Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are changing topics to s two two three, an amendment that we discussed yesterday, and then making a change to another representative's proposal of amendment. Michael O'Grady has language for

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: us to open.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Hi. Good morning.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This is Michael O'Grady with the pledge council. Just to refresh your recollection and provide context yesterday, representative Page came in with a proposed amendment to amend one of the charges of the working group related to reviewing classification of lakes and whether or not that is adequately done under state law. And specifically, he wanted to include in that analysis whether threats from the leaching of chemicals such as PFAS to lakes and ponds from waste treatment facilities should be part of that review of classification of lakes. In your discussion, you you focused on a couple of things. You didn't want that to be just limited to lakes because PFAS is in all waters. You didn't want it to be limited to just class a waters because PFAS is a concern in, class b waters as well. So we had a it was a short discussion, but a discussion about adding the concept to the working group's charge to assess the state's obligation under the anti degradation rule to implement an anti degradation policy under the Vermont Water Quality Standards. What I did is I looked at US EPA's site about PFAS. I looked at their site about the chemicals of emerging concern. And there are there are multiple chemicals that currently don't have water quality standards that are posing issues in surface waters. PFAS is one, dioxane is another, dioxane is a chlorinated compound that comes from solvents and their binding of materials. And that that is causing issues mainly right now in groundwater, but it it's what they call miscible in water. So it can go so it it it it tends to persist in in water. Pharmaceuticals. There's stuff that comes off your tires that's contaminating waters that is not currently regulated. So I thought if you didn't wanna limit it to lakes, didn't want it to limit it to classic, you probably didn't wanna limit it to just PFAS as well. And so what this language does, it says it's part of that review of the anti degradation rule on the implementation policy. The working group will address how to address emerging chemicals of concern that lack water quality standards as part of the anti degradation policy. Because if the anti degradation policy requires the agency, the state to prevent a water quality from degrading past its current quality, you have to look at these chemicals even if they don't have water quality standards. So that's that's what it does. It just addresses and it's not specific, like, you must come up with the water quality standard. It it could be something like in the triennial review of the water quality standards, which I can't believe Kevin told me are coming up again very quickly. It's like time is flying. That they could, as part of the anti degradation rule and implementation rule, have a process for identifying emerging chemicals that might be impacting the water quality of a lake and then have a process for addressing. And so it's not just PFAS specific. It's not so specific on one chemical. It's a process that would be incorporated into anti DAG to address all emerging.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions from the council. Guess maybe Kevin, you're here to speak to this the agency's perspective. Maybe we'll hear from Kevin and see if we have further. Michael,

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: as you're well aware, we had billing process that would look at the salinity levels increasing. Is that a chemical that would be included?

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That already has a water quality standard. So they're they're supposed to be managing the waters for that already, and they have they go out, they monitor, they identify, and that's why you already have TMDLs for for coordinating. Right. Thank you for the reminder.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: And committee members. Thanks for having me. I'd like to just speak to s two twenty three and the most recently proposed amendment as Mike went through. I have a few things I'd like to read just as part of the statement and perhaps can answer some questions more broad. The objectives of the water classification and antidegradation study committee centers on barriers and solutions to adopting antidegradation implementation rules and advancing reclassification of lakes. In other words, how can Vermont better protect its highest quality lakes where the existing water quality now is actually better than the minimum water quality criteria of a higher class. This would be lakes some examples would be Caspian, Maidstone, Echo, Shadow, a number of lakes in the Northeast Kingdom. And rather than sort of tacking PFAS or or the contaminants of emergency emerging concern as is now proposed in the amendment onto this study committee scope of work. A committee that only has four months to meet, discuss the matter, make decisions, and draft a report. If the legislature is really interested in learning more about PFAS and more broadly the emerging contaminants of concern, that might be a topic to dive deeper into outside of this antidegradation and lakes reclassification committee. Addressing contaminants of emerging concern could and probably should be a study of its own and a report unto itself. So doing so as part of this study committee would not give it the time or attention it merits and could derail the group entirely. CECs are by definition not fully understood by the scientific community or well known in terms of the extent or impacts. As Mike mentioned, it includes pharmaceuticals, microplastics, tire chemicals, PFAS, pesticides, and other chemicals. So how to address emerging chemicals of concern that lack water quality standards as part of the anti degradation policy is an incredibly challenging question and not something that can be adequately considered as a component of a different study with a very short time frame. By taking that approach, it would provide the agency an opportunity to take testimony and the legislature and determine if and where additional information or action is needed, evaluate whether a study committee is appropriate, and if so, define the scope of work and identify the committee members with relevant expertise to emerging contaminants. So the proposed amendment is incredibly broad. I think it's supported that it's been shifted away from just PFAS. I think it's a really important issue to look at this more broadly, but it is also very technical. And we're just concerned that putting this into this particular study committee might shift the focus away from the lakes classification in the anti tech pool. See.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you for your testimony. How are we finished?

