Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're live. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are looking at draft number two point c of s 25, which reflects changes that I ask Ellen to make based on input we have heard. Welcome, Ela.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Paula Tchaikovsky, Office of Legislative Counsel. Yes. Draft 2.3. The changes are highlighted in yellow. I did just wanna let you know, there are three bills on the senate floor, and so Kat's gonna keep an eye on. So I may have a few there may be more than just eleven thirty. Yeah. It's a So we'll see when I have to go to the Senate floor. So, 25. So first on page one, some parenthetical descriptors are added so that you can easily tell that Section one is repealing Section 19 of Act 181, which is the road jurisdiction trigger, and then Section two repealing Section 21, the tiers language. So, it's the definition of the tiers and then the tier three jurisdictional trigger are all in section 21 that's being repealed. But no substantive changes there. Section three affects the effective days from 01/1981. That hasn't changed. Section four is still repealing the Tier three rulemaking provision. And onto page two, section five is repealing the Tier two area report. And that is being, oh, I guess this also should have been highlighted. I apologize. So section five at the top of page two, you were discussing the tier two area report and possibly how to change that since you're getting rid of tier two itself. So later in this bill, so this provision is repealing that section, which is just a little more clean. And then there is a new report provision a little bit later in this bill to encompass some of what you were discussing around the tier two report.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Question? No.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Section six starts with the statutory changes. So section, 6,081 is the exemption section of Act two fifty. And I will pause to say it doesn't show this, but the prior version of the bill, section six, was amending 6,001. And 6,001 had a couple of changes in it related to the temporary exemption for priority housing projects, and that has been taken out of the bill. And so those That statute will remain as it is currently with the existing priority housing project, temporary exemption as it is currently in statute.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You put in the current statute here.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I took out all the prior version. It was 6001. And so it's just been removed entirely. This is 6081 where the other interim housing exemptions are in statute.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the first changes in 6081 are on page three.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good Logan.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah, we've gone kind of all over the place with this a little bit. I'm hoping we could slow down just for a moment on the priority housing project piece, since we're eliminating the tiers. Priority

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: housing projects continue to exist.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay. I mean, you were considering whether to update the definition of priority housing project.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: That's what we've no. That's what we've left out is the redefinition, the amendment to the definition.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The amendment to the definition is is, not in here, as well as the temporary exemption on the cap for a number of priority housing projects that is left as it is right now.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So as it was in January to 01/01/2027, with the hassle mile of everything. And no cap would remain. But then it goes back to What it was before. What it was before, which was working. You wanna add something? Yeah. Get a

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: little confused here, but there was in the previous draft, what came up from the Senate, there was a year extension of that on its project. And we decided to take it on that. As well as the change to the definition that we want to make sense about eligibility for tier one b. Right. For instance, which is not alert.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So we are going to continue to let the priority housing project act 47 expire on 01/01/2027. Yeah. And the difference between what's in statute today and what the exemption was is no cap. But in statute, it's 75 units. Ellen, remind us if it's tier is is it tiered in statute, or do we get rid of those? Mean, we're moving away from those.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. There's only a couple of caps. So currently, statute priority housing project, five Up to 75 units can be exempt in a municipality population between 6,010 people. And then municipality with a population of less than 6,000, up to 50 units can be built under the exemption. And then there is no cap on the number for towns that have a population greater than 10,000. So fifty, seventy five, and then no cap for the largest towns.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Do we know how many priority housing projects have we taken testimony on how many priority housing projects have been initiated under the temporary exemption.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That'll be actually be an ask.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And also when this provision was originally enacted in act 47, there was a requirement that those seeking to use the priority housing project exemption needed to get a jurisdictional opinion identifying that they met the exemption. And so the Labor's Review Board should have some data on that, on how many were actually sought the JO to use the exemption. Thank you. On page three of draft 2.3.

[Rob North (Member)]: One of the changes in that section that we have now was assumption shall not apply to areas within mapped river corridor. Right. Something that we wanted to

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: make sure that we were trying to

[Rob North (Member)]: avoid building in river corridors and floodplains. We just removed that addition.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Doesn't act 121

[Kate Logan (Member)]: already prevent that?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, but it's not implemented.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's right.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: think that's true, but I also think if this is expiring in nine months, eight months from now, and it wouldn't go into effect until July, we've got a six month period where we're trying to do that for construction projects that are probably already in the pipeline. I guess I'm not adverse to still including it, but I'm just not sure it has

[Rob North (Member)]: time for it

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: to make really any impact. And I

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: think we're trying to, like, again, I've I've been just I've been

[Rob North (Member)]: in Since we're not extending it.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm just trying to keep this bill as simple. So we just never really took hardly any testimony in this.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. I'm sure.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I Go

[Kate Logan (Member)]: ahead. So however, though, priority when does act one twenty one implement?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm looking

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: We're getting the time. Rule making is all supposed to be in process. Yeah. It's already supposed to be done.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We do have that. I might have it here. I mean, we can look that up. Yeah. Unfortunately, it's not unheard of that people are proposing housing developments even today in map River Fort Worth that have recently flooded. We just had a month.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. Exactly. So it seems like Unbelievable. But they just As long as we have a definition of priority housing project in statute, it seems like

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: this would be a reasonable amendment. We could put it into the existing housing account. But Yeah. Maybe let's Mhmm. Hold. Maybe it should apply to all of the housing. I mean, like, I think sorting through these exemptions is

