Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. This morning, we are looking at draft 6.1 dash three twenty five. It's our legislative council.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ela Chapin, Office of Legislative Council, draft 6.1. The changes from last night's draft are in yellow. There's only a handful. Yeah. So the first change is on page eight. This is part of the public engagement plan language. And yesterday, representative Logan was asking about making sure it included a reference to the environmental justice community engagement principles. So, this whole subsection I made into a list so it was easier to read and make sure you could see the things that were on it. So, the bottom of page seven into page eight, the contractors shall ensure engagement plan the engagement planning process would maintain neutrality on policy and political issues, utilize neutral facilitation for statewide democratic public engagement, ensure alignment with the core principles for community engagement plans developed pursuant to three VSA 6,006, and design the plan to inclusively and meaningfully engage in a a full range of stakeholders, including Vermont residents and landowners and historically marginalized communities.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Heard from representative Logan. Any questions on this? Thoughts? Alright. Thank you, Ellen.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 10, there's a small change from the editors for grammar. So, this is the oversight committee and their duties. So, this sentence now reads on page eight, line 16 Sorry, page 10, line 16. Just on page Committee shall also meet with the HCM Natural Resources to learn about agency efforts to improve and better coordinate its permitting processes and shall coordinate efforts to further improve for further improvements to the process for applicants and outcomes for Vermonters. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: For further improvements. The committee will coordinate efforts for further improvements? Is that what you're raising your hand about? Yes, Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah, I think I understand that there was a word missing there, but I don't think the word should be shall. I think it should be to. Okay.

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

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is on page 11, there is only one change that you all discussed yesterday in the Land Use Review Board report, although I think you're going to consider other changes. And so right now, the first subsection reads, The Land Use Review Board shall deliver a report that shall review the effect of permitted mitigation of impacts on primary agricultural soils, and making recommendations for how to improve protections for this natural resource.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not sure it's quite there yet. Shall review impacts on primag soils. Let's make yeah. To review impacts from development on prime ag soils and oh, permitted impacts on prime ag soils. That would capture it more for me. Ela?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I would just propose that we look at the language that representative shared

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: with

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: the committee last night, that maybe not everybody, I think, has seen in their emails. It's a restructure. It rewords these three items, I think, in a really effective way that gets at what a lot of constituents are unhappy about. And I think that was what we were talking about yesterday, which is to focus on data and analysis that only the LERB can do for the legislature, not making recommendations about future tools for natural resource protection. And it significantly edits this number one in a way that made sense. Thanks for doing that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm looking now. Thank you, Ela. Representative Austin? I don't I really think that a majority of soil in Vermont is probably fine ag, a lot of it, and I'm wondering if it needs to be prioritized in terms of location.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Well, for the Rective 50, it's statewide prime, which is not very much. Really? Yeah. Oh, interesting. Is there mitigation for national prime soils feeder, Gil?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. We're having I'm hearing. Oh, hearing. So the question is, for purposes of act two fifty, prime ag soils are the statewide prime soils, or do they include sort of the next tier down national significant national national ag soils? Like, the statewide is a small subset. It's not that much in Vermont. Yeah. It's not it's actually not much, and it is a pretty limited resource.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I'm not sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Because it used to be a farming community, of course, but it got Yeah, well

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thank you. So the NRCS has mapped the soils all across the whole state, and they have ranked them based on their qualifications. So, the state has different categories of soil all across the state, both primary and secondary. I believe receive mitigation option in Act two fifty, and then I can't remember the next category is statewide importance. But there is a category which is not included in that, yeah, because they're of lesser importance. Thank you. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, that looks good to me. Ela and I can send that.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have it in my email.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Okay.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so this is having a different effective date for each of the topics.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This, I assume, worked out with the Land Use Review Board, was it?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Some of them were. I didn't not all thread. I didn't talk about the middle one, but the the earlier one and the later one, yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it wasn't totally thinking about the shapes yet, but so I think we're fifteen twenty seven July one. You can Okay.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Item c, which is the the on farm business on farm accessory business. Yeah. Prioritize that earliest because because had indicated that's the one they've done the most work on. They indicated they could be ready for something for us for next session, which would be great. So I'm not hard over about November 15. We I mean, whether it's January, I don't care, but make that one first. And then the other one that, again, in conversation with members yesterday, indicated that it's gonna take them a while to do some serious digging to get the data