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: I would just wanna add one more thing. Just I know the other piece of the amendment is related to committee membership. And I think, generally, we would support and suggest the committee return to the original scope and membership, including Jim. But I know there's been some additional some more recent additions. And if that's necessary to move forward, I think we can support that as well. But just recognizing that the larger the group gets or difficult it is to administer and manage, it becomes quite technical when you get into anti bag. So we wanna make sure the people at the table and part of the committee are the right people.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony. Members have questions for mister Gruber. I'm wondering, how how is, like, chloride with a with a standard integrated now into anti deg the anti deg work that you do?

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: All of the stand yeah. Anytime we have a a standard, promulgated and included in, you know, criteria, the water quality standards, we're basically looking at what the acute toxicity might be or understanding sort of, you know, where a water would be impaired and what the basically, would identify where there is an impairment and, you know, then taking you know, jumping from the standards to more policy as to how do we how do we address the impairment. And that's really what the water quality standards are about is is identifying, you know, what the limit is, where it will impact aquatic biota, aquatic life or human health, and then translating that into policy permits, regulatory requirements to address. So I think chloride isn't any different. It's more challenging, I think. It's it's it's also an emerge you know, it's emerge it's not an emerging chemical in the sense that, you know, PFAS and pharmaceuticals and things of that nature, but it comes with the same challenges because we do use a lot of chloride in PIC. And we are currently trying to address that through the other bill that aims to, you know, have a ball establish a voluntary certification program to provide some limited liability and give applicators a reason. You know? Otherwise, there's no reason for them to apply less. So having training and the availability of the training to identify calibration of equipment and when to apply, when not to apply, how much to apply, Those are really taking the water quality standards and translating that into something that we can use to to protect our waters and restore

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: them. What happens if a stream is found impaired for chloride, but it's a a stream? Or, I mean, I what happens to its classification if it's degraded from chloride?

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: The classification could could change. Think it would be you know, as as we recently did, we we publish a list of impaired waters, three zero three D list. And every two years, we, you know, based on the biomonitoring data, either determine if there's new waters that need to be listed for a particular impairment or, taken off. We actually this most recent listing process, we delisted several several streams at some of the ski areas, vicinity of Mount Snow that have come back and are currently meeting their know, one, in fact, meeting class a standard. And that's that's the good news, but we also find that there's other streams that are stressed for you know, it's not a stressed list, but it's impaired for aquatic biota. But we might be doing more biomonitoring to really determine the root cause of the impairment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I shouldn't have digressed that.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: Going down into

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. I'm intrigued, obviously, by this topic. But what I'm hearing is the agency does not support this amendment and actually would prefer the original work group also.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: That's the preference, but we don't wanna see this anti degradation rule committee derailed if there's, you know, a wish to maintain the membership as it's proposed in the amendment. I think we're certainly better, more supportive of expanding, you know, not looking just at PFAS and looking more broadly at emergent you know, chemicals of emerging concern. But I I I think when we started with this bill, it was really about looking at reclassification and also stimulating the opportunity to put forth the anti degradation rule. It has been stalled for some time. Members

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have questions. Alright. Thank you so much for joining us.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: Thanks for having me in. I appreciate the opportunity.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So, Michael, would you join us again? Now we have situation where we have an amendment that we proposed, this amendment that we saw on the calendar. So I think we should be discussing that. And then remind me what we did with the First Amendment. Did we already approve it? Yeah. So we've already added those two members. Are you part of the bill? Yeah. Okay. So are folks thinking what's what's the wait. Yeah. Could

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I just say that I I sent it to the rep page. I sent it to Jared Carpenter, and I sent it to Chris Rice. Rep Page says it wasn't exactly what he's looking for, but he he's okay with it. Jared Carpenter said it was fine with him, and Chris Rice just said thank you.