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Make a note.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So in draft 2.3 on page three, line four of the ellipses are highlighted. In the prior version of the draft, there was the extension of the sunset on the exemption for ADUs. That is taken out of here. So that still says 07/01/2028. So the exemption for accessory dwelling units goes until 07/01/2028. And then also the exemption for the conversion of a commercial structure into 29 units of housing, that is also taken out. So that will also be 07/01/2028, the sunset.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What we're trying to do is line it up with the one a areas coming online. And since these were July, we put the others to January 1 in this draft. These were July. We thought we shouldn't roll them back six months, which leaves them July 1. That's where this is coming from.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. So then with the interim exemptions under subsection DD, first one now reads until 01/01/2028, no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of housing with 75 units or fewer, located within a a new town center, growth center, or neighborhood development area. So it's taken out the addition of the Subdivision 4 and mixed use development with the 75 units. The same is true for the exemption at the bottom of page three. So this is the 50 units of housing. So it's again, 01/01/2028 for the construction of housing, not including the subdivision or mixed use development of. And onto page four, it's 50 units of fewer of housing constructed or maintained on 10 acres or less located entirely within. And so you all discussed this in committee the other day about whether or not to strike the 10 acres.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it's a proposal to have it not be the parcel size, but to have it be the amount of area the project takes up from testimony we heard.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next, on page four, Subdivision 3, this is the exemption for housing in downtowns. And so again, 01/01/2028 construction of housing located entirely within a downtown district. So there's no cap on the number of units here. And again, the reference to subdivision and mixed use development has been removed.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I guess I'd just like to share because I'm the one who sort of proposed what we're at we what we're looking at here, which is so just just to simplify and explain, the intention here was to take all of these act two fifty exemptions that were in act one eighty one that came over from the Senate and align them all with the 01/01/2028 expiration date, except for the two that had a 07/01/2028 deadline. Leave those alone. Those came out, they're no longer even in the bill because we wouldn't be making any changes. And so trying to align all of this with a 01/01/2028, which is twelve months after all of the regional planning commissions have to have submitted their final land use area, future land use maps to the LERB. The LERB has forty five days to review those. So hypothetically, by 2027, they should have made decisions on the last of those regional maps. And then there's another nine months where municipalities who maybe didn't get approved for 1B or 1A could still request it. And in here we have mapped out that those 1B requests by municipalities don't have to go through the entire region like those can be made separately to the LERB. So this really gives a year where all of those land future land use maps have been completed and time for municipalities to implement that one A and one B. There aren't deadlines in Act 181 around exactly when that would happen. It gives us sort of a year buffer for these all these exemptions to expire And it removes the pieces around mixed use development and subdivision that we really didn't hear any testimony on why that was important or very limited and is not so much about housing development. So that was the intention here, simplify and streamline those dates.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What kind of time would you be in that house?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I'd like to see this one state 2030.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Which one?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Think The one we have Number three. C. Yeah. The news draft 2.3, page four, reduced to '28, and then previous draft 1.2, it says 2030.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Can you share one?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: It took a while for a lot of the complications in 01/1981 to come out. Two years, and we're talking about a two year difference here. Sometimes the information takes a while to get out into the public, and if someone did, that's when people realized that they needed to wake up, and I just wanna make sure. And, you know, if things go well, we can always come back and shorten up the date. I think it's gonna be harder to lengthen it once this gets all the way through the process. And if we're really committed, I think if we're really committed to actually open up for housing, I don't see an issue with leaving it out to 20

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Logan?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I hear you, representative Tagliavia, and I also think it might be confusing for municipalities because the areas that we're talking about here are would potentially be tier one b or whatever we're gonna call it. Right? They would have designated downtown development districts with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, etcetera, etcetera. Those areas are all eligible for that tier one b area. And so if that could potentially go into effect months before 2028, but then this is still in place until 2030, then it seems like we'd have two laws in effect at the same time in the same place, and that seems like it would be confusing. Am I correct about that?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I think it gets to a question that I have for Ellen, kind of larger, which is what happens to these exemptions when a town opts in, and we need to add that to the statute? And

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. These exemptions sit outside of the opt in division, so they exist independent of that.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So for me, that's a reason to keep them related to the opt in because, in fact, I think people are assuming towns want this in their towns, and we haven't asked them. And the way to make sure is to let them opt in and give them that opportunity. So I think

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: it

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: for me, it sort of cuts both ways. Like, if you're concerned about what the municipalities are thinking with this policy change, I would give them the chance to take it over.

[Rob North (Member)]: Representative North. Thank you, madam chair. I I I agree with you, except that the opting in is kind of a a more permanent thing, which is tier one b, your tier one b. Whereas this kinda gives towns the option to well, let's just go with this temporary thing that's available till twenty third. And then when it expires, it expires, and we can claim, alright. We're done with our development. And then they can just give it all back to the state for 2 '50 $2.50.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This is not an opt in. This is allowing a tax.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. I know. I know. I'm saying so they could take advantage of something temporary rather than having to opt in, which is a more permanent thing. They may not they may not be able to convince all of the the members of their town that need to approve to opt in.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And and then they've and

[Rob North (Member)]: then they're stuck. Whereas

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Well, I guess I would just pose a

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: question of, do you want do you think that the towns should have a say only on the natural resource protection areas?

