roads constructed after 07/01/2026, and the senate has proposed to push that back to 01/01/2030. Next starts some of the amendments related to the interim housing exemptions. So on page two, this is interim housing exemption for priority housing projects. So it removes the cap on how many priority housing projects can be built under an exemption from Act two fifty. And so currently in statute, it says that this exemption goes until 01/01/2027, pushing that back to 01/01/2028. And so, to remind you, priority housing projects are affordable. They have to have an affordable element, so they have to be either mixed use or mixed income housing, and they have a so there's a requirement that at least 20 of the units are affordable as defined in the statute for at least fifteen years. And then they also have to be located currently in statute in one of the designated areas. And so in addition to this amendment for the temporary exemption, there's also a change to the definition of priority housing project in section three.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But this language at the top of page page three

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yes. Can

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we talk about that?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So, this is one of the interim housing exceptions. There are three or four others, depending on how you count in Section 6,081. And those interim housing exemptions contain this language that is being proposed on the top of page three. So the priority housing project exemption did not have this language about whether or not the exempt units could be built in river corridors. The other housing exemptions do currently.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: If we have the others, why do we need a separate one for priority housing projects exemption? May be covered under the broad ones?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So this one was enacted earlier in time than the other ones. This was, I believe, part of the HOME Act, and there was a couple there were I believe there were two that were enacted under the HOME Act and then under Act 181 the next year. One of those was repealed and replaced by one of the interim housing exemptions. This one was just extended. So, yes, this is for affordable housing units. There's no cap if it's located in a downtown neighborhood development area or growth center and within one half mile around. So that is a change to how it worked previously. This one half mile around the center is different than how it has worked previously. And then also, there's an answer. There's no cap on the number of units that can be built.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just to have a cap that floated with the size of the town? Yes. And so the other housing you mentioned is not well, first of all, the priority housing project, you mentioned it, it only has to be 20% affordable. Yes. And only for fifteen years. Yes. Even our priority housing project that is supposed to be affordable focus and allows for all kinds of other market rate houses?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, it's a minimum. Some projects do contain more affordable units, but there's only a minimum threshold.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then after fifteen years, even if public dollars are down to these projects, they can Yes. Be sold for market Yeah, part of our problem. Did

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want to talk about the river corridor language at the top of page three? Or? Yes. So this language So it says this exemption shall not apply to areas within mapped river corridors and floodplains, except those areas containing preexisting development in areas suited suitable for infill development as defined in 29.201 of the Vermont Flood Hazard Area and River Corridor Rule. So I'm not sure initially why this was not included in this section. I think there are policy reasons to include it or not include it. It is in the other interim exemptions, and it appears in a few other places this concept of building in the river corridor and floodplain is not allowed unless it has been identified as suitable for infill development. In past sessions, this committee has discussed that and what the rules define or allow for as suitable for infill development.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Testimony on this yesterday from Land Use Review Board, they made a recommendation on this related to environmental justice. So my remembrance, give that note.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I didn't write anything down about them talking about this, so I don't know if they didn't. They did. Yes. They did. They did say that it would be an environmental justice concern.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To allow the info. Is that what what I'm looking at their I'm looking at their testimony

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: for it. I'm looking at

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think it was just a couple minutes to comment outside of you. Oh, yeah? No. But you're right. That's what they said.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. As it related to this specific question or area?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. This specific so I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: think we should think about that.

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: I'm here if you want to use me.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm sorry. I couldn't see you. I'm sorry. I didn't open it up. It's our great witness.

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. Pete Gill, Landy's review board, executive director. The board does does support, inclusion of that language into the, as written in 03/25 and certainly to, be similar to the other language within those exemption areas and make sure that, yeah, the environmental justice issue that's raised there with having priority housing projects, potentially in areas that could have, flooding risks, making sure that that is addressed.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I just found my note where they did say that. They actually didn't say it related to the top of page three. They said it related to the four amendments that's on page seven.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. That

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: particular comment may be in a different section, just for your information, the board does support that inclusion of that blood language in PHPs. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So oh.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin? Yeah. I I I when

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I was reading the bill, that does seem very strange to me that we would allow infill building in a floodplain. Yep. I think that doesn't make sense.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We can talk about it again. Like I think I said, this committee usually comes to that conclusion and others don't. Representative Logan.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Thank you. So, to clarify, the language at the top of page three, this exemption, the Priority Housing Project Exemption, shall not apply to areas within mapped river corridors and floodplains, except those areas containing pre existing development in areas suitable for infill development as defined as 20 nine-twenty-one. So, this is our rule that we're developing about where it's acceptable to provide infill housing.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think this already exists. This already exists. Aren't we in the

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: process of redeveloping that rule?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. I'm not sure where in the process it is.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: The LERB does support that.