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Just a statement. I mean, I think I you know? Hello. Thanks, Mike, for the work. I think, you know, all the ultimately adding is, you know, the group looks at how to address emerging chemicals and concern about aquatic quality standards. Here's the question. Like, can they look at that and say, we can't address this yet because we don't have enough info and we need a separate study and then move on to classification. I mean, I don't think it Okay. It's the work group.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Working groups do that all the time. They say that they don't have the capacity or requires additional work or additional resources, and it it happens.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. We'll still wrap up. We we could we did we did make a promise to representative Woody, representative I fear my fears of of mission creep for the work group

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: are

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: manifest here and supported. So I guess I'm curious if folks yeah. What are folks thinking? Representative Carson?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Thanks, Madam Chair. I think I'm sensitive to what Kevin was expressing about this. Obviously, leadership within the city could could maintain it and keep things on the track, but this just adds another dimension and a sense into that. Then also, I feel kind of bad that when he was asking for something specific and we expanded it up to something even, but even that specific thing, looking at PFAS, which is better defined than just emerging chemicals overall, that by itself would have been tough. Now with looking at all emerging chemicals, that's really tough. I feel like we derailed the whole thing by expanding the scope. I

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: don't know that

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I can support it. I'm just kind of where I'm kind of just based on what I'm trying to say.

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

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. I just feel like the capacity of the group, they don't have the capacity to handle it.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Think the group's gonna look at that and say, we need a real study. We're gonna work on this stuff, the rest of the bill, classification and anti degradation. I just don't I don't it just doesn't really concern me. That's just my thought on it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I hear

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: that we could add it because we wanna do something related to a conversation we had yesterday with the members of proposing amendment in the hopes that the committee won't really take it too seriously, but I don't think that's a good policy. So I I can't

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: To put something in that you know is not gonna

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: be That's sort of our intention is really for it to be ignored. If that's my intention, I can't, in good faith, vote for that.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I would just bring us back to the whole reason why we're doing this is to get this anti dead rules in place, which have been problematic for such a long period of time, and if we really want to maximize the possibility of success of this group, I think that's the path we really ought ought to be taking in. These other issues are extremely important, but I'd rather see us get something done than than something maybe not so much done and really keep the focus on what we're trying to do.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I have a question. Do you think that the group will get kind of sidelined by the focus on PFAS and like methamphetamine? I know this isn't the other amendment, but to steering its testimony. I thought you said that you were concerned that the group, the study group might get the focus on PFAS, might steer the group in not the direction we're hoping.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: I think it to would address the PFAS and even something broader than that would take it should take a lot of work and digging in because it's important. So I wouldn't want to be derailed because of that. Because it it is a very complex, complicated issue, you know, some of the standards that are being developed, for example, for PFAS. Our agency doesn't have the technical capacity to promulgate those types of crates that type of standard and criteria. We rely upon EPA to develop those standards, one of which they have a a standard proposed for aquatic life that the department, as part of the triennial review of the Vermont water quality standards this fall, will consider whether to adopt or not to adopt. I'm not going to say one way or the other, but if we choose not to adopt, we have to have a technical reason and the basis for not adopting a new standard that was put forth by EPA. The triennial review is another component. That is a public process that will be initiated this fall.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You're in the room, Warren Coleman, did you want to have Sure.

[Warren Coleman (NMR; former ANR official)]: It's Warren Coleman with NMR. I testified to the committee probably months ago when we looked at this bill as somebody with more so like a subject matter expert. I was at Agency Natural Resources for ten years and then private sector for the last fifteen, and it's been an issue I've been working for us. So I was at the agency back in 2000. I think what you the discussion you just had is is, I think, the right one. I think setting an expectation that you're gonna look at this issue and then just saying we're not really gonna get to it is probably not a fair thing to set that kind of expectation. And I do, as somebody who may be on this working group, I know I don't have the technical expertise and you would certainly look to the agency and natural resources as the technical expert. So I agree with what's been, with what Kevin suggested and what's been said by the committee. I don't know if there's another way to, and I hate to do this to my former agency, but to make sure that they take a look at the issue as part of the triennial review, whether it's a letter, a commitment from the agency to take a look at that. I just think that's gonna be the right forum, not this committee. I think it's already got a pretty tall task and a short amount of time to add that onto it or to create the expectation that we will take a look at it and say, actually, we don't have enough time. Just be honest right upfront about it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So guess what we'll do is take a straw poll on our own amendment and hearing those I've heard from. I haven't heard from you, representative Pritchard, or Morris at the very

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: the same, I think. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I'm gonna say, all those in favor of withdrawing our amendment, raise your hand. Alright. Of the nine members here, everyone's in favor of that and two are absent. And so we will need to talk to represent Paige about this so that we can help with that.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I can do that. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Nine zero two Straubhold to withdraw. And as far as the other two members, do they have a fiscal impact adding the two members to the