[Rob North (Member)]: Do I believe the towns should have a say?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Of course, the towns should have a say. Okay. Well, we've heard from towns that have voted no on these opting ins and and having this happen. So I think the towns should be engaged in deciding their future.

[Rob North (Member)]: I don't see how that disagrees with what I'm saying.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Representative Chittenden.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Because I guess the point is there are towns that don't want these projects to happen and don't have feel that they can stop some of these projects or control some of these projects with their existing bylaws, and they don't want PAC two fifty to be exempted. They don't want all of these projects to be exempted out to 2030. They want this process to end soon and for them to have they choose not to opt into one b in certain parts of their town, they want that choice. Municipalities want that choice. We're already hearing about projects that are higher density or more units than the municipality, people that are part of the municipal process want, but they don't have any control over that right now because of these exemptions. So there's towns that want more, towns that want more housing and towns that want less housing and towns that want to say and towns that don't want to say.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I think we should have the look back study that was recommended to us this week in testimony and find out what kind of houses are being built and where and for whom because most of these exemptions are not constrained to workforce housing, affordable housing, or year round housing. They are we we don't we don't know. We just don't know. And they they're gonna have been in place for a number of years, and I think it's worth a future legislature having a chance to look back. You can always extend a date. It's actually much harder to retract a date. Special applicability. Yeah. So I would say this is still providing an answer to folks who want this and letting us as a body get data and understand what's being built where and for whom.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Representative Austin. Yeah. This is off topic, but off this conversation. So if you wanna continue that, I can wait for the end of the discussion.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I just think I agree with you that it does come both ways of feeling a bit overridden here, but I think I'm gonna stick with my position for now.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Fair enough. I'm just wondering about the building envelope. I'm not a builder or anything, but I think the data is is there any concept with the building envelope for builders, like when they have to get materials, when they have to start building it?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All of these are also tied to when you apply for your permits. They have actually nothing to do with the construction season. So it's like when you get your foot in the door and show that you're moving in this direction.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: It could, in theory, take a while for you to build

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: after you're put in the door,

[Kate Logan (Member)]: so to speak. And then you can still move ahead with the project, even if this is expired. Okay. Yeah, that's great. Thank you.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Okay. Next,

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at the top of page five, the fourth interim exemption that was added in the senate has been removed. So it's not here. This is the 50 units of housing in village centers without zoning.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. That that is was requested by the senate and also by Love to Build Homes folks.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And I guess for me, I can't be part of having communities that are reduced to having active 50 take over for larger developments being proposed blindsided by this. These are towns that don't have bylaws or subdivision breaks, and it feels like potential for conflict is high.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan? I support this change. We didn't agree to drastically expand scope of act one eighty one this year. Right. That's what this would be doing. And I think that's a way more substantial policy choice. And people still feel passionately about it. They can try again next year because I think that is deserving of a very, very extensive process of testimony.

[Rob North (Member)]: So how how do we how do we address and support the the smaller areas that are not eligible for tier one b, but have have the would like to designate their village centers to to do some development. They're served by public sewer and water or have adequate soils. How do we how do we let them take advantage of Well the exemptions that other people enjoy that are it's usually it's a rural versus nonrural issue when it comes down to.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess I don't know the number. And, actually, that's a note I have here. We have no idea what this what the universe of these communities would possibly be.

[Rob North (Member)]: That's why we heard it was about half the towns don't have the those

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But half of them, they don't have. But but but who

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: has less number of those have

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Public water and sewer.

[Rob North (Member)]: Water and sewer. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: It would be quite a few less.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. It's cheaper to have public water. It could be.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: For example, again Kate. I

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: mean, change

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I don't know. Anyway. Just a reminder that this was the piece that was added on the floor of the Senate that with no testimony that where there would be no state or local review. So that's why this would be complete departure from fifty years of policy in Vermont to have no local review of projects. No local or state review of projects. And that the blurb pointed out which lower income people at risk, particularly there's also not a flood that we could add it, but there's no flood playing that river corridor piece in this. This just allows like anything anything goes Yeah.

[Rob North (Member)]: It was

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: over 50 or less. Yeah. So I guess

[Rob North (Member)]: Get that up. Just try

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: to a really egregious piece that I think we have consistently been discussing taking out.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. And I would follow-up on your comment, though, that the tier two study was supposed to be focused on that subject. So I imagine that those topics will still be included in whatever we call that study. And that seems like a really great topic for discussion next year. Next session. Seems like a big piece to bite off. And we could have bitten that off a little bit more maybe this session, but we're doing this instead.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Moving on.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page five, section seven, so I wanna point out first, in the prior draft you looked at, there was the language regarding, reconsideration and having the Land Use Review Board do reconsideration. And so that language has been removed because you discussed last time that wasn't maybe something you wanted to pursue currently. But, so section seven is here, and this section has not changed from the prior versions at all. This is still saying that it's the, when towns update a municipal permit, they will pull in the conditions from an Act two fifty permit so that the conditions may be enforced as part of the municipal permit. So no changes there.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Denial of application and reconsideration process. And I I'm wondering if we're we don't wanna entirely lose this thread. I know we heard good feedback about why this needs more thought. Mhmm. But I guess I'm wondering if we wanna actually make sure we have a recommendation come back from the lawyer board on this. I do. I apologize. Representative Sheldon, I feel it would be great. I had some good thoughts on this yesterday or two days ago.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Hopefully, they're still around. Let's see if I can pull them up.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: My notes were just like, we want to consider the reconsideration from just going back to the same district commissioner that already denied something, maybe going back to the verb. And then we also hadn't included here, also thinking about jurisdictional opinions reconsideration also currently goes back to that same district commissioner. And was pointed, and I think we might actually be expecting some feedback on this. Now, I'm sorry, I'm just like slowly bringing it all back. So I think the lurb is gonna consider this on Monday and give us a recommendation about how we might approach this or maybe we just so I just don't wanna but I think we're actually waiting for some thoughts on the word. Yes. That's no longer in the bill.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. So what section on the