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yes. It's consistent with the relatively consistent with language throughout the statute. So that gen the general concept of making sure that that exemption is not applied to those areas, but for that determination not by the age inconsistent with the agency's infill requirements. Correct?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: segues nicely into my comment, which is about what we mean when we say suitable, because I think we do have some guardrails around that potentially in rule or in terms of how the agency would actually allow development. And so it takes some of this into account perhaps. Then the other thought I just had was I remember when we were talking about this, I think when we were working on what became Act 121, Safety Act, that we saw cases where, in particular, the river corridor infill development was thought to be potentially acceptable because the rivers are locked in are really locked in place in some of our downtowns and other highly developed areas. And so the idea that the river would actually be moving through the the mapped river corridor in those places was was not gonna happen, and that those errors are also sometimes high enough that they're actually out of the fun play. And so it it there's a lot of nuance, I think, in terms of what we're trying to say is is allowable to happen here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And I would say so it's a little bit of a calculated risk, still a risk of erosion hazard, but there's already so much development in these areas that I guess the thinking is that it's hard for me to say because I don't agree with it, but we're going to continue to maintain them and hard armor them, and there's other investments there. If there is a catastrophic flood, then probably we'd have to have a new conversation about it. But they're already there and generally protected through investments, hard arming and such. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: So just to clarify, this without this language, priority housing projects right now can get exemptions from Act two fifty, including in areas that are not just river corridors and floodplains. Right. This narrows it, But also still allows it in these pretty termed areas. It does narrow it.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: And it's temporary because priority housing projects go away as soon as tier 1B and tier 1A go into effect.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, if they go into effect. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. It does narrow it. Yes. It's just trying to make it consistent with the other housing sections. I think that's enough on this section.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the next section on page three is section three, and it is about the definition of priority housing project. Like representative Logan just said, there is a question about what happens to the definition and concept of priority housing project as this new program moves forward, because in Act 181, you changed the existing state designated area program to the community investment program. And so currently, the definition of priority housing project is tied to designated areas. And so if the designated areas are going away as part of being renamed as part of the new program, What will the and there will be exempt areas for the construction of housing. What should this definition be? So, the Senate is proposing keeping at least the first part of the definition and then adding to it. So, a priority housing project means a discrete project located in a single tract or multiple contiguous tracts that consist exclusively of mixed income housing or mixed use or any combination thereof and is located entirely within a downtown development district designated neighborhood, new town center, desk town work center, or designated neighborhood development area under chapter 76A. And chapter 76A is set to sunset in 2034. So they've added or within an area mapped and approved by the board as eligible for Tier 1B area status and is not currently approved for Tier 1B area status under 6030 '3 of this chapter. So, this is a new concept of areas that are mapped as eligible but are not as approved as tier 1B.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, and we had a little confusion with this yesterday. My understanding that the RPCs are mapping the areas that they consider eligible, but that approval would come from the LRRV, right? So that seemed like a sticking point yesterday with the lurb, and I'm not sure why. I don't know if everyone seeing some nods, I'd like our legislative counsel to opine on that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I think this language is vague because I think it is attempting to potentially cover a couple of different situations. And I'm not entirely sure how it will play out practically, but there are a couple different requirements for what can be included in the tier 1B area, one of which is the municipality opting in specifically. They have to identify that they want that area to be approved as tier 1B. So, this could be addressing I think the senate was considering addressing the situation where town had not opted in. I think they also were considering areas that had not been approved as part of the new update of regional plan. I don't know what this would mean five years from now. I'm not sure how many there will be eligible but not approved.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Logan.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah, I just wanna follow-up on what Ellen said here. I think it could potentially apply in the case where, you know, the tier one B area does want that status as after being mapped by the RPC. That would mean that they're under full Act two fifty regulation. So they have no exemptions. And then this would allow for priority housing projects to continue to go on in those areas. I think it's also like recognizing that there are some communities that are not opting in even though they have areas mapped that are tier one b eligible because they don't want to build multifamily housing in their communities. And so this would still allow for priority housing projects in those communities as exempt from Act two fifty. And so then it would essentially clear the way for approval of priority housing projects in those communities with minimal community

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: objection. I guess I'm gonna I don't don't agree with the exempt terminology. In Tier 1a and B, towns are required to do rigorous development review. So, they're not exempt.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Oh, no, no, I understand.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just want us to like, that has been used inaccurately, and I think not it's we're we're getting better about it, but so it's not an exemption. And I would say, I I hear your cons like, your concern is that there are towns using this to keep out affordable housing projects.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But I also think there are towns that want the act two fifty review, so it doesn't keep them out Totally. And or they don't have the resources to do the local review. So it's not always nefarious on the part of the town.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Absolutely. But in some cases, it is explicitly why that town and I could I won't name towns, but it is explicitly why the town is not opting for the tier one b area status. And this would still allow there to be an incentive to build affordable housing projects in those communities that would then not be under Act two fifty review, which would trigger certain potential criteria where the community could try to