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They add $2,100 to the cost of the working group, which increases it to to around 19 17 to 19. I can't remember exactly. I can find that if you would like.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: It's at fourteen. I thought

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: it was 8. I thought that that was at 14.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Hold on a second.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Last week, saw it was at 14. Well,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: they didn't issue a a new fiscal note for I emailed Chris Rutland and said, hey. What's this gonna cost? He said it's gonna cost Yep. $2,100 or approximately 17,000 total for the bill.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Okay. You know, I believe it. Worse than I thought.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But it would be absorbed in the legislature's budget. And

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And if those folks don't participate, then I mean

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. It's only if they claim it.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We don't we don't just give it to people. They have to actually fill out a form.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And representative Austin wanted one of those on there already.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: You know, it's just Lake Champlain. It's not b class, but it's phosphates that is killing St. Albans Bay and it is a class one and class two, there are different places on the globe. But the question I have, the meth Omega group, will they be able to have a conversation about the lake and the concerns they have within this group?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Will they be able to have a conversation about

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Well, we'll focus on what's going on at Lake Mantua Mega with their concerns.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not at this committee. I mean,

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: this

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: committee is trying to work at statewide anti degradation policy.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Right. But there's a there's now a group from Lake Snap on Omega.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. They

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: represent I'm just wondering. They'll be looking to set the state and not specifically wanting to focus on, like, meth omega.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I don't really understand what you're saying. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: I

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: think they will have the opportunity to raise issues as part of, like, lake classification or reclassification of waters of, like, whether or not certain uses should be prohibited going forward. I think that that level I I don't doubt that they will raise the question.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: But not derail that folk.

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that'll be up to committee. That'll be up to the working group about how it goes forward.

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: It's not just the NWA, it's called the Federation of Vermont's Lakes and Ponds.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: They've been part of the study group, I'm sure.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And that covers I thought we only had two yesterday.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Right. We only had a We

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: did only had two yesterday. Yeah.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: That's We were already on there. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: We were already on that. That's what I'm wondering anyway.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Anyway, representative Hoyt, then we have go back to the other amendments that we

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: need to decide. Just gotta tell me

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: what I say to withdraw my amendment. You

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: stand up and say I asked for a leave of the house, withdraw the amendment. You can say Do I talk about what's in

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: the amendment at all in my opinion? Just

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You you can get up and say something like agency and natural resources came in and said the whole concept discussed in representative pages, proposed amendment, and and the committee's proposed amendment was too broad for this working group and could consume its task. And consequently, the committee chose not to include it. K. And maybe you say we're potentially communicating with the secretary about having this issue be discussed as part of triennial review.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I'd just say, I'll ask people to ask.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's amazing. Okay. We can work that out afterward. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Kevin, for joining us. We are needing to go back to our amendments and make a plan forward for the three twenty five amendments. I'm going to say that this means needs to look at two of these amendments. We need to prioritize those. So I'm going to start with the Accessory on Farm Business Amendment, Representative Bert, which would affect the revenues of the state of Vermont. That's why Ways and Means is involved. Folks, who wants to kick off thoughts on this amendment? Representative Chittenden.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I mean, I think we've been speaking about a couple of times lately. And I'll just reiterate that I think that there's no way we can do this without having some significant impact on municipalities, on businesses. I think this is a really very, very substantial change that I know some municipalities can't really don't want this because of the impact on communities, neighbors. The one that is most critical in my community is the impact on roads. And so, like I said, just say, this is a very impactful amendment, and I don't think we can do this right now without just We need to take up this topic next section in-depth, and we'll have some more data to do that with.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: latch onto that word, impactful. I think it is impactful in a good way for farmers who are trying to stay viable. That's why I like it.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Present a point. I'm not really against necessarily this idea, but I do think it deserves further discussion. So I I wouldn't support this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Essex would Yeah.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And that's that's basically where I'm at. It does seem like a complicated issue. We don't really know what the effects will really be, and it's it's one of those amendments that we would love to take up, but really don't have the time at this time of the session. Yes, Representative Labor. I

