Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: We're live. All right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House of Environment Committee. We're gonna continue taking testimony on each of S-three 25, and

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: we welcome Charlie Baker. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the time. And I know this is getting somewhere near the end. Think you know better than I do. So apologies. I have not been following your testimony in a recent conversation. If I've missed something, I apologize in advance. And here, really, saw a new version yesterday, three point two, they did yesterday. And I guess I should start by saying I think the RPCs are very thankful for the work the committee is doing and support just about everything in here. There are two new provisions that were added yesterday that we do have more significant concerns about. And they were sorry to dive in so quickly on issue, but on page and they were around the historic requirements for village centers. And I will say all the RPCs are quite concerned about them. And I'll tell you why. But the two provisions I'm speaking about are on page 16, lines 11 to 14, highlighted in yellow. Thank you, Ellen, I'm guessing. And then also page 25, lines nine to 10. So those were two things that were added, and we're quite concerned because they're conflicting with what we had understood intent to be. And I'm sorry, I'm going to take you into the weeds a little bit, and then you should pull me out.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We appreciate this. Need to.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: The center program, the designation program has there's three levels of centers downtown. There's step three centers, the biggest ones. And then for smaller village centers, it was separated into two types of centers. Step one is step two. Step two and it's unfortunate you don't have you don't see the whole statute. So if you saw like the next paragraph that's after the section on page 25, you would see step two says requires historic or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Step two requires.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Step two. So these changes, from our understanding, is kind of having the effect of turning step one centers into the equivalent of step two centers. Because we have been operating since the law passed and, you know, and frankly, you know, working with the LERB and working with DHCD and BNRC and Preservation Trust with the understanding that it would be okay to have non historic centers. And let me give you a few examples. We have certainly towns that are looking to move their centers out of floodplains. And so that's going to be a non historic center. And then we have other ones. Sorry, I'm from Chittenden County. I should have apologized for that first. But in the new North End of Burlington, if you're familiar with that, like that was a neighborhood built in the fifties. And the center of it is a shopping center, essentially. It's not a historic place, but it is a center of that community. And so and there are other ones like that around the state. And so all of our mapping that we've been doing, working on for the last year and a half, some of us longer, some of us more recently working on those maps, have centers that this would disqualify from being mapped as SEP-one centers. And so, we hope that there's some possibility of taking this out. Honestly, before this version came out, I thought we were testifying and say, Yay, we're done. Great job. And then these two centers seem to kind of take us backwards. So, it is a significant concern for us. And just to be clear about the benefits, because I think there's been a lot of concern about historic tax credits going to non historic communities. And that's the reason that you have Section 17. Sorry. Maybe going a little bit too fast for my own good. Yes. Section 17 on the bottom of page 25 was a section that we had worked out with all those partners to really make clear that the tax credits should only be used in centers with historic properties. And so, you'll see if you look at that, it says applications in step two and three centers. They have to have historic already. And then step one centers where there is a portion that is historic. So step one could get to the historic tax credits if they had the historic properties. So it's kind of a little bit of the flip of what was just recently proposed yesterday. So from our view, and I don't want to speak for the partners that we were working with, but we felt like we had gotten to a place that made sense. We have some centers that aren't historic that we should support. And then we have historic centers, and those should be the ones that get the historic tax credits because those are limited resources. We want to direct them properly. I'm hoping all that made sense. Happy to take questions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Can you summarize for us the different benefits of the STEPPS? The STEPPS. Nice test.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Sorry, I really only focused on the STEP one benefits. The STEP one benefits are technical assistance and grant priority. So that's all STEP one gets. And so that's helpful, like if you're trying to relocate your village center out inside the floodplain, like you want some technical assistance from typically the state or the RPC, and you also want to be able to qualify for, you know, whether it's a planning grant or a grant to do, you know, wastewater. So, technical assistance and grant priority is all you get for step one. And then step two is where the historic tax credits kick in. Then sorry, I didn't focus in on the benefits for step two and three. Obviously They're more of the historic tax credits, there's other programs and even other tax credits, I think, that are available to those Step two and three centers.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I think