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: prevent the development. Yeah. So I get it. And I at this point, what we're trying I think what we need to do is try to understand how all of these amendments interact, which will be tricky. Yeah. And so this one, I get it. These are towns that have zoning and subdivision bylaws and, because I don't think you could be a one b without that. Yeah. I can't. Unless we let some of these amendments go through. So that's what we need to pay attention to. Okay.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Representative Warren. Thanks thanks, manager. I I just wanna ask a question to to make sure that this wording is accomplishing what we're trying to accomplish. And and and maybe it's just me not understanding the the wording, but that that key phrase by the board as eligible appears in the first part of the sentence within an area mapped and by the board as eligible for tier one b, but then it's not currently approved, still using that same word approved, but then doesn't have that little phrase by the board as eligible. It just says approved for tier one b. What what what does that mean? What what I mean, what just trying to understand. I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the only information I can give you is what I've already said, which is the senate requested this language, and I think they were attempting to address multiple different situations. And so I don't find this language to be clear.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. That that helps. Is there a way we could make it clearer and and be accomplishing what what it is we're talking about, trying to accomplish?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Who who senate's a big term. Where did do you know where it came from? We can check back with them.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It happened in Senate Natural Resources. We'll circle back.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Try and figure out their intent. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Let's So, section four then is the amendments related to the other interim the other interim housing exemptions. So, there's just a grammar change at the bottom of page three. But then on page four, the first change is in subdivision BB. And this subdivision BB and CC predate Act 181. They're from the Home Act. And so, I believe, and so they are on slightly different topics than the rest of them, which is BB is for an exemption for Act from Act two fifty until currently 07/01/2028 for, no permit or permit amendment for accessory dwelling units constructed within one single family unit, and they're extending that to 01/01/2030. And then also, CC is also extending from 07/01/2028 to 01/01/2030. No permit or permit amendment is required for converting a structure from a commercial purpose to 29 units or fewer of housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Under the BB on the previous page, that's I think I remember I remember processing this mentally when it happened. It was, I think, envisioned for new construction that the ADU wouldn't actually count as an additional unit when calculating units were, but also but related to active 50 review, which is and it so that that's your point about maybe we don't need this either anymore because these are areas that are temporarily exempt from Act two fifty.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially. It does say the the last sentence on the bottom, page four, does address that this these units shall not count towards other unit totals. There was a lot of discussion prior to 01/1981 about the Act two fifty jurisdictional trigger of 10 or more units of housing, and if that should be changed in any way. That was before the interim the other interim exemptions were created, and so, I think this was to address

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So this is actually statewide anyway?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay. It isn't specific to any of the designated areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I know that there's been testimony that this has unintended anyway, the construction of ADUs has had unintended consequences in some towns. And

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then as I mentioned on the top of page five cc, so this is a change of the date on this commercial conversion to housing. It's changing the date. It's also adding the existing exemption is for no permit amendment is needed, which implies that it's a project that already had a permit. And this is now changing it so that no permit or permit amendment would be needed if it's a commercial building being converted to 29 units or fewer of housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The question? I do. Representative. So I

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: would assume that this arose because of specific examples.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The amendment or the original?

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Arose because of specific examples where subject developers with previous permits found that they would be required to get an amendment to projects that people don't even need a permit for right now. Is that the idea behind this one?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so. I'm not aware of that. I I thought when I thought that this was for only projects that already had a permit and were converting to housing and therefore didn't need a permit amendment. But this is contemplating that even if it's a a structure that doesn't already have a permit, it also doesn't need a permit if it's being converted to housing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But it also doesn't need it for subdivision. So this I see. Yeah. And mixed use developments is being added.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, no. I'm still at the top.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. Oh, you're up. You're this subdivision. Sorry.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I will it's it's very possible that someone had examples when they asked me to draft that. I'm not always aware of them. But

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: this seems consistent with other exemptions that we're allowing.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was, I think, consistent when at one point there was a 30 unit exemption. Yeah. And there isn't a 30 unit exemption

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: anymore.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But, again, this is one of the temporary ones. It is a little unusual.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm still just trying to get my head around this. This is also from the HOME Act? Yes. So it's three act one eighty one. Kinda imagine commercial buildings that can be converted to 29 in the other motels.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought it was mills.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I remember motels. I don't remember mills, but any it would be anything like that, or it could

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: be. I'm just trying to imagine a commercial project like this going from commercial to housing that didn't already have an active 50 permit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's why they're saying you don't need an amendment to it.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Well, that's what it originally said. Originally, it was this was just for amendments to act two fifty permits, and now it's extending it to make an exemption for it. Like, if you don't have an act two permit. Two fifty permit already, you wouldn't need an Act two fifty permit at all. It feels like a pretty big extension. So I guess I'm Yeah. Would need some more testimony on this. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, we have to figure that out because

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Still on page five, DD are the interim housing exemptions from act one eighty one. The first one is for no Act two fifty permit or permit amendment in new town center, growth center, or designated neighborhood development area with served by sewer or water services or soils adequate for wastewater disposal. And so currently, this is for, 75 units of housing or fewer, and the current date is until 01/01/2027. It's being extend extended to 01/01/2030, And it's also adding for the subdivision of and mixed use development. So it's 75 units, but it also could be the subdivision for 75 units or mixed use development with 75 units.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do you have a chart of these exemptions? I guess maybe I'm asking for a chart of them. I think we talked yesterday about the bill summary, and maybe it's up under your name now. Yep. Okay. Is it? Yes. Okay. So that might help us track these better. Okay.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: And that includes the Home Act as well as Act 181?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't hear the first part of the question.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: And does that include the Home Act as well as Act one eighty one? Only to the extent it

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: was amended by Act one eighty one.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There might be one for the Home Act also. Okay. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this same change that's being made for the 75 unit exemption is also being made down in Subdivision 2. It's changing the date from 07/01/2027 to 01/01/2030, and it's no permit or permit amendment required for the subdivision for or the construction of houses and mixed, use development with 50 units or fewer.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: John Rutland?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. You're a little on the spot, but if you can, as we're going through this, help us because I think you tracked this bill pretty closely in the senate. Is that right?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you say it again?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You tracked s three three twenty five pretty closely in the senate. Help us identify witnesses to have in on the language because we are kind of floating here.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Yes. Absolutely.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: A lot of We we can reach out to them as well, but if you have thoughts, that would be really helpful.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like I think Katie's coming in, Laurel. Yeah. A lot of it really is in Katie's area, but