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: page is it before

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you're It's section eight. Page seven. Circuit of birth. So it seemed on the face of it to make sense Right. To have a board reconsider a district commissioner or district commission a district commissioner's decision on something. But then Brooke Dingledine was with us, and she gave us a legal perspective on that, based on her past experience. And then Miller said they would talk about this at their board meeting Monday and get back to us. So we hope to hear back from you on Tuesday. Yeah. We don't wanna lose it, and we don't want to unintentionally change something that has a reason for being the way it is. We may, next year, talk about upon the re I imagine, from what I know right this moment, upon the reconsideration, there could be another appeal, wrong word, reconsideration to the board. Anyway, yeah, that's that.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Makes sense. Making a note for myself.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So the next change, there's new language on page seven. So this is approximately in the prior draft. Section 10 was looking at making changes to the tier two area study, but that is being repealed. And instead, this language is being proposed.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Go ahead. Was the main drafter of this idea. So she would like to speak. Thanks.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So I guess I'll just articulate that I think when we were looking at the tier two report and thinking about making some changes to it, There's some pretty big questions that were supposed to be addressed in that tier two report. Let me just find it. You can look at it for a second.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's on page 10

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: of the prior draft. Thank you so much. Page 10 of the prior draft. LERB was supposed to come back to us, deadlines already passed and has had to change the deadline, look at statutory changes to address fragmentation of rural and working lands, location based jurisdiction, how it's working in basically the rest of Vermont or originally tier two areas, effectiveness of mitigation of impacts on primary ag soils, effectiveness of jurisdictional triggers on retail and service businesses outside of village centers, and review of whether and how Act two fifty jurisdiction over commercial activities on farms, so excessively on farm businesses. And my thinking is Vermonters have just told us that they want to be the first ones to weigh in on a lot of these topics. We just witnessed the public engagement processes of the LERB over there. I mean, there only have been in existence for a little over a year. So, engaging the public and working on some of this rulemaking is pretty new for the LERB, but it hasn't gone the way I think a lot of us felt the legislative intent was in terms of working with stakeholder groups and engaging further with public through the stakeholder groups. So I guess I'm proposing that we don't do the tier two or even try and change it or fix it because it's really the blurb would have to go out and do that work and instead pause and step back and take some time to think about what a real public engagement process would look like on sort of the remaining big picture questions that I think we have as a legislature and rural communities have around the purposes that are here in the middle of the page around, what are the risks to critical natural resources that aren't well protected by current land use and regulatory policy? And it lists the ones that have come out of the work of the LERB when they assessed the different kinds of critical natural resources that we had put in Act 181, narrowed it down to the ones that weren't well covered by existing permitting programs. It also includes agricultural soils, forest blocks, we might want to be broader here about working lands in general. And it's at the point around what Let's look much more broadly at regulatory and non regulatory tools and think about what's equitable, not just what's effective. And start with a public outreach process. But I personally don't think in this kind of a timeframe where we have to pass a bill in the next handful of days, we have time to design something. I don't think right now is the best time to start a public process. And so I'm proposing that we get recommendations by next January and then are in a good position next year either take those recommendations or work on something related or unrelated depending on how we feel about the recommendations at Concord. That's where this is coming from.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I would just walk us through. Sure.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so on page seven, section eight, I titled it Public Outreach Framework. I don't think you did. So if you have a more specific or appropriate title, please let me know. On or before 01/15/2027, the Land Use Review Board shall contract with a nongovernmental organization to develop recommendations for a public engagement plan. The contractor shall have expertise in maintaining neutrality on policy and political issues, statewide democratic public engagement processes, facilitation on public policy topics, and a proven history of effective outreach in rural communities. The purpose of the public engagement plan would be to gather statewide input from Vermonters to inform the General Assembly on the risks of losing critical natural resources not already well protected by current land use policy, including agricultural soils, forest blocks, habitat connectors of statewide significance, and headwaters, and equitable, efficient, and effective regulatory or non regulatory tools to protect these critical natural resources. The board shall submit the report with recommendation with recommended public engagement plan with the recommended public engagement plan to the House Committee on Environment and the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Working lands. Add working lands.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Where is it? Would you like to add that? One.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Morse Watts, Comma, working lands. Yeah.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Add Sylvia.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That seems in our terms. Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay. Suggesting.