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: we're trying to understand as in we ACT 181 trying to actually move away from the Community Investment Program designations being used so much for land use decisions so that and I guess the way you see it, I'd like to hear how you see this happening.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah. I think we see it more as Sorry, to go backwards in time, like how did we get here? Why are these tied together now? There was in for the designation program, the way it used to work is a town would negotiate their area for the designation with the with the staff at Department of Housing Community Development, and then get it approved by the Community Investment Board or the downtown board. Was called that When there was a survey, you may remember this during 2023, there was a study and a lot of surveying, big workshop at remote technology, getting feedback from towns, how is the designation program working for you and what should we do to change it? One of the big things that came out of that process was a lot of frustration with the mapping negotiation one by one with the state. And so, the solution that got proposed to this committee two years ago was, while the RPCs are doing future land use maps, we won't talk about the Act two fifty benefit. Like, that was one angle. The other angle was, let's have the RPCs work with the towns and do region wide mapping of all of these centres and the neighbourhoods around them. So, centers and neighborhoods tie into our future land use areas, so that the towns aren't as frustrated negotiating. We're kind of supporting the towns rather than regulating, controlling them in the way that they were feeling the program was working. So, I think was really trying to shift the whole dynamic from control to support. And so, that's what we feel like we've been doing. Now, one of the implications of that is that there's more centers being identified and more land area. So, to acknowledge that. But that was also, it's still, you know, 2.5% of the state. The old designations were 0.3. And one of the frustrations also with the designation program previously was that it was only 0.3% of the state. And so, those designations were being used to prioritize grants and things in different agencies. And there were definitely towns and parts of towns that were feeling like they were getting left out that felt like this is where we're trying to plan growth and we're not being supported properly. So, sorry, that may be a longer answer than you were looking for.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, one of the concerns that we have is that there's limited resources for the towns in this work. And so if we're increasing both the land area and all of the areas, yeah, it's like, well, how do we do that? How do we address that?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Well Sorry. Were you done with your question? I'm sorry. Actually, again, think we've been thinking of it on the flip side because when we're working with our towns on these maps, we're not expanding what the town is doing. The town already has a town plan in place. Like we're supporting what the town has already determined locally, where they want to grow and how they want to grow. So we don't see the demand for more work. These things are already in process at the town level. I'm sorry, this points to a larger

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: State resources available to help towns. Like even step one that you just described, technical assistance from the state

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: And RPCs.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, and RPCs, but and grant priority. So there's limited resources there. Yeah. Yeah. And

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I think one of the things that and this is I haven't necessarily had this conversation with all my peers, but one of the things that this process has pointed out is the state connection to the town planning process has been virtually nonexistent. And so this, in my mind, is a really constructive thing that we're doing to support all of the towns in the state, whatever level of planning and work that they want to do to support growth in their town. Some towns that want to grow at all, that's fine. They don't have a growth there. Other towns are doing more where they want to have some growth. This is really just supporting what the towns are doing. And we're providing a lot of technical assistance to those towns on the plans, on their bylaws, helping apply for grants or working on funding things. I mean, I think you passed CHIP last year in part to address this financing and financial resources to implement plans. So from my view, a lot of these things are coming together to support what towns have been doing, and we're recognizing more of what towns are doing.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have further questions on this topic?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Last point, I think you may have gotten a request. We also think that it's a great idea to have the Community Investment Board report back to you on how how are things happening, how are things the tax credits of the various incentives that they are in charge of? How are they being used? Are they landing in the right places to modify something if it is working after you hear back.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative North.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Charlie, for coming in this morning. So if we if we remove the the yellow highlighted additions that you're talking about wanting to remove, would that have the effect of increasing the applicant pool for these same funds, the CID funds? No.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I think that just keeps the process that's in in the things that are in process keep staying in