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm I'm guessing Katie didn't make requests for these changes. So we we're just even very fundamentally trying to understand what the intent is before we understand.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, we can we can do that. And

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so this Subdivision 2 is 50 units of housing and then extending it to the Subdivision 4 in mixed use, development with 50 units of housing. And then on the top of page six, this is the rest of what this language does. And so currently, it's 50 units of housing exempt in either a designated village center and one quarter mile around it with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws and served by public sewer, water, or soils that are adequate, or 50 units of housing within areas that are within a census designated urbanized area with over 50,000 residents and within one quarter mile of a transit route. That is a very specific area and part of Chittenden County. There is only one area that fits that description. I believe it's along Route 7.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not anymore. Do they still have transit? Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then at the top of page six, we did discuss this last time, but the other one of the floor amendments is what's the language that's being changed on line one into two. So currently, this exemption requires its 50 units of housing on 10 acres or less and located entirely within those areas. And so now it, has removed the reference to it being on 10 acres. So it could be any size project. And then it also strikes entirely within. So I guess it can only it only needs to partially be within one of those areas.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. And just the opposite of the direction we're trying to head here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Need to ask counsel to remove them. Let you tell them that. Seven.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Page six. Line two. 10 acres or less. Is this a? Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The opposite floor amendment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. I know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: what the specifics behind the request for that amendment was before we try to pull it. What you brought up earlier, think, is a good idea to try and get people to come and talk to us about why this stuff is specifically got put in there.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: For this one, you can you can let us know who that is if you want. For me, this one is allowing 50 units on as much land as it doesn't have any bound on it. So the the idea is to have compact villages Represent what Right.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: So just to be clear, this would allow, for example, an extremely large development. It covers a lot of acreage that may only be partially located within

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Within a quarter mile.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Within a quarter of a mile of a designated village center or in that section of South Burlington, just shelter. That's on Route 6 of the Green Mountain Transylane. So,

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: yeah,

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: That's a gigantic expansion. If others in the committee are interested in hearing testimony on that, and we can find a good person to advocate for that, That's fine. But I also agree that I'd be fine with it being taken out.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I under I understand that concern. I I just wanna make sure we're we're reading it right because the the 50 or fewer units located it still says located within, and then it's gotta be areas of the village center one quarter mile from the boundary. Like, if if let me just I'm just trying to think of scenarios that are happening. Maybe there is, like, a a 50 acre parcel that some of which is inside this village center, and they're saying my understanding is maybe I'm wrong. My understanding was that that the 50 units could be built within the village center of that 50 acres, but the the rest of the 50 acres isn't allowed to be built on. It's just the park that's within the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: village center one quarter mile boundary. Well, they struck entirely.

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: Yeah. Well, I know, but that

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: that that just means significant. Yeah. The the 50 acres is not entirely the 50 units.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. That's the way I would 50 or few 50 or fewer units located within.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Within.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That that doesn't say the parks. It says 50 units located within.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think Rob's right. I think it means it's a

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: corner of a big parcel that happens to stick inside.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Subdividing off. This is really a question for the child.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I just want to understand technicality of everybody. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: The 50 units have to still be within Subdivision 1 And 2 below or

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: not? I don't know. What's the effect of striking entirely?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I well, because also it strikes that the tractor tractor land has to be located within. I'm not sure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's it's definitely causing confusion.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: We we could leave the the constructed, maintained, or tracts of land 10 acres or less. We could leave that part struck, but leave un unstrike the entirety so that the 50 or fewer units, all of those 50 units are within, but it may be on part of a piece of land that's stuck way outside. It's just that all 50 units have to be on that little corner that's within the the village side.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess the question is what's the problem we're trying to solve?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Just in case somebody owns a big piece of land, part of which sticks into the building center and

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to work.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: There's subdivision. Yeah. I'm imagining it's possible that's the problem. It would be nice to actually hear what I wanted to

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: the problem is. Yeah. Why couldn't they just subdivide that whole piece and say

[Unidentified Committee Member]: because that's what it is. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representing success.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think that gets to whether we wanna strike the entire or not, but it's still it's still left with the 10 acres or less. And getting back to Sharon Sheldon's point, you know, it's conceivable that there are some very large lots within some of these designated areas. And we would be saying that you could build 50 or fewer, like you could have a development of much fewer than 50, like maybe 10. And if you had a 100 acre lot, you'd be allowed to have 10 acre lots. That seems to be Oh, that's odd. Yeah. That seems to be a problem. That's a problem for me. Seems to go against what we're trying to do. Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. No. I I understand. There needs to be some density constraint. That's what we're really trying to get at.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's what it had. It's even