[Rob North (Member)]: Comments are acceptable, potential to for number two, then, equitable, efficient, and effective regulatory or nonregulatory tools to protect these critical national resources. And the other thing we really heard from the people is is property owners' rights. It's not something that needs to be considered in the protection. Really wanna have Vermont being the way Vermont is. It's largely privately owned, and we've got to work with the people who own the land.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Thanks. So this is a great step forward, seems like to me. I will say that we are now running up against an entirely different process that began in 2022 with Act 154 and the implementation of our environmental justice framework. And next July 2027, the Land Use Review Board is required to have a community engagement plan in place that articulates the environmental justice community engagement strategy that they need to have with environmental justice focused populations. And I've just had a conversation with the director of environmental justice at ANR this week, and it sounds to me they they have some requests for a change in deadlines, so I'm having some, like, background conversations right now about that that are not ready for prime time. But it does seem like maybe we could figure out a way to weave these two things together. Because I think that actually, and I don't know what the lurb would board, the board would feel, but it does seem like it would be helpful to have a contractor to help develop this environmental justice community engagement plan that they could be some they could somehow overlap.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Environmental justice community engagement plan is a LERB deliverable.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yes. All the covered agencies in act one fifty four are required to have their own environmental justice community engagement plans completed by next July. And that was separate from act one eighty one? Separate. That's why we have And prior to. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't know. When it was the NRB. What's that? When it was the natural resources.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Right. But we did update the language in act one fifty four in act one eighty one. Yeah. Yeah. So that that's just, like, my first thought here. I I'm just seeing this for the first time, so I actually think they're very compatible. And it would be nice to line those processes up. I'll also say that one of the things that the environmental justice, I don't know what you call it, division unit in ANR, talked about, and this is gonna sound really familiar to everybody. There's a deadline of January 2027, so that's six months prior to the Community Engagement Plan, there's a deadline of having environmental justice focused population maps completed in January and then a public engagement process completed in July, which now I think we can all agree might be out of sequence. Maybe we don't do maps where we do community engagement. And so I've like, in the questions that I asked the director, it sounded to me like she felt the same way and that potentially postponing that deliverable until six months after the community engagement plan's completed would be helpful and would give more capacity to the staff at ANR to provide technical assistance to covered agencies in developing their community engagement plans. Did that make sense?

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That was a lot of words.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It made sense to me, but people may need to hear it again.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: And

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I appreciate that, have a caution flag in the air for timing, and our ultimate task here. Representative?

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes, I've just been watching a lot of these hearings, the consolidation, you know, public engagement, this public engagement. Just seems to me that the people that show up are the people that are opposed Mhmm. To the legislation. Because I wouldn't speak up at one of those meetings in favor

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: of the rule of rule

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: or in favor of tier

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: three, really. I just wouldn't. It's intimidating to me. And I just wanna make sure that people who are in favor of something somehow represent it?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's a really astute observation. I think people do show up when they're against something and it's harder in general to get people to show

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: up there. Mean, in this source consolidation, I think one person spoke and people were kind of neighing and not booing, but it's just so I wanna hear from everybody, not just people who are opposed to something.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. People who stand to gain from something. Right. Right. Representative Tagliavia.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I'm going to rewind to my comments on the day that it was announced that repeal of the Vogue rule. Tier three mapping were on the table. Quite a few years ago, I began going to Planning Commission meetings and select board meetings, and it took a while to get people to show up in opposition to some of the things, and it was because they had been disheartened. They felt like they were not being heard. So there are two sides to that coin, and it depends on the issue you're talking about and the way the political winds blow. So that is definitely a two sided coin. I've met numerous people who after a meeting would approach me and say, Hey, Mike, I agree with you, although I just spoke up. And people started to speak up when they felt that they were not alone. So I just wanted to make that comment. Representative Chapin.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, I couldn't agree with both of you more. I think that what we heard from Paul Costello was that that is really common when there's a policy choice on the table as opposed to stepping back and starting with like, what do people in the community care about? And so I really heard the importance. I've heard it from Vermonters who have been communicating with us. And I heard it from Bob Costello that when you in a politically charged landscape like our time right now, it's hard in many ways. But when you start from a place of just genuinely wanting to hear all voices and not with a proposal already on the table, that really gets at what you're talking about. When you have a school consolidation proposal on the table, people are gonna come out who don't agree with it when you've So I guess I just Yeah. I think that's I think we can take both of what you're saying. It doesn't matter what position. It's when you put a position on the table and then ask for a response. That's what happens if we So the intention here is to back up and not have the LERB putting out maps, not have the program putting out maps and then asking for a response, but trying to really step back and do a much. It's going to take a lot more time, but it's gonna be a better process, and it's gonna give us better outcomes. So that's the that's the theory here. Yeah. But thanks for Yeah.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Austin.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thought that was the process. I thought I thought the lawyer was putting out a draft map, and that's my understanding. That's

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: what they did.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's what