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: process. In other words, if we left the yellow in there, it would actually shrink the applicant pool. Yes. What you're suggesting by taking these yellow additions out back out, so we just continue with status quo, keeping the applicant pool for that same set of funds where it is current.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah. Given the mapping that we're doing with them now. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Clarifying, though, the sort of post Act 21. It's still and Yeah. It hasn't expanded yet.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Because

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You think you've mapped them, so you feel like it's done. I appreciate that.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Well, in process.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You're in process. And so this is you know, that applicant pool has not expanded yet.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: That's true. Yeah, until they're formally approved by the going into place. And it's really the first plan has been submitted to the Laneige Review Board, the Northwest region. They submitted few a few weeks ago now. So, they're under review by the LRRF. Rutland and Chittenden regions are going to be submitting in May. And I think this language would, I think, disrupt those approval processes and kind of cause us to go back to work with towns and remap. And I think it would be smaller geography and disruption. I mean, honestly, there's been so much public concern with, you know, other provisions of 01/1981 if we don't have to, I'd rather not pick this particular part of it. So,

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: given that prior to act 181 implementation actually going into place and the plans that are in process actually going into place, applicant pool was, is smaller than what it will be when the plans all go into place. So, they're they're effectively over over time given the inflation of act one eighty one. If these if these yellow additions are removed, the applicant pool will have grown. Yeah.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: It will have grown from pre act one eighty one.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: And and will include towns that are already in process through the planning. It's RPC planning process. And so if we implemented the yellow highlighted text and left it in there, you'd have to go back and take some towns out that have are already going through process. This and when we say already going through the process, does that mean already going through the process of applying for CIP benefits?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: No, I think it really has to do with our map and the expectations that we've been working through with our towns. And I think, you know, I think one of the first of my peers to call me was Tasha in Lemoyt, who, you know, was working with Johnson on relocating their village outside the floodplain. And she was like, oh my god. Like, what what what's happening? Like, if they do this, I'm concerned that then Johnson doesn't qualify, and Johnson needs help.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So they are going through the process with the anticipation, expectation of being able to get by.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah. Because we've been talking to them for a year and a half and unfortunately building some level of rug out from under

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: their feet if we if we left the yellow line, which Yeah. Yeah. That's what we're concerned about.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess it's interesting. I I really I didn't think it would change the mapping of the areas at all. I don't understand that.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: It doesn't It makes it makes any of these centers that don't have historic properties ineligible to be a center. It it says that only centers containing buildings that are eligible for the register qualify for benefits.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I guess that was more linked than

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: And I think maybe it was trying to get to the historic tax credits, maybe, I don't know. Yes. And that's what we were trying to address in section 17, which does that. Yeah, I get that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Tagliavia, did you?

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I I like the idea of this being removed. If we're trying to encourage growth outside of areas that we know are prone to flooding, I know some of these areas have historic buildings, but if the ultimate goal is to have growth outside or adjacent to flood prone areas, removing this is going to hopefully encourage that. That's why the yellow highlighted stuff to me needs to be strong.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden. I totally agree that we want to

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: be encouraging municipalities, particularly rural ones have seen flooding in their only village or two, and really do need to look at different areas. I think that's very compelling. The other compelling testimony that we received is that right now, the limited grant funds that Step one my understanding is the grant funds that Step one makes folks prioritized for is a limited pool of grant funds. And without the yellow language, going back to the way the bill was, and the way Act 181 has been rolling out, many more particularly urban areas are going to be eligible for that. But it was articulated to us that really these funds have been utilized and fairly focused, particularly for rural economic development purposes. And without this yellow language, to maintain those resources directed at more rural economic development. A lot of urban areas now, after this mapping, are going to be eligible and potentially really pull a lot of those resources. So I guess I just wondered