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: a bit tonic. It's a land that's much bigger.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think as written, it had a density constraint. Yeah. That's been deleted, and I was thinking that we could actually make an edit that the majority of us agreed to Yeah. Move on because we do the the session will end, and I think it's an agreement we wanna do something with s three twenty five during this biennium. Mhmm. And not belabor every decision along the way. And with that, we have another amendment to consider before lunch. So when the folks from judiciary get here, we can wait. Okay. Sure. Yeah. Do you see Michael already? Yep. Yeah. I'm doctor. So they are. It looks like they just wrapped up their test. Yes. Here's the I guess it's a good time for us to pause on 03:25. Representative Austin

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: What is a tract of land? How much What what does it track? It's a parcel. But it does it

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: dimensions? No. No. So you could have one tract or two tracts? Mhmm. Why wouldn't we just have one tract with no dimensions? Or does that make sense?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's just more tied to Act of 50 jurisdiction generally is tied to the whole lot. And so it is described as either a tract or tracts of land. It may be subdivided.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You have one other final thing?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Maybe just to wrap up this conversation on this piece. It took me a little while to get there, but I don't think the problem is what you and I are imagining where you have like a 100 acres and 10 are inside this one or two areas that are eligible and the issue is about subdividing or not subdividing. Think that issue or doing the housing outside of that area. I think the issue, I'm looking back at my notes from the VNRCs in the Lerbs comments on this when I asked about it. And it's really about density. And that this was a density constraint to make sure those 50 would be on 10 acres or less, regardless of how many parcels are subdivided or not subdivided it was. This is really removing a density constraint so that you did have a 100 acres that are within one of these eligible areas. You can have very undense as well. I guess personally, I don't really support that change. It seems to support Sprawl. And I don't feel like we, at a long time, dive into things that didn't get even discussed in the Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you, Ellen. We'll be back soon, I'm sure.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: could be.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks. Do you want us to email you or are

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: you watching our agenda? Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I can email when it works. So we're saying, like, between fifty.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Thank you. Ten and forty nine.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thought they were ready to come in.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Come on in. I I so, no, I don't. Okay. Speak again. Join us. Where is the language locatable? If you look, I emailed It's your opinion. Yes. It's correct. And Is that sorry. It's an email from the clerk or emailed from you.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: It's it was I think it was sent by Nigel to everyone or it's in the calendar because I think I made the cut off.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have to go on that.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: We go take a look. It's the one that references tort claim the tort claim act.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It looks like it's

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: on the judiciary.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I I will place it on to ours.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: On the calendar. The action calendar in the house. Okay.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: Okay. Your new amendment. Yes. So first, my name is Michael Hoyt, Barry City, state rep. I do wanna say thank you to this committee for pointing out something that was in that amendment that was not supposed to be in that amendment. So I do appreciate that. After reviewing it with Legis Council, what we did was we wrote language in there that would literally just point to the Vermont Tort Claim Act of I can't remember when it was, but it just points to the Vermont Tort Claim Act regarding salt issues and for municipalities. And that is all it does. It's the same pitch that I made yesterday, except for I took care of the problems that you brought up in committee. So it does parody the state of Vermont's situation, which is what I wanted to do to begin with.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm just kind of curious. Do you know where Michael O'Grady is? I know.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Did stick his head in.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You know, I think the No. When

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: I looked at the agenda, it didn't look like either one of us were scheduled.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We were waiting for you to get through judiciary.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Oh, sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, here he is. Great.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: I'm assuming VLCT is also on the witness list as well.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We'll see how this goes.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Representative Hoyt. So thanks. Would so would this change mean that if their municipality has insurance, the recovery is the loan

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to get exceed the cap. Mhmm. Yep.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: It it does exactly what the state of Vermont has because it it think of it like this. I have bootingforberry.com. And part of that, if you go to that website, you will be redirected to my Wix page, which has my actual bootingforberry information on it. It's just a redirect to the Vermont statute regarding section, the section for municipal salt applicators. And that's it. Doesn't have any impact on your bill.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Represent

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Wait. I guess one of

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: my concerns with this is and we heard some of them yesterday just about sort of the scope of this and whether or not this really needs, like, a separate bill with full bedding. But this seems like there are a lot of things municipalities do and a lot of things that they could do negligence, you know, injure something. But this would just limit this hard cap, essentially, to salt applicators. So it's kinda just a piecemeal thing. Right? There's this hard cap for this, but not necessarily for anything else a municipality does. So it seems I mean, I I guess that's because, there may be some germaneness issues or procedural issues, but I think I don't sort of troubled by, like, the fact that just one particular segment, their operations being singled out and getting the benefit of this. Do you

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have any? Sure. What I'll what I'll

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: tell you is that the LCT has been fighting hard to get those the same parity with

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: the state. Correct. Not just the salt.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: Correct. Correct. Because if they had parity with the state of Vermont, it would apply to the salt bill. The the problem is is that bills have been submitted over and over and over again, and it never gets talked about. And this is an opportunity for us to talk about it, one, and to provide that parity in this one section because of the germane ness issue. I've been on record multiple times stating that I fully support a full parity, but that's not where we are right now. And I know that, you know, the question is, is, you know, maybe this isn't the right way to do it. And and the question or comment that I made in judiciary is, if not now, when? And because when never comes. And that's the reason why I put forth the amendment because we need to start somewhere, And this is this is the place to do it. You know, the VLCT wants to support this this bill, but they they this is what's needed to to fully be on board for it. The way that I understand, you know what? I shouldn't speak for VLCT. I would highly recommend that they speak for themselves. Yeah. So I take back my comment, please.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just just one thing on that. So talk of this