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: tend to agree with Craig Burg. If we want to attract young couples from away to move to the state, we've got to offer them something more than center villages. And I come from an area where there's already several of these farm bed and breakfasts, if you will, that are combined with organic vegetable growing and with the constant transportation moving our food products to this state. To attract young people to come here. Right now we have an accident of some people. I'd like to see that changed. I think proper zoning and regulations of traffic and parking can be worked out, and you know, I I can see taking a 10 acre lot, putting five on it, and having a CSA start. I can also see importing the panel to an abandoned state building process to sustain those people if they produce more than what they need for their own sustainability. I know growth in the ham should try to. That's all I can tell you. So I'm in favor. Careful exploration and inputting.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, that makes me kind of wonder. We did we we did just change the date, I think, on the deliverable for an accessory arm for a business report back from the Land Use Review Board. I think this is a incredibly nuanced and, area that we've been working on for a long time in this body, and, apparently, folks think we still need to do work on it. And doing something, that we perhaps only personally understand at this time doesn't feel like a prudent thing to do, honestly. Like, we, It's actually unclear. Yeah. I mean, we're actually opening a door here of that recent legislature post that feels very much like we did a lot of, thorough work including on this in act one eighty one. So I feel like waiting for the study to come back is the right path forward. Including understanding how municipalities are gonna be regulating agriculture, agriculture, which is another it's like a live conversation that's happening in the ag committee probably as we speak. Just feels like there's a lot of moving parts here.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Representative Chittenden. I just wanted to clarify, representative labor brought ups and accessory and firm business things like CSAs and canneries. And I just wanted to clarify that those are already exempt from Act two fifty, and that this is really about those homestays, those inns, bed and breakfasts, wedding venues and concert venues that the previous legislature in charge should not. So I just wanted to clarify that many business models do, many AOFEs do have that

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: exemption. So are we folks? Representative Pritchard?

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Yeah. I I'm supportive of the amendment. I you know, I I guess my area is maybe a little different than Ellis. Yeah. You know, we have folks in our area that are doing the best they can to diversify just so they can get by and the more tools they have in their toolbox to do that. You know? For for years, they've been we've been, you know, it's been a death by a thousand cuts to these folks. And, you know, I I just feel totally different about it. You know, we we've got some young folks that have really tried to to, you know, to diversify their their business that they've got from dairy to cheese and and beef, and and they're trying to make this thing work. And these people are just they're just they have the straw above the water. And, you know, this this will help out. And and, you know, I I don't have the concerns in in my area for this. I don't think and I don't think there's the concerns there. I mean, people just wanna just wanna get by, and they and they wanna they they they don't have to they don't have to time they don't have the time to jump through all the hoops and and red tape to try to make ends meet. And I think that I think we we got to start simplifying stuff. You know? I I just I like this amendment. I like this other amendment. This other amendment is all about what this state was seventy years ago. We're trying to get back to that. And that's a win win for everybody. So I support Kate.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I just want to clarify my position, which is not that I don't support this kind of a change. I do support widening the exemptions for a certain scale of events and particularly homestays, which I don't think are that. But I think that this language is so broad that we're including some potentially very extreme examples. I think we need to have a nuanced conversation and data and try and create a threshold in here for events and scale. So I just want to clarify that. I do wish to edit this section of statute next session.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Wishing doesn't make that happen for today, though.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Agreed. I just you it felt like you said something about my position that was not accurate. So I'm just clarifying my position.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: I guess I I I meant your concerns. And I'm not saying that they weren't accurate or legitimate. They're just they're they're not in my neck of the woods. And

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I don't feel

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: don't feel Spencer and Bennington.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Thank you, Madam Chair. I haven't commented on this yet, but I'm thinking about some events that have happened around the state, a couple in my area, where no permit or permit amendments required for construction of improvements. I like the idea of the educational one, busload of kids coming up. I think that could be phenomenal. Recreational,

[Michael O'Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: we have bicycle

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: races hosted on Mount Of Scutney, other areas, Burke. If that would be included in recreational, I have a concern there how big it could get. Social events, does that include a fish concert? Which would is which is detrimental to the Northeast Kingdom for a while. And, I I'm just concerned that this is so is so broad that those type of events

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: Would go unregulated when fire department's on.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: I like the idea. I just it makes it tough at this point to discuss that or to support it, but I'll have definitions on it.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: We heard about the restaurant. Woodstock here. Caused significant problems with