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: if there's comment on that.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Are there ways that, state agencies and maybe the legislature have put some guardrails in place there? I mean, there's been some geographic anti Chittenden investment policies that have been in place for a number of years. So I'm sorry. I'm just naming that maybe more bluntly than I should. I know we're out of time. But there are other ways to deal with that than excluding entire towns or villages from being eligible. And and yet because the I mean, I those agencies are making decisions. They're they're doing some weighing of of interest there when they're making decisions. So but excluding them feels like the wrong message. And I think we're very concerned about this and and the conversations that we're gonna have to have if this goes into effect.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think you've made your point well, and I want to be aware of

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: the bill.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah, thank

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you. A couple of questions for you also. Okay. So we also talked about an appeal of retail plans. And I guess I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. It feels Maybe I'll leave it at that. Somehow it feels like we need a way for that to happen.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Right now we don't. Is this section 14 you're referring to? Is language in here? No? Delaney is developing a report about whether section should stay in or be modified in some way. A couple of things. We talked about appeals in the development of 01/1981. Some of you that were on the committee two years ago may remember that resulted in a process for objectors to bring objections to the LERB when they're making their final decisions. So there was kind of a process set up for that without, you know, going into some other legal process. So I don't know if that's sufficient or not. I'm not going to be the judge or jury on that. But so we're okay with this. But it's in Section 14. And there is another different section or different language or part of Section 4,476 in statute that also allowed for an appeal of a regional an RPC approval of a town plan. Maybe there's more merit there. I'm not aware of any town plans that have actually been turned down, been denied because we're typically working with the town to make sure they comply. And So we address all those issues before we get to the approval stage. So maybe there's some merit there, but yeah, I'll leave it at that. Think in our decisions, I think kind of also walk back to like, how do our decisions affect private property rights and things like that? And like, our regional plan doesn't do that. You know, now the LERB deciding about Act two fifty exemption, that does. And that's probably appealable. And then the the town plan approval doesn't impact zoning or anything else. It just impacts the town's ability to do impact fees and they get some more grant priority by having a an approved a regionally approved town plan. So anyway, we're okay with the language in section 14, if that's the question.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't think the Lurb wanted to do it. Do you have any thoughts on who?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I think it was we were kind of struggling with her being the appeal body because the Lurb is the one approving our plans. So, it was like, they already

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I mean, they don't even I don't know how much they wanted to do the study. They don't want to report. I'm just thinking like, so if not, then who?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah. And this section was a leftover section of statute that got the rest of it got struck fifteen years ago during challenges for change. And this was like some remnant, to my knowledge, has never been actually operationalized. I know there is a case that's under appeal, but it's never been used in the way it was constructed.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We get it. Just wondering about

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I don't have a great thought for you there. Sorry.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: President Austin. Going back to the funding, how much money is it? And is it on a first come first serve

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: basis or price increase?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I can't answer that question. And it varies depending on what happens here every year. Because it's it's in, you know, brands in ANR, brands at B TRANS, it could be brands at community in ACCD. So I definitely don't have a handle on that, and it varies year to year.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: How they're allocated?

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Yeah, I can't answer that either. No.

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: Okay, thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right, thank you for your testimony. Thank you so much.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: I really appreciate the time.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. Thanks.

[Charlie Baker (Executive Director, Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission)]: Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All right. With that, we're going to welcome Michelle Monroe and Nesnith. Do you want to testify together or in? Yeah, we're just fine. Okay. Hi, Amy.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: You're starting. Okay. Hi.