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: talk of this is like a start, but you also mentioned that ELCT has been asking for this for years. So if this did get passed, I mean, I'd probably less of a start than just an outlier. Like, it's just gonna be that one particular municipal.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: Yeah. It's it is an outlier. It's a start of the conversation. I think we've had more conversation about this, about my amendment than we have in the last four fifteen years since the the caps were dropped back in 2011. I I will say that there's some benefit to I I I'm not sure who's from Burlington, but I'm sure that folks in Burlington would certainly appreciate this amendment, and I would defer to VLCT on any specifics regarding that.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Austin, do you have a

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: question for the for representative?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So just to clarify, our bill is voluntary. Mhmm. Right? So would this bill cover voluntary and nonvoluntary workers? I mean,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's for normal normal workers.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Our our ours is a voluntary program. Right. Right. People are making money. They're commercial operators and municipal.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. But gets any difference between someone who volunteered or someone who

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're not talking about volunteering.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: I I think I know the question.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Volunteer you mean volunteering for the BMP program?

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's a question for O'Grady.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: I think I understand the question, though. What you're asking is if they go into the program or if they don't go into the program. And it would cover both, correct? It would be for those that don't go into the program and those that do. The people that go into the program

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can we hear from Legis Council on that question, please? Because it says for people who don't qualify. Would it cover both people who are in the program and out of the program?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that that's the intent that if the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You don't have to wait.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the they are in the program, they don't qualify, they get the cap. If they aren't in the program, they don't qualify for the affirmative defense either, and they get the cap.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It would cover people who participate and don't. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So, just to clarify, if they are in the programs, but they're they don't qualify for the affirmative defense to liability, that means that there's pretty serious negligence involved. Right?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it could be gross negligence or recklessness, but it also could be failure to file the BNPs or failure to maintain the necessary records of.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt (Member, Barre City)]: And I'll just say, you know, regarding records, you know, sometimes it's difficult to maintain records and sometimes you make a mistake. And could a lower lawyer drive a freight train through that? I would probably say yes.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative, I'm so close.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I guess I'm still not clear as to why the language around having or not having the affirmative defense is is is pertinent here? Like, what if we just took out all reference to affirmative defense? Would it still do what you want it to do? Is this how is this is this do is that language doing something important here?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just If you don't qualify for the affirmative defense? Because the affirmative defense is a 100% liability. Right. You're you're not live if you qualify. Right. Sorry, So Michael. If you don't qualify for that, you still have this liability protection under representing Boone's proposal. You would have the cap of 502,000,000. But it's also if you're gonna file the state tort claims act, it's a cap up to the amount that you the municipality has insured itself.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I think I understand that. I think the part that I'm not as clear on is if we took the the reference to affirmative defense out of this amendment, what what would actually change in its effect? Wouldn't wouldn't those people still get the the protection of the limits that you're looking for?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They they would. But

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What would we be including that we don't wanna include?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you would be including the reference to the fact that they could have had a 100% liability protection. So if they qualify for the affirmative defense, they don't need the cap that's being proposed. They don't need that protection. They are not liable. If they don't, that's when they need the protection.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. They don't need it. So we would never even maybe maybe whether it's in there or not in there doesn't matter. But if we are but it's but if we're gonna change the statute, it seems like this extra language wouldn't actually do anything. I think yes. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which extra

[Unidentified Committee Member]: language? About about the affirmative defense. And if they don't qualify for the affirmative defense.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, what if you took that out, then they'll you would have the liability cap apply to everyone.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Wouldn't get a 100%.

[Peter "Pete" Gill (Executive Director, Land Use Review Board)]: And the affirmative If

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you if you do qualify, you actually get I can't remember the word, but you don't have any negligence. We need to actually invite representative Ramon right now. Thank you.

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee; South Burlington)]: You. Martin, representative from South Burlington, chair of the judiciary committee. So so the bottom line is this isn't ready for prime time is is the primary reason that we voted unfavorable seven three one. And just to back up a little bit, there is a bill on the wall. In fact, I'm a sponsor of it for the broader municipal caps and such. And and as often happens, as we all know, when we have a wall full of bills, sometimes we can't get to the bill. So we did not, we were unable to get to that bill this year. But that's the first time I've heard of that, the first time it came to my attention was this biennium. So maybe they've been pushing for it since 2011, but I've been around since 2015, and this was the first I've heard about the desire for this, at least in in in the judiciary committee. But putting that aside, the the main thing is that we we really we're gonna simplify this in in my mind because it actually is very complicated, underneath the simplification. Is that I'm worried about the individual. We're worried about the individual. Actually under the state for claims act, which I think that's one of the things we want to actually look at to see how that's working before we have the municipality go underneath the Tort Claims Act, you know, essentially be treated the same. The concern is that if an individual, because of the negligence of a state employee or a municipal employee, gets a catastrophic injury, that we should the state or the municipality, often through their insurers, should take care of that person's medical bills and take care of that person. And the example is the individual because of negligence, you know, the woman who was a quadriplegic because of the negligence of a municipality. You know, we need to take care of those individuals. They don't happen very often. It's few and far between. But when they do, we need to make sure that we have that protection. Will insurance cover this? That's a big, you know, it's really kind of a big question of whether having it follow the state law where there's this provision says, if there's insurance, you know, you're going to use the insurance, you're not going to have the cap, you go over the cap. But we really wanna explore how that actually works because then it seems to be like a problem, there's no problem looking for a solution because if insurance is gonna cover this all, why do you need the cap? I mean, it seems there somewhere that the cap is going to keep these individuals who are catastrophically injured from being taken care of. It may be fine, but we really need to dig into this more deeply. This needs a lot more vetting to make sure that we are not doing a disservice to Vermonters through no fault of their own, but through the fault of the state or municipality are seriously injured. So that's why, you know, we voted this to be unfavorable, and I'm happy to answer questions.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions for the representative. Can you stay with us until