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: on the

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: at least the nine l one. So I pushed that one farthest out. And, again, that could be pushed farther out of filler. If you go into '28, I'm fine with that. But the the the item a on the prime ag soils, it seems like that one is of pretty high significance. Again, I mean, based on what we've all been talking about. And so if we could align that so that the outputs of that feed into, hopefully, the public engagement process that we're gonna do if we can get that set up to start next year, then this date would feed into that. That that was the thought behind the dates.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Great. I I like this language and would want us to put it in the next draft. Maybe let's put them in order of date then, because they're only in this order because of an artifact. It looks like there's an extra shall in the first opening sentence, but I trust you'll figure that out, Dylan. Sure. Thank you, representative North. Awesome.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Thank you for considering. Yes. On a side note, I did have a discussion with some of the folks who are have been concerned about this type of report The the public engagement process was intended to do. And if we if we narrow it down to data analysis, I think that really helps.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Which was the intent? That's fine.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Good. Good. Representative Logan. I'm wondering if anyone's thought more about the title.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. You need a new title. I can't didn't about

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: well, Act two fifty review, agricultural soils, Commercial Development, and Sprawl Control.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, now it's three separate reports. So you could just call

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: those Land Issue Review Reports. Yeah, that's true. They are. Yes. Great. Sounds good. Simple. Okay. Just keep it simple, sweetie.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Still seems really broad.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To say reports?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. To say land use review board. Can we say current? That's just doing it.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's just not descriptive in any way.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, and sometimes I guess I'm okay with that. I mean, I feel like often in these statutes, we repeat what's exactly gonna like you're gonna read below. Not if we just said, look, it is. Let's try. Let's try using fewer words. Back to the bill.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So the next change is on page 27.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Come back to the one you missed, Kate. Come back to the one thing. Alright. Page 26.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, so Section 20 is the annual report from the Community Investment Board. So it is put into statute now 5,808, and then I added on page 27, currently in statute 22 VSA 20 D says that any reports shall not exceed five years unless you do intend for them to be a permanent report. So, I included that so that it will last more than five years, but you can always repeal and change this if it becomes unnecessary.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thou shall not apply to the repeal.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Because there's an automatic repealer basically in statute for any report.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I actually think we might want the automatic repealer. Oh, you do? Yeah.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. So it's five years.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's great. Okay. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Maybe tell us what you were thinking when you thought we would prefer it to not apply.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is getting information every year on the Community Investment Programs activities, including who's getting the designations and who's getting the incentives that are awarded the tax credit. So like the tax credit has its own reporting requirement already, but the other like grants and assistance that the program provides, I don't necessarily think is covered by another report.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the other one, does the other one, this tax credit report also subject to this time out or is it exempt? It's except, I believe. Yeah. It's not a big thing. Representative Chapin. So I think

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: what I'm hearing is, you know, most programs that are created in statutes report regularly on their outcomes to the legislature, generally speaking. And you're saying in this case, so the tax credit part of these programs already has that set up, this seemed like a gap. Yes.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Although this section has been evolving, so maybe I don't know. Like, originally, it was just in session law, so that would have been a one time report, but it says annual. So I thought it was gonna be every year in perpetuity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I mean, I think that the committee has this five year thing for a reason. Yeah. And I think I don't see a reason I don't see a compelling reason to take this out of that. Like Okay. I think any future legislature should be aware. If it's a helpful report, they'll keep it going. If it's not useful anymore, they'll just let it go away. Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Representative Chapin. I guess I was just curious if folks from the department who oversee the Community Investment Board have looked at this and are peeled the data. Yeah, so I think somebody's connected with them.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I did send it for you. We'll have a break between So I'm gonna reach out to Omar, that'll get back to us. Are there other changes, Ela?