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: Good morning, everybody. Thank you for the invitation to come and speak with you today. For the record, my name is Denise Smith, and I'm the current executive director of the Vermont Council on Rural Development, otherwise known as VCRD. We are the state's Rural Development Council authorized in the Farm Bill and serve as a nonpartisan convener of public, private and nonprofit partners to align resources, elevate local priorities and strengthen rural economies. You heard from Paul Costello last week. I was out of town, but was able to watch it, the previous executive director of VCRD. VCRD, as you heard from him, has overseen a number of statewide rural policy convenings on a variety of issues, including broadband, the creative economy, climate economy, and working lands. The most recent statewide policy councils we have facilitated were the Vermont proposition and most recently was the Vermont Youth Opportunity Initiative. In addition to statewide rural policy work, you might know us better for our community visit process that we host throughout the state, which is locally led community driven processes in rural communities. We're proud to say that in 2027, we're celebrating our thirtieth year of doing that work. And we've worked across the state in every region and have done been in over 100 towns. Today, I'm here to reiterate that VCRD continues to serve Vermont and Vermonters with what we are known for and do best, which is community engagement and implementation processes that lead to democratic, locally driven decision making by the people most impacted by those decisions. In fact, VCRD is deeply nonpartisan, which means we are a trusted neutral convener that serves all of Vermont. You can look at our board structure if that's helpful to see who serves on our board. We facilitate open, respectful, inclusive dialogue and support community driven outcomes without prescribing solutions. Our work reflects the community priorities and approaches. In addition, VCRD for years since its inception has been engaged with the rural caucus. Since its inception, we have provided testimony, expertise and oftentimes are called upon to reflect the voice of rural communities and the challenges that they are facing. And this year, we've had a front row seat, as many of you, to how rural Vermonters are responding to the rulemaking process of Act 181, particularly Tier 3. We are also keenly aware of the work that is happening in this building by the Senate and House to address those concerns and provide Vermonters with more time and opportunities to weigh in. Having worked with Vermonters and Vermont communities for over three decades, we understand the need to engage people in transparent facilitated conversations that honor their individual and collective voices, encourage solution, action oriented decision making, and provide recommendations, actions or policy recommendations on how to move forward. And what we think now, which we're happy that this is being considered by this body, is that a transparent public engagement process that gathers the ideas of Verm Vermonters on the central question on how to balance protection of natural resources in the midst of climate change while ensuring secure economically viable future for our working lands, the families who work on them, and our rural communities is essential if Vermont is to move forward together. This should be facilitated in an open and neutral way, focused on getting Vermonters input into the future of their communities, working lands, and natural resources. K.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Thanks, Denise. I am Michelle Monroe. I'm the executive director of the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts for the record. And before I start some of my other testimony, unfortunately, I meant to send this late last night and and forgot to attach it. But you all will have a a memo from us outlining sort of the legal basis for us doing this work. As as Denise cited, VCRD is in Title VII of federal statute as a state conservation a rural development council that is explicitly charged with this kind of public convening in federal law. And that same step, that same title also charges districts with doing local convenings around conservation issues. And then we are also in districts are also in 10 VSA seven twenty three as charged with developing comprehensive plans for the protection and conservation of natural resources. So I just wanted to lay out that there is a statutory basis as well as an expertise basis for us coming forward to do this work. So as as I mentioned in my last testimony before you, you know, we, conservation districts, understand our working lands. We provide technical assistance to farmers and forest landowners all across the state of Vermont. We sit at their kitchen tables, helping them find ways to improve their operations and protect the landscape for their own benefit and the benefit of all of us. That makes districts trusted partners who can help bring people to the conversation. And when VCRD engages in their community visit process, thank you, in the community visit process, they often One of the things that they do first is find those local partners who can bring people to the table who know who in the community really needs to be part of the discussion. And when it comes to these issues, that's conservation districts, which is why we're proposing this partnership that would draw on their BCRD's expertise and our local knowledge. So at the same time that we're sitting down with people to help them figure out how to make their farm or their forest business more viable, we're also conservationists doing boots on the ground conservation work in every corner of Vermont. We mitigate flooding, we protect wildlife habitat, we improve soil health, we do a whole wide range. If it's a conservation project, chances are we're doing it. And as I mentioned, we're charged in federal and state statute with gathering information on conservation priorities and needs in each area of the state. And we do that annually. And so we know that conservation and protection of natural resources is one of the defining values Vermonters hold in common. And we believe combining VCRD's expertise in mutual facilitation and public engagement with our local relationships and understanding of the complexities of combining conservation with a working landscape will result in a robust public process that can hopefully provide the legislature with insight into how Vermonters see the future of land use in our rural communities and how together we can turn vision and values into good policy. As non regulatory entities, districts believe it is important to approach these discussions, not with a regulatory lens, but with genuine curiosity about Vermonters conservation priorities and how they believe those priorities can best be achieved, including the protection of our working lands. We're happy to take questions or we had some other thoughts as well.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the current language we're looking at really is just not really asking for a plan to happen, for the development of a plan to happen, excuse me, not for it to be implemented. So, I just want to make sure that's where you're at because there's been a little bit of confusion.