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee; South Burlington)]: Frank can stay until we would. I just have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a meeting on forensic facility. Samantha Sheehan,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: do you want to comment just on the Sure. Problem you're trying to solve?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I would love to. Thank you.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Hello.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: For the record, my name is Samantha Sheehan. I'm the municipal policy and advocacy specialist for the Vermont League of Cities and Towns, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I guess I'd first like to state clearly that VLCT supports the current amendment being proposed by representative Putin that would refer what would create this sort of liability net underneath the affirmative defense liability protection in the bill that you all have worked on each or s two eighteen. And I really appreciate the work of legislative counsel as well as the representative in, I think, putting forward something that is very discreet and elegant in terms of a change to the bill that you passed out, but completely answers VLCTs primary concern. So our feeling and we testified on the house version of the chloride reduction bill last year and on this one, including in this committee, but in others and in transportation on both in both chambers and our persistent concern with the program that is conceived is that the liability protections are inadequate for municipal applicators. And that has a lot to do with how municipal town highway programs run and are facilitated and are staffed, which is through a network of municipal appointees and employees and through the work of contracted commercial applicators and through public sector employees in departments of public works. And when we assess the language and when I say we, I should be specific. I mean, our risk management attorneys who are employed by passive, which is the property and casualty insurer for all but currently two municipalities in the state of Vermont. So these are the professional risk management attorneys who advise municipal legislative bodies and public works departments on questions of law all the time, every day. That's their job. And when they assess the affirmative defense language that's carried in 02/18, We think that it would be very difficult for a municipality to meet the standard to receive protection. And I'll give you a hypothetical but very likely scenario, which is that a town clerk or justice of the peace or someone who's opening town hall that day observes that the wheelchair ramp is slick and or it's raining and we're expecting a freeze that night, and they apply salt. And then they don't record the salt treatment, and they don't record the weather conditions at the time of the salt treatment. And maybe they, as a town clerk, have not attended the V TRANS training that's associated with the program. If there is an accident on that ramp, it would be very difficult to reach the standard of the affirmative defense. So what I think I I'm happy to answer any questions you have specifically about passive, about the program, about how municipal salt application is working. We totally support the broader intent of the bill. We agree we have the same shared goals all of our municipalities do, which is to protect water quality, to reduce salt application, to save money in town highway budgets, and to help Vermonters with maybe what could be excessive damage to their car from excessive salt application. We support those goals. We think in order to support municipalities using this program, they manage more than 4,000 miles of public road in Vermont, in two fifty one municipalities, we would really need the Boonton Amendment to be attached. And I guess the last thing I'll say, and happy to answer questions, is remember how discrete of a change this is. So this is if two eighteen passes after the trans creates the program, if a municipality chooses to enroll and attend the trainings and is qualified to reduce their application under the salt application under the program, and then an accident happens, which results in a claim against the municipality, and for some reason the affirmative defense cannot be used in defense of the municipality, then this would take effect. And all the Boonton Amendment does is in that very specific scenario with that very specific set of events, create parity with the protection on the municipality that the state has long enjoyed since 1961.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So can you just help us what happens today when that same example you gave us happens? When that salt applicator puts salt on the ramp and there's an accident. What happens and they're liable?

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah, so it depends on the fact pattern and the circumstances. And most of the time, that's the first thing that the attorneys for the claimant and the attorneys for the municipality and their insurer. So if they're found liable, then the municipality, all the municipalities are insured, some self insure, Burlington currently self insurers, and some have more than one form of property and casualty insurance. So either the claim could be settled or the court could award make an award to the claimant. And if the insurance I'll use the example of settlement maybe, which I think happens more often and sort of is more dynamic of an example. Let's say the insurer says, we want to settle this. We don't want to go to court. We're going to offer the claimant $50,000 And then either the claimant doesn't accept that or the municipality wishes to use their authority to offer above the $50,000, but the insurance company is saying it's gonna be 50. It's we're we're calling this 50. Then let's say it becomes a 100,000. Then the municipality has a few options. One is to use a different line of insurance coverage if they have that available that already exists. One is to use revenues currently available to them within their voter authorized budget. Another option is to seek authorization using their municipal system to find the extra $50,000 for the purpose of the settlement award. And then another is to purchase reinsurance. And so that's really important. And we worked this out yesterday. It was one of the questions I think you discussed in committee, which is that because the state self insures and has a requirement, has certain requirements on the way it covers itself for liability, there is a question if municipalities have that same ability. And the answer is they do. They're in a different part of the law. Municipalities are able to purchase reinsurance without forfeiting their municipal immunity for the municipality corporate. And what that allows them to do is come to passive or to come to their insurance or to go out to the insurance market and to purchase additional coverage that would help them meet the full settlement.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And to be clear, it's the insurers who are advising you to get a cap on these settlements.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Well, understanding, I've worked at VLCT for two years, but my understanding is that when So the state tort law was changed to create a monetary cap for state government in 1961. It was the caps were adjusted in 2011. At that time, VLCT was involved and engaged and asked, as all other New England states do, for the tort liability cap to be the same for municipalities as for state government. I think this is important. It's totally relevant and germane to the chloride reduction program because the state has had a chloride reduction program for some time, in part, I think, I would argue, because they can. They don't have this outside liability that municipalities cover. New Hampshire, has created the program that you've looked at and that I think is inspiring this bill, also has the same cash liability cap in New Hampshire tort law for municipalities and for state government. And though municipalities are treated differently in the New Hampshire program, they're able to really participate responsibly because of that coverage. So I think for us, we share the goals of the bill. We want reduced fluoride application. We want a responsible way for our municipal members to learn how to do that and to and to put it into practice. We really need this safety net.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Aren't the municipalities already participating in the state salt reduction program without any of this confusion?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are participating