[Kate Logan (Member)]: they did.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Right. And they were gonna be taking two more iterations. They were taking public input.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I I think.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: new. I'm just wondering how that happened because that was my understanding, and about the rules. They were gonna be taking public input. So, did that not get communicated? I just wanna make sure people understand when something's a draft and there will be public comment, an opportunity for public comment. You know, I don't think we've ever just said this is what we're doing and handed it down. I I don't ever remember, you know, as someone on the planning commission or in a committee, it's always in public engagement to get input, and then make revisions, that, the public input informed. So I'm just, I guess the process, I just wanna be really clear about the, cause we have to sometimes put out something saying, what do you think? You know, what are your thoughts to the public? And not have people think this is being imposed on us as opposed to you're gonna have an opportunity to provide your opinion. Okay, Morgan.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. I think, one of the maybe well, so first of all, I think that may we may be finding a sore point with the way that process has been conducted. Yeah. Because there hasn't been enough initial public engagement around a question. Like, the question being posed here is how can we avoid losing these things that we want to keep? That gets back to what Ela was referring to. Yeah. This is that's like that first point here in the study or in the community engagement, or public outreach process is you know, that's a question that you can pose to communities. What are the risks to us if we do this? How can we avoid it? What are tools, regulatory and non regulatory tools? And so it's basically like ground truthing with the community prior to developing a policy proposal. And then you would still do the public engagement process on the policy proposal as part of its adoption. I'd say, in my opinion, based on what we've seen happen, I think Act two fifty was particularly unique because, the proposals, especially the way that they were presented of the road rule and tier three, brought a lot of people into the Act two fifty process who've never been involved in the Act two fifty process. We're talking tens and tens of thousands of people who have never had to consider going through the Act two fifty process that all of a sudden we're told a lot of misinformation, frankly, about the process. But nevertheless, like, if that's if that's what you if that's the only thing you hear and no one has taken the time to walk you through this permitting process that you've never had to think about before, it's gonna be shocking, especially if, there's political flames being banned, which there were. So I'd say this is a really, really positive step back to do that first initial step and bring the community along with.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, can come back to this conversation.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Walking through with Ellen because she's going to leave soon.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So next on page eight and nine, a couple of changes have been made to what is now section nine. This is the oversight committee. So just a couple of changes here. It's been renamed to the joint Legislative Environmental Oversight Committee, and so that's changed on line four. Additionally, the committee shall elect a chair and vice chair, took out a clerk, And then the committee may meet eight times. Previously, it was six. On page nine, the assistance. So, it's the administrative, technical, and legal assistance of joint Fiscal and the Office of Legislative Counsel. And then under the duties, the committee shall oversee the Land Use Review Board, the implementation of statutes as part of Act 181 instead of rollout. Implementation

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: seemed a little more formal.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And also oversee the Agency of Natural Resources and their permitting processes, instead of process. And then there's a sunset that's being added. So the committee shall cease to exist on 07/01/2029.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia?

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I think this should be added to one of those of those notes. It's not at this time. It's it's new, and we're trying to get through this, and I think this needs more time and more thought.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What is your

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: It's just I like the initial idea of it. I just want us to be able to be a little bit more deliberative about it and make sure that we're not throwing rocks in the gears trying to fix a problem. So something something I can't put my finger on it right now, but it just says, like when, excuse me, Representative Chapin brought out, make notes about some things that should be considered later on. This just jumps out at me as, not this session, next session.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Madam Chapin.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I do agree. It's a change. I also feel like the time is now, and Vermonters are so unhappy with how the took on what was in Act 181. And because the lurb LERB is such a new entity, to me, this is the only time to consider oversight. Five and the LERB needs oversight and better communication. I think that if we had had this in there, I don't think we'd be where we are today. So that's just my theory of why it's a now issue, not a maybe consider later issue. But I definitely appreciate that this is a big thing to add.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I think it is.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I can say it's a medium thing. Think it's our responsibility. I think it codifies our responsibility to engage in things that we have initiated and will help us have better communication with the LERB and the Agency of Natural Resources during the office session. I see it as a clearinghouse for issues that arise when we're not in session and that need to be addressed in a timely fashion. And it has a we added the sunset for a look back, check-in, and talked about the precedents for other areas of statute, and government operations. I feel like it's time is now, and it would really be a benefit to some honors. Larry, Representative Satcowitz.

[Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I would echo that and just add that this would have been helpful for a number of different issues that have come up over the last number of years where we are out of session longer than we are in session, and having that connection with LERB and with the agency of natural resources while we're not around could really help us head off issues in really helpful ways for everybody. So I think the idea here is not to to to add conflict to our the way that we're doing things, but to actually reduce it and to make things to catch things before they become a problem. It does seem clear that there's been a number of issues over the last few years that if a legislative community had had the opportunity to weigh in during the off session, we may have been able to avoid things which we would all, I think, agree that we would like to avoid.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Excellent.

[Rob North (Member)]: You're describing or what's being described as oversight during the off season, to me, it sounds exactly the opposite of what we've just heard from the public that they don't want this top down control. And and that's why we're very carefully trying to construct this public engagement process. And here, we're implementing something that's, again, top down control. The only and the the things that really stand out to me, whoop. This this is this is big and and definitely requires some test we haven't heard any testimony on this as to the problems we're trying to solve. The little section on duties here, words like oversee are in there twice. What does that even mean? How much authority is this small group of five people gonna have? I mean, I think we need to you know? I I think we need I mean, I'm gonna take some testimony at this. What what what problem are we trying to solve? And what are the there's there's not isn't even a section here that describes the authority that this group has. So this to me is a big red flag.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I just

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: wanna clarify what you're saying. So you don't want any oversight over the LER.

[Rob North (Member)]: No. We we this this group right here has oversight.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: When we're in session.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Exactly. When when and we and we what we want to them via statute. That's the that's the way legislature works. Right. So having some subset, some small body permanently in place, well, permanently until twenty ninth, place that has, it appears, I don't know what oversee means, but the ability to make real time decisions on behalf of all of us and just direct what's going on, That makes me very nervous. Makes me very nervous.