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: Was that the March 27 deadline to have a plan developed by then? Is that what you're talking about? Yes. Okay.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Yeah, because we were thinking, are they expecting all of this work to be done by March 27? Because that would not be

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not at all. Fact, we're imagining is having folks like you actually just work on the framework, and then it would be implemented. So, kind of taking our time to do this well.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: We would agree that absolutely that needs to happen because it certainly is scary for Vermonters. Their land may be their only asset. It's something that's been in their family for generations, and now someone there's a lot of fear around someone telling them what they can and can't do with that asset and seeing the thing of value that they have. So I think it it is behooves the legislature to take time and do this in a really engaged way with the public. I know that we do worry about I think that the land use review board may be a scary thing for some folks at this point. So I just wanna be cautious about how involved they they get in this process just for that reason, I think. Just not because we have anything against the Land Use Review Board, but just I think there's it can be.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think the intention is not that they are the vehicle for getting this back to us. So, yeah, representative Logan.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Yeah. And I guess just to put that differently, the expectation would be that whoever is elected to develop this plan that then comes back to the legislature for review next year would then conduct the outreach process. So not an outreach process for the Land Use Review Board, but an outreach process. The Land Use Review Board contracts with an NGO to complete or NGOs.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Represent Chapin. So I guess I'd love to I think we were very inspired by Paul's last week, and it was in line with sort of at least what I personally was thinking. Was critically involved in some of VCRD's work fifteen, twenty years ago that led to the creation of programs that I helped run. So I'm familiar with how VCRD can be a partner to the government, but also as a separate entity. So as we were looking at Section eight in the bill and trying to craft something, it wasn't essential to me that it went through the LERB. Really, in my mind, Section eight is about the legislature ensuring a public engagement process for information that comes back to the legislature that is well beyond Act two fifty and the LERB's purview, and may inform our future briefing of that work, but really is meant to inform the legislature about regulatory, non regulatory tools. How do Vermonters think we should be what are the issues that play in around these critical natural resources from agricultural soils to wildlife corridors and a number of things that are not well enough, we know are not well enough protected right now for the future of Vermont. How do we what I think our community is trying to struggle with here is how do we get what we want as a legislature, which is a robust public process that addresses a lot of issues that have come up over the last year and can inform us about things we might think about in the future? And where does the LERB fit in or not fit into that? So I think what you just said, and it's a little bit clear in your memo, is that there is a legal framework here for us to just ask you to do this work through districts. We do fund you directly already and give you, we can in statute say, you do this. So I think you're proposing that Section eight should just shift to us saying to you, your organization, or both your organizations, naming you in statute and giving you the authority and the funds to develop a framework for us that then you would also propose to implement yourselves or offer to implement yourselves. And I'm interested in moving that March date to January so that we have all session next year to do a thoughtful legislative process to look at a major public engagement framework implementing that. I just want to make sure that that was clear. Representative Logan. So one of

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: the things that we've been discussing is the community engagement plans that covered agencies are required to complete by next July that indicate how their community engagement processes would align with Act 154, the environmental justice law. And the conservation districts aren't covered agencies. The Land Use Review Board is a covered agency. And that is one of the reasons why I'm more comfortable with this process sort of being under the umbrella of the Land Use Review Board because it does require it would then require that the community engagement process developed would be in alignment with community engagement principles that have been outlined already through the Environmental Justice Advisory Council and Interagency Council. Those have already been developed. The covered agencies are required to create community engagement, essentially processes, policies that they'll use when they're developing policy, for example, that would have any impact on environmental justice focused populations, including living land, access to land, housing, clean air, water, etcetera. So it seemed I'm I'm curious as to how aware you both are about the process of developing these environmental justice policies in the state and how comfortable you would be with more deeply aging?