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a small change in section 21. This report is called Municipal Appeals and Discretionary Review of Housing Report.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the Department of Housing and Community Development. So, you're asking them to look at Oh, so they shall report on the following. And so, at the top of page 28, you discussed yesterday a couple of changes. So, they shall report on impacts of discretionary review on residential development, including whether the state should assist municipalities seeking to develop objective standards, including model codes, the potential value of the federal right to build zone legislation and steps the state can take maximize the value, and incentives and planning assistance the state can offer municipalities seeking to limit discretionary review. So that was streamlined a little bit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the realtors would like to be added to the list of folks with the consultation list, apparently, which is not of concern to me. So What's the title there, Bernadette? Vermont Association of Realtors. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: On page 28, line three, I'm not understanding this correctly, but where it says including model codes. I mean, I know we sort of restructured this sense. And so I'm just think what this means is that if the state is assisting municipalities who are seeking to develop more objective standards, But the state would provide model develop and provide codes to those municipalities. Right now, the way it's drafted, it feels like the municipalities might be seeking to create objective standards, including model codes. So I guess I think it might need to say, the state should assist municipalities seeking whether the state should assist municipalities seeking to develop objective standards, including developing and providing model codes. Yeah, the change in language meant that, yeah, state. It would be no longer modifying model codes instead of yeah, but it should be. Right? It should be. Yeah, the state is supposed to be developing potentially. So I think it could just say model codes. Including developing and providing model codes to municipalities or something like that. Yeah. Because it's supposed model codes is supposed to be referring to objective standards. It's a type of If you want the objective standards, one option would be the state providing model codes to the municipalities that they could adopt. Right. But now it just seems like municipalities are seeking to develop the objective standards. So I agree that that's the problem. I think if we have somehow could make it clear that the state is developing helping to develop the objective standards, including model codes would be clear that we're referring to the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Could say including a model code?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Well, I think we still need to get we need to it shouldn't be state should assist municipalities seeking to develop objective standards. Including whether the state should develop and provide model codes to municipalities seeking to develop objective standards? Or whether the state should develop objective standards, including model codes that could assist municipalities. Yeah, that's good.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That makes sense. You get it?

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Okay. The state should develop objective standards, comma, including model codes, comma, to assist municipalities in order to assist municipalities. That's what we're trying to say. Right.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wondering if the first line actually goes there, but

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Impacts of discretionary review. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's well, or it's a separate thing. So, it's a I could see that. So, two would be impacts of discretionary review on residential development, and three would be whether the state should develop objective standards, including model codes, if system use policies.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's not need to be read

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: now already. Yeah. It'll be neat.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So there's be some sub bullets under a. Is that what you're

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I think it'll be

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just another number.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. Another number.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yeah. And wouldn't the potential value of the federal right to build this zone Yeah. That could be another be another number. Might as well be another. Just break the number.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Split out eight. Yeah. I think it's what she has to Split out two. Trying to do at previous birth.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's a lot of stuff happening in this paragraph. Yeah.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'm also wondering if we might, while we're editing this, insert another idea into this study. But I'm totally fine if it's just too late in the game for that. But, seems like we might want them to consider how a model code could facilitate municipal delegation of act two fifty or help municipalities municipalities develop the capacity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's too much. It's too much. Yeah. I mean, just we're working on closure.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Yes. Thank you.

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

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So thank you. As long as we're in that paragraph in which added the Vermont realtors, could we add Vermonters for a clean environment in that list in small a? Annette Smith and her crew. Got me on our CNN team.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sure. You.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can we combined the second sentence with the last sentence about whether the state should develop objective standards, including model codes to assist municipalities goes with the last one about incentives and planning assistance for municipalities. Yes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I'll save us a few words.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I would like to go back to the top where the EJ language was inserted before representative Logan. That's why he does. Oh, you saw it.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: I saw it. It's what you had

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: in mind. Okay, great.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: There's one more edit on the last

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page, page 29. Carla emailed last night that they are requesting or proposing a slight change to the last date or the date in the middle of the page here. This is for the covered agencies to adopt rules after ANR has adopted their rules. So, you're pushing ANR's rule adoption date until 01/01/2029. And so, you had pushed to January 2030, they're asking for it to instead be 07/01/2030. So, an extra six months after that.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: It's reasonable.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so that's all the changes in this draft.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great. So, Ellen, how much time do you need? Minutes too.

[Ela Chapin (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you know, but yeah. Let's connect twenty, and then if I'm back sooner, that'll be good.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We'll break until quarter of. And if you're