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: the neighbors.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: And, again, I'm kind of I'm, again, open, you know, to looking at this. I think it's really important to think about how to expand farming and farm products. But I think of the neighbors, there's no kind of regulation over especially the social events. It's not even a regulation, it's an enforcement that becomes a nightmare. I mean, and that's what we're finding, at least around where I live, because police are called out to these places, you know, at night when they're supposed to have closed down, but they've gone on for two more hours. I just would like to tighten it up a bit, know, in order to consider the neighbors that live on these roads and close to these events and what are their rights.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. So I guess, we'll do a straw poll on this now. And I am so all those in favor of the BERT accessory on farm business amendment raise Raise your hand. Those opposed? Raise your hand. Six. So, yeah, six four to six for the absent.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Right. And

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: then, the next one I'm gonna suggest we take up is actually the eight extension one.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Alright. Yes.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: Yeah. The burp. See the burp amendment, Paul?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No. We're gonna do the the one that's proposing the representative of Charleston's amendment to propose to extend the the dates. Oh, this should be years because folks have thoughts on this? Representative Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: I was disappointed to see them grow back to '28, so I like representative amendment. I I understand what he was saying about how somebody's gonna think about doing a project. They won't have plenty of time. So I don't see the harm in putting out to 2030.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Like the interim exceptions?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah, temporary exemptions.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Okay. Thanks. Just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Doctor. Essex.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. We we talked about this a lot, being committee about what these dates ought to be, and with some controversy, we did settle on the 2028 moving it back. In the Senate, it seems like those exemptions were extended in time largely due to political rather than some practical reasons that we've already discussed today. It really does seem like having the exemptions being tied to the standing up of the tier 1A and tier 1B areas is just a natural fit. To do otherwise seems to actually invite some more confusion rather than clarity. And in addition, it does seem like adequate time for for the housing developments to to get underway in in the way that they were envisioned from from the start when when these dates were first put in place some time ago. So I I would like to see the committee stick with the changes that we made and and keep them at with the way they are in the bill right now in 2028.

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

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I guess I'm in favor of making tobacco. All of us have to look and look for sites, but they also have to look for money. And money is not getting cheaper. Yes. They're just renting the dollar, but the interest is not gonna stay static. And if we don't give them time to lock in, they're bonding, whatever, to get a process off the ground, that's only one facet of it. The other facet is they don't have maps. There's no boots on the ground with clarity on mapping. And I don't know if there's a definite date on when that will be available for developers to set the hydrologists into gear, contracting with providers of the services they're going to need. And in my era, there aren't few. So if we truly have a crisis, then I think we ought to address it. So I'm in favor.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Senator Morris. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I see both sides of this. If leave the 2028 date as is, 2028, we extended another two years. I I understand that logic. However, we've got, there are three projects in Springfield, town I represent that, had been working over a year now to try to get the development started or implemented. And it's probably, they're not gonna start this year. So, we're looking at a couple years out. So, I'm sensitive to Rep. Charlton's comment that it takes time to develop these. I understand once it's started or in the process and they can continue, I get all that. So my second half of split on this is I don't think 2030 is outside of expectations of what some of these developers are gonna do for our larger scale housing projects that we'd like to see.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: So it comes down to which way am

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: I going to vote or support.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: But I really don't see a problem bumping it back up to 2030. I understand the logic to keep it 2028 and we can move it at a future time. It's only two years, and we need the development to start. A lot of these projects are one, two, three years out for the old stack construction.

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: One more.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Ada Chapin?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I'm just wondering if we could clarify. We don't have the pledge council in the room, but if either you or some any of our guests could clarify and just find an accurate meeting among myself. At what stage in the planning and permitting

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: do you

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: have to be at by the end of the exemption?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To apply for your plan.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Yeah, you just have to have submitted an application.

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

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: So I guess I'm just really not that projects won't go there if they want to try and utilize these kinds of Act two fifty exemptions in the next few years. We didn't get any specific examples. We didn't get anybody coming and talking to us other than let's build homes to really advocate for these provisions. And we're already extending the dates another year, which gives us more time next session if we want to continue to look into this. I understand that people just want extensions from Act two fifty kinds of development. I get that. But I just would also have received almost 20 letters from municipalities around the state saying, we didn't want anything in Act 181. Get rid of it. So we know there's municipalities out there that don't want these provisions. And I guess I just I don't So I wanted to clarify that because I really think that that's illuminating. It's illuminating to me. You just need to have started the application process by 01/01/2028. I think it's the whole

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Yeah. Representative Hoyt. I agree with what representative Chapin said. I'm thankful for the clarification that we're in the process. By that date. I would not be in favor of the date back.

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: Representative Austin? Yeah. And I've

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: said this before, it's an affordability issue. Housing is the most important thing we can do to bring down the cost for Vermont is to get workforce to move up here because our workforce is aging out. So I don't wanna extend the date at all. I don't want to go to 2030.