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I mean, council has a representative, the National Resources Conservation Council, which is this. In in statute, it's described as a state agency. So there are all of these questions because it's never functioned the way, like, the agency of agriculture does, for example. And for years, it was staffed by the state. And so there are all of these legal questions that we're constantly trying to get resolved about what is the precise what what state rules apply to council and which ones do not. But council, it would be is the umbrella organization that is charged with actually making sure that districts follow title 10. And they are also but they hold multiple block grants on behalf of the state that they distribute to mainly clean water funding. So there's all kinds of questions around how much that applies to us. But council does have a represent appointed representative on the environment. That's this committee. That is your Yes. Yeah. So we have we have an appointed member there. I personally have not been following that closely, but I think that good public engagement process always reaches out to everyone in the community. And I know VCRD has been working with

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: different community groups to meet folks who to engage people who may not be comfortable at a broader public meeting. And I think Denise can speak to that. Yeah. So a few years ago, prior to me joining VCRD, we developed a justice, equity, diversity, inclusion statements or processes that are part of our global processes for how we do our work to ensure that we're collecting and getting voices from people that might not normally feel heard, so from our marginalized voices in the state of Vermont. And we continue to improve that process and develop more robust systems in the organization to be able to gather, to meet people where they're at, basically, is kind of how we say it. And to the point where we're translating documents, we're just in New Haven where there's a large migrant farming population. And so we had a lot of translated documents for that. And we're working in Brandon. We're actually meeting Brandon tomorrow to start our community visit process there. And we're doing specific focus groups after the planning meeting where they identified populations that might not be able to come to public meetings. So that's one of the things that we do. Again, I have not followed the environmental justice the book rules around the world. As long as it's a neutral process, VCRD can help, I guess is what I'll say. As long as there's not an expected outcome, and that you're really interested in the voices of Vermonters, as Paul shared, the transparent process that we provide, making sure that we have the goals, that people understand why they're coming to the meeting, and what's going to happen with the information that we're collecting at these meetings. Just a quick follow-up question. And so thank you,

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: first of all, that answer. So one of the goals of Act 154 is to, for example, make sure that there's meaningful participation in public process by Vermonters at 80% AMI or below. So I think that's one of the issues that we've experienced over the last several months is a a concern from lower income rural Vermonters that they're being priced out of having the ability to use their own land. And so I'm I'm particularly interested in how you might and I I realize this question is coming sort of out of left field. How you might gauge lower income Vermonters, landowners, lower income landowners in this process?

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I think that that's actually something that we both do on a regular basis because we're working with people who the districts are directly working with people who are who are really, in many cases, economically challenged in terms of how they can make a living off of the land that they own. And generally have a principle of of trying to engage everyone, but I in the communities when they're inviting people in and wanting to hear. But it's around different issues. So we're really focused on that conservation piece when we're engaging the public. So we don't touch we aren't necessarily getting to things like the housing crisis. But I think that BCRD has a really robust process for making sure that everyone is at the table.