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: in the state's trainings salt reduction in some instances already?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Participating in the local roads program, which has a component, but doesn't have the full component of the PMPs record keeping and the affirmative. So I'll give you some

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: And one municipality has its own, South Burlington.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I want to give the representative from South Burlington a chance to tell the committee what your vote was. Did you tell us that?

[Rep. Martin LaLonde (Chair, House Judiciary Committee; South Burlington)]: 73. Unfavorable.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Did you have some questions over here? Do you have a

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: question? I

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: think you said the only thing it did was provide the affirmative defense for folks who go through the program. And I just want to clarify that it also gives this liability gap to municipalities whose staff do not go through the program.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Okay. I I didn't interpret the bill that way. So

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Not the amendment. Oh. You said something incorrect about the amendment. Have to say that the amendment only did this very narrow thing, which is to for folks who don't aren't able to take folks who do the program and follow the BNPs, or whether or not they follow the BNPs, they're certified through the program, that for them this liability cap would sort of be below that affirmative defense. And that's not accurate. The amendment also applies to all municipalities regardless of whether they go to the program that provides this.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: I think thank you for organizing that differently, but my response is that that closes in one of the important gaps we're looking at. Like, the city of Burlington has 600 municipal employees, And municipal employees are elected and may not be appointed and seated until between April and July, like, on an annual basis.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: what I mean. Like, sort of the unique ways that municipal government functions in order to provide the really basic service of government is not like what a commercial applicator experiences. And so part of the sort of gap in liability coverage that we're seeking and why we support the Boonton Amendment is because that would be true in a municipality that's working to reduce its chloride production. And some, but maybe not all, of the municipal employees who do the work would have benefited yet from the program?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Still feel like you're confused about the amendment because the amendment applies to people who are not trying to reduce their salt. The amendment provides a a cap for all municipal employees related to SALT, not regardless irregardless, that's not a word, regardless of whether they are engaging in the certification program or they have no engagement in this program. So it just sounded like we're confused.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: I'm not confused, but thank you. And I am not attempting to mislead the committee at all. But to be clear, municipally, you know, our member endorsed position, one of our legislative priorities for this biennium is to provide this tort law protection in all cases for all tort claims. Oh, yes. I understand that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. We do support.

[Samantha Sheehan (Municipal Policy & Advocacy Specialist, VLCT)]: Yeah, so to the extent that it's broadened is to the extent that VLCT supports it more. But I'm not trying to pull a trick. I didn't mean to confuse.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's like you stated something. Yeah, I guess I'm a little confused because all of this liability provisions are really outside of our committee's jurisdiction. And we've heard from the judiciary last year and we took testimony. They also were able to take testimony from people who represent the people who get hurt. And like I have to say, there's a little bit of a parallel here to me to only hear from the municipalities and not hear from the people who are injured to sort of the issues we were dealing with around Act twenty eighty one. So I guess I just, I think we really need to be careful that we're not trying to make a huge choice right now. That's really not related to our community's area of jurisdiction, and where we haven't heard multiple sides of the issue. So I just, I mean, I want and I just wanted to state, I want us to take up the bill as soon as possible next by name to support the LCT and municipalities in looking at this issue, because it raises a lot of areas of curiosity and things that I care about. I just I do want to support the overall. And I have registered the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other thoughts?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Real quick, I would just say that a lot of times when we have these sort of last minute amendments, they're successful when they're really narrow and when they get to a very specific problem that's in the bill that's before us. But this seems like a much more substantive policy change even though it's a narrow part of that policy, the policy itself about whether municipalities should have the same sort of protection as the state for these sorts of caps on on liability damages does actually seem like a big a big policy change, and this doesn't seem like the right time to be making that choice.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Or the right vehicle. Did you have any clarifying thoughts on this before we close-up?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, I don't. I would probably no, I don't. Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Do members have any further questions for any of the folks in the room related to this? Okay. Is there a motion to find the amendment unfavorable? Sounds like Groundhog Day. Yep. Okay. Or Straub or Yeah. Raise your hand if you find the amendment unfavorable. Okay. Looks like the same vote as yesterday. Ten one zero. Thank you for coming in.