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

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I guess I was just gonna say, when we put those exemptions in, it was specifically because of the fact that we want to encourage housing in certain ways. And we didn't have a really good way to do it except for these exemptions because tier one A, one B provisions had not yet gone into effect, we're still putting those into effect. And so it really was just that was the whole idea. By doing that, we're giving communities the opportunity here, building off of what Brett Chapin just said a moment ago, we're giving communities the opportunity by having the exemptions end in 2028 to either opt in or not to what they want to see in terms of their local communities and the ways that they want to grow. And so by extending this date, we're actually telling certain communities that might be telling us we don't want this, that we're gonna make them accept these kinds of projects anyway. And it's not just between now and 2030, because as was just noted, all you have to do is have your permit process started by the end by the for these to take a for for to get in the door, and that could be, you know, December 2029 for a multiyear project. We can now be looking at construction happening in some communities that have told us that they're not sure they want it for many years into the future. So I I really hope we can hold to this 2028 date, which really, you know, comes out of, you know, a particular situation we were in before, and now it's gonna be over, and then we're gonna get to a different spot moving forward.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't I don't think I need to repeat. I I agree with what representative Satcowitz just said and representative Chapin. We debated this. We talked about the reality is that some of our towns don't want any of Act one eighty one to happen. And if we're pausing on or repealing the tier three and road rule. After having heard pushback from those those communities, I think it's only fair that we would also give them a chance to opt in on these housing exemptions. Alright. I'm gonna word this one slightly differently. All those opposed to this amendment, raise your hand.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Five, six. I fully expect we're gonna visit this again.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: We will. I'm sure. Alright. All those in favor of it. Six four.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Surprise, surprise.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's go to represent Burditt's amendment. I believe it's a tier 1A, and inserting language that may meet requirements to be a tier one a by showing that they have regional planning staff or other contract capacity. Just to reprise in the one b, we have that that, ability for towns that are smaller to meet their obligations, through contracted capacity, and that for the one a's, expected that they would have their own staff doing development review. Representative Austin?

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: This amendment didn't make any sense. Because they had a Representative

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: White.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Yeah. I came in a little late, but I couldn't really figure out what the issue was. Anyhow, I mean, I thought the tier one a areas are, like, the biggest municipalities in the state. I mean, Hartford has, like, nine, ten thousand people, and it's got, like, a it has a substantial you know, supposed to act in planning. So so I guess I guess I just didn't

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: understand what the purpose was. So I'm not gonna support it for that reason.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Senator Tagliavia?

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: I think this amendment is targeting smaller municipalities, considerably smaller than representative ports that he's talking about, that do have water and sewer, that may be thinking about trying to grow, and then maybe they don't have, like I said earlier, the grand list to support a full time staff at the time. But maybe once they grow, they will be able to. This to me would be a let's try it and see if it fits, why I support it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chapin?

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I mean, it was curious and interesting to talk about this this morning. In some ways, contracted capacity and staff is a little bit semantics to me. But I think that I'm very concerned about the RPC. I would really need to dig into that. Don't think RPC Like, RPCs play an incredibly important role in backing up municipalities and supporting them and providing all kinds of technical systems. I don't see them ever, and maybe I just don't know enough, but I don't really see how they should be actually providing a type of staff capacity. So if we were going to keep considering this, would probably want to dig into that piece. It's very different to me than the contracted capacity language.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: think that if there is not a single municipality that anybody has heard of that would like this change, then I don't see why we would make it. But we had VLCTs on talk with us about S-three 25 and Act 181, and we didn't hear it from them. We had the RTCs come and talk with us about Act 181 and S-three 25, and I think we had three or four different Regional Planning Commission executive directors in to testify, and none of them mentioned it. Appreciate it conceptually, but if there's not a single municipality who wants to do this, then

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: that

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: or has this need in order to achieve the goal that they want, which would be 1A status, obviously. I see the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: need. Think that's that.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Guess I would just add also that it kind of gets to what's the natural sort of growth and municipality over time, and how does it fit in with these kinds of requirements for getting tier one A status? The way I'm understanding this is that before is that communities would have this kind of capacity in place just very naturally before they would go to apply for two zero one a status. Representative Hoyt just mentioned that his community already has these kinds of municipal capacity. I don't believe they're looking at We're looking