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: Yeah. I think our record shows that we get 10% of a community typically to show up to any one of our community visits, which is a large number. It's typically more than who show up for a town meeting day. And we do a lot of outreach, a

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: lot of phone call. I guess I

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: would say our biggest thing still is calling neighbors, calling neighbors and inviting them to come to a a meeting or to an event. I think also messaging is going to be really important. And that's something that we have a lot of skill around in terms of how we talk to Vermonters and invite them to the table. And I also think that just the way we show up is really authentic. We're very authentic in our Vermonters serving Vermonters, so we're not an outside consulting firm. And I think that's a really important kind of ethos that we bring. And the other thing that we talk about really is like, we've worked in rural communities around the state and have been doing this for thirty years. And so our knowledge of the towns that we've worked in and the people that are there is deep. So it's easy for us to call people up and ask them who isn't at the table that needs to come and make sure that we have an outreach plan for that. So, yeah, I think there's different ways to do that. I also think part of the process would be to help us identify those ways that we would do that in each of the regions that we would potentially do this work in.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: And I would just add that has been one of our concerns, was the I'm just going to say the word, the class aspects of some of these processes and wanting our concern has been wanting to make sure that all Vermonters' voices were heard. That's one of the reasons that we wanted to engage in these discussions. And as in my previous role with senator Welch, I was I did a lot of my my role, what one of my areas of focus was municipalities case of flooding. So I was I joined the CRDs processes in both Barry and Johnson as a on behalf of the senator. And those were very much engaging all all members of the community. It was really valuable because there was no one who was who was left out. So just what I've observed of the VCRD's process. Representative

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Austin. Yeah. Coming from Chittenden County. Yeah. I'm just wondering, you know, because I think it's kind of a different thought. It would be a different process with 73,000 people, 10% of that is like 7,000 or whatever. Just the economic piece of Chittenden County and its relationship to Vermont and businesses, it's a very different piece of Vermont. And so when you come from a rural, when you're saying in terms of rural, how will you get the input from Chittenden County as well?

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: It's a great question. I have not thought deeply about that. So I think that could be definitely something that we could follow-up on.

[Representative Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Would just, Art Wolf has written a really excellent economic report on Vermont, but Chittenden County specifically, and that would help to inform how you would want to structure the process. That's great. Thank you. And

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: I know the the Winooski District covers Chinook County, and and I'm I have no doubt that Dan will also have thoughts and and the partners that he would encourage us to invite. And that he would know of people that people who know people as well as people we want to talk to and people who will know the people we want to talk to. Yes. Yes. But absolutely engage with the RPC.

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: That's Charlie's great. Members

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have further questions? Is that a Chapin?

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: It would help me if you would take a close look at Section eight in the bill and look at the language, particularly the questions that we have outlined. Yeah, it's in here. Also, it would be helpful for us to have an estimate of what it might cost to do the work between now and January to develop a framework for an outreach

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: engagement? We can do that. Well, to follow-up on that question, so for cost for the outreach and developing the plan and then actually implementing the plan is separate. Yes. That would

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: be dealt with by a future legislature next year. That would be dealt with by the future legislature next year. So we would be asking for and paying for the development of a plan between now and next January. Okay. March, depending on the date. Do you want to

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: wait and provide that written? Yeah, I did create some more positive of VCRD's style, is to ask open ended questions in a positive for me. So I did take some of the language of the questions that you had and developed a few different ones. So happy to share those with you after. Yeah. That'd be great. Like, you can email that pretty quick for me. Storming. Not like these would be the questions, but at least to kind of think a little bit more about them. That was one thing we didn't have concerns about was the way the questions were worded in the in the bill right now. Yeah. We'd love your feedback and stuff. Great. Absolutely. We can do that. Thank you so much, and thanks for the work that you're doing and for considering this.

[Michelle Monroe (Executive Director, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts)]: Yeah. We appreciate it. And happy to answer any more questions at any point, and we

[Denise Smith (Executive Director, Vermont Council on Rural Development)]: will follow-up with the information you requested.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Members, we've taken a fair amount of testimony. I'm going to sit down with Ela and come up with an extra ask and get it to us for this afternoon. We can spend a fair amount of time. I would count on a long afternoon, and hopefully we're moving in on it. If you want to bring your thoughts to me, that's fine. Great. With that, we will adjourn for the morning.