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I get confused because I feel like I'm hearing one thing one day and then when we try to find a solution, you don't like the solution. So is that just me or I'm just I don't know what the problem is with this. My understanding was that people, the public wanted more oversight over the lure. Know, just

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: want No. No. They wanted to be engaged.

[Rob North (Member)]: They didn't they didn't want

[Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I mean, I'm sure this would engage the public.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Doesn't say I mean Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We're not gonna Sorry. Be It's still valid for a limited amount of time.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I just get confused. Representative Logan. We can move on if we wanna come back to discussion on this at another time. That's And finish reviewing. Probably, Yeah. Yeah. So

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the in draft 1.2, the prior draft, there was also a section 12, which was the discretionary review of housing report in the Department of Housing and Community Development. And you all did discuss the other day striking it, and so that has been removed.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Sorry. Yep. Do I can update on that? That was the

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bottom of page 13 into page 14. The Department of Housing looking at model codes.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like, they were already gonna do that work. Right.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: We all agreed on that. Yes. Okay. That's one of those studies. Next.

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So so that's gone. It's time. Okay. There really are only two other changes I'll say before I go. In the regional planning statute, it has been changed back to non minor from major. And so I really wasn't sure where you landed on that. It currently in this drafts is non minor non minor.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Agree. Just because it's the way they gobbling it over, and it's awkward, but it's the

[Paula Tchaikovsky (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: definitions. Yes. So and then I will just say the only other I believe the only other change, and I'm sorry if I'm missing one, is that on the last page, page 24, there is a new, it's a session law provision about formal review of regional plans. And so you all were discussing about whether or not to repeal 24 GSA 4476. And so this is some language to consider if you'd like the LERB to form a formal opinion on whether or not that should be done.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: And so I'm gonna go now, but I will be available. I just further explained this.

[Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: That section, so I I ended up drafting this. So this was that. Are we? That's six. If you go to where is it in the old previous draft? The end of the previous draft.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's actually in the many pages in the middle. It's the reason we went from 33 to 34 pages. It was the part that made it longer. It's trying

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: to find it. So this was the piece that had been repealed. By Senate.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It starts at the bottom of page 25 on 1.2.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: So this, came up from the Senate, this was that old section of statute that no longer had a body to do the work, but was a way for regional plans to be reviewed or appealed, really. Reviewed and appealed. And it was no longer seeming functional statute because the body that to do it had already been repealed, what, in 2012 or something like that. So we looked at all the language in the last draft and I think the general sense of the committee was like, oh, this isn't like, we don't want to just lose the opportunity for certain kinds of entities to be able to at request review or appeal. But again, this isn't something we really have time to tackle right now. So this is a suggestion for how to get at this and just to ask the LERB to look at this repeal and make a recommendation whether to repeal it, and if we are repealing it, what kind of a framework either already exists or we could build to make sure that there is now that regional plans are having this increased significance around tier 1a and 1b for municipalities. It seems really important to have this kind of look back for landowners or municipalities and other entities that have something to lose.

[Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Whether they are the RPC or not, any entity.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes. There's there's a list of six different lines of entities that is in that. So instead of repealing this, we're leaving it in statute, even though it's funky. We don't know how effective it is, might not mean anything still. We're not doing anything right now, and ask the Land Use Review Board for their legal opinion on how to make sure there's a structure for it.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: So, where was the section of statute that you appealed?

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The bottom of page 25. Are you looking in our bill?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: I'm looking at 1.2.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, bottom of page 20 Great. Now it's back. Bottom of page 25. It's they but they repealed it, and then we put it in to look at it. And there's a lot in there. I I feel like this is a good solution. Other questions for Alan. We heard from Ben Doyle the other day. Katie Gallagher, are you prepared to talk about ideas for study? Think it's basically what it is. Yeah.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Sure. Okay.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. You'll stay with us as long as you can.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, no, I'm done now.

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Katie Gallagher with the Vermont Natural Resources Council. So this will be a rough kind of introduction of some thoughts, following up on Ben Doyle's testimony last week about how could better strengthen the community investment program in terms of the new future land use categories being expanded through S-three 25 to include nonhistoric planned new and emerging centers. And so Ben had recommended the potential of having a three year look back. And so we talked, I