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: at 1B. Didn't even know the B.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: So communities would presumably be 1B, have this capacity as they're sort of the bigger, perhaps 1B communities. And then at some point, if they saw that they were, you know, really wanted this sort of an additional sort of part of the tier 1A process, then they would be ready to go for it, and we wouldn't have to It feels like we'd be putting the things in the wrong direction by approving the amendment.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: All All right. Those opposed to this amendment, please raise your hand.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Agree.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: In favor, please raise your hand. So let's talk about Herb Olson's amendment, which I'm not even sure. I guess it was sent to the clerk. Must have been. But it's unclear what it does. I mean, it deletes the smart growth principles in one place and takes them inserts them from another back here. So and they're identical. So I don't know. Is anyone in favor of this amendment?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: They're identical to a swap, but it doesn't change in it's already called. Well, yeah. Section. Clear.

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

[Rep. Michael “Mike” Tagliavia]: Thank you. I understand, I think his concern, when he started talking about his concern about smart growth principles, but after hearing that they're interchangeable, it's like, it's not gonna fix any of his concerns.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Right. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So all those opposed, raise

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: your hand.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That is the 10 of us present. And then back to Smart Growth with Robert Bert amending willing to amend one

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: of the smart growth

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: principles by inserting, including homesteading, small scale agriculture and forestry and importing housing into it. Members have thoughts?

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I guess of all of them, this one makes the most sense to me. And it's really just getting back to our Vermont heritage or our roots. No pun intended, getting back to our roots. And he got really emphasizing and clarifying that this small scale, the lower end of the agriculture and forestry activity needs to be called out and encouraged.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Senator Satcowitz. I guess I have two thoughts. One is that homesteading small scale agriculture and forestry, I think, is already included under strengthened agricultural and forest industries. Are even though they're small, they are they are part of those those industries in that sense. And then but have more concerns around supporting housing. I'm not quite sure what the effects of that are, including that. Here, seems to be I'm just I'm just not sure what what this would what that really means in this context. So I'm becoming more concerned about about that part of it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Hoyt. Yeah. I agree with a lot of

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: what's just said. Like, I wasn't quite sure of the practical effect of this because it seemed like seems like homesteading small scale agriculture forestry would be included already based on the language. So, you know, I'm a little unclear on how the sporting housing might or might not do anything. So I would not be in favor of this.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: I guess I'd like to point out two things. One is that because this is a list of principles and it's not rules or sort of statutory directives, To me, is very much a values statement. And the impact of changing the Smart Growth Principles in this way is more, I think, is impactful in a values based way and calling out and reminding planners who are using these principles in their work to not forget about these things. And it's not very impactful in that I don't think it forces any kind of decision or action that could be sort of an significant unintended consequence.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I just want

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: to call that out and say, I think there's an opportunity for us to do something impactful in a values based way that acknowledges certain aspects of our rural communities without being impactful in sort of an unintended consequences way. I'm a little less clear about the housing language than the other. And then I guess having worked in agricultural and economic development for fifteen years, I will say I don't agree with the statement that homesteading is included in the terminology of agricultural and forestry industries. Industry usually means commercial activity and homesteading is not. It's literally, I think, we don't have a statutory definition, but there's plenty of definitions out there that you can look at. Generally, I think homesteading relates to non commercial activity. And we already have thresholds in our statutes around agricultural regulatory things that are aimed at commercial activity and draw certain threshold lines that exclude some small scale agriculture. We've been discussing this with the issues around the zoning and ag bill that came in front of our committee recently. So I think that being inclusive of homesteading is a departure from the way the statement reads now and how it would likely be interpreted. And I think saying small scale is included in that is already included in the definition of any industry. So personally, I really think this is something we could do that stands for the fact that we really support rural based food and forestry activities on the small scale, and that our farm and forestry industries do need the housing to support them, whether it's workforce or owner occupied housing. Like this amendment, and I think it will be valuable to do right now.

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

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: I too find some merit in this because a lot of our conversations have come around large scale housing projects and such. This is just a reminder that including small scale agriculture and forestry supporting a thousand, I think that's what we're trying to do. So I think I can support this. I know I can support this amendment. Even though they may be included or it may be interpreted they're included in the agricultural forestry industries, small or big. Our conversations have been around larger scale, I think, development, multiple units. And so I would support this.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I'm wondering if there's anybody in the room who might be able to comment on what supporting housing might mean in this context.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Are you asking if either of the two folks Sorry,

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: could you say that again?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I'm wondering if you might be able to comment on what supporting housing in this context would really mean in terms of the SMART Growth Principles in this agriculture section