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: put a

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: little bit of thought into this and the committee, I think, could go a number of different ways, but trying to keep it relatively simple. And I'm sorry, I did not, have not shared this language with the full committee. But the goal would be to try to identify how many of these planned new or emerging centers are actually taking place in those regional future land use maps, and then the corresponding benefits that they would be getting under the Community Investment Program and Act two fifty exemptions. And then are those benefits that they're getting so that there's one kind of an impact on the program and what that impact is. Because again, as you heard from Ben, the expansion of these community areas that would be eligible for the community investment program is already expanding really significantly. So what is the impact on the program? Then are we still able to effectively achieve state goals related to community planning and Smart Growth principles? Is that still being achieved through these planned new and emerging centers? Are there any areas through this review that we might identify other opportunities for better alignment between state land use policy goals, regional planning related to housing and development in particular, and trying to avoid sprawl and impacts on working lands and natural resource protection. So my initial kind of run at this was looking at a report coming back to the legislature January 2030, that would give the, all if the future land use maps going to be done roughly 2027. So that would be three years from that kind of start point. We would ask the Land Use Review Board in consultation with the Agency of Commerce and Community Development, the Agency of Natural Resources, which commissions, and other stakeholders that are representing different land use issues to submit a report that would evaluate the role performance and impacts of these emerging downtown and village centers. You were talking earlier this morning about the interim housing exemptions as well. I think that you could also expand this to include those kind of larger areas planned for growth. How did the interim exemptions work? What were some of the impacts? So again, looking at the eligibility and use of benefits for the Community Investment Program and Act two fifty exemptions, we can look at a comparison of the different types of communities, the development outcomes, impact on the designated centers, both positive impacts, neutral negative impacts. I have kind of a list of different things. And again, think you can expand or narrow this to the extent that makes sense. I know that you're trying to keep things as simple as possible here. So I can send the language that I was thinking about here and talk with Ben about. But really, yeah, the idea is just to take a better look at this relatively significant change and see how it's impacting our existing programs that are trying to make really targeted investments, and if there are recommendations for moving forward and supporting emerging centers alongside our historic centers.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Have questions? Representative North.

[Rob North (Member)]: So there it in the brand new draft, 2.3, is there language or space for alignments like what you're talking about?

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: There is not current language in the in the newest draft. I think that would be up to the committee to decide whether that's something that you're interested in. Do you have a recommendation?

[Rob North (Member)]: Do have some

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: recommendations for us? For language?

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yeah. I do.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You can look at that. Yeah. We can look at I mean, I didn't know if you were ready to share it. We just just Ben had said he would submit something, and Ela circled back, so here we are. So kinda happening.

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: We'd make some further refinements probably to to share it out. But yes. Okay. Yeah.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We will work on this. We'll look at it further. Questions for Katie Gallagher? Representative Chapin? I guess I'm still trying

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: to wrap my head around some of this. My understanding is if we had tons of resources for the Community Investment Program, we wouldn't worry so much about these expanded land use categories and how they're starting to be inclusive of planned or emerging growth centers or village centers. Meanwhile, we've got, it feels like pressure on municipalities to look at emerging growth centers, particularly because of our pattern of historic development in flood zones. And maybe that's not the only reason that municipalities would be looking at new planned and emerging growth centers, but certainly a really, really for rural communities, a really big driver. And so we're trying to balance here limited resources and targeted resources that have historically been very focused as Ben beautifully articulated in his testimony. So, yeah, just wanted to confirm that that's sort of the issue, but narrow resources. And really, we want to say, how are they being deployed differently over the next few years? And impact does that have?

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Yes, I think that's exactly right. I would just note that I think the language related to the plan and emerging centers, to your point, that can include areas that are looking for new centers because their historic centers are having repeated flood events. It could also mean an area of Route 7 that just wants an Act two fifty exemption. So because these areas are not very well defined, that's another kind of place where there's just not a lot of specificity as to how the investments that we're making are specifically targeted.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I have something else I'd like to propose. Okay. Now it's time, I guess. I guess I just want to share with the committee that this new language that I took a stab at drafting for the committee on page seven around public outreach community engagement planning for community engagement. There's one other sub central question that I wonder if we should add to it, and it's around public input on just how Act two fifty and ANR permitting works.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's huge order. It's huge. Personally,

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think the legislature already has a pretty good grasp on what does and doesn't work.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think we hear about what doesn't work. We don't hear

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: about what does work. Sure. So, guess I'm just putting on the table, I did draft an additional sentence just like this morning at 09:30 and can send it. I can send a I have we made some we've discussed some tweaks to this. I have some tweaks and this additional sentence, so maybe I'll put that in an email to the committee so that people can just think on it over the weekend.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm wondering about I feel like there's something already in process on this. Permit review kind of task force. Anyway, let's look into that. It too big to me to add here. And also, maybe to this. Like, I think one thing about the public outreach thing that I've been thinking a lot about maybe, is just well, first of all, I think it needs to be focused, and it has to be really clear what we're looking for before we go out. And then I think the bigger it gets, the less clear it will be. Yeah. Any thoughts? Yeah.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you. I was just gonna echo that. It seems like the questions that we're trying to have answered in this public outreach process would be drowned in that conversation.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. They just be completely lost. Because that's like, those are two very different conversations because this is sort of like a pre policy development conversation that needs to happen so that we can problem solve together instead of I mean, and frankly, I'll be honest, I think the executive branch should engage in community engagement processes to reflect on how successful it is at implementing our statutes in the first place. So I kinda feel like we they they shouldn't need to be told by us to ask people what they think.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Like How are we doing?

[Kate Logan (Member)]: How are we doing? It's, like, their job to serve Vermonters. And it's not our job to tell them how to do their jobs unless it's going really badly. And so I'd prefer I'd prefer to see that sort of, like, done on their own, frankly.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Great. Thanks. I just needed to say that bigger question out loud because I know a lot of people feel like we also need to be open to that. Yeah. I agree that it would drown the rest of us. So thank you.

[Rob North (Member)]: This kind of is a plan for a plan for what we're asking for here. So I think that kind of detail goes into the next plan that's being planned. This is the plan for the plan.

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And or it's happening already. So I think it's worth asking that question.

[Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes, I would love to know whether it's happening. Thanks.

[Rob North (Member)]: With

[Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that, we will adjourn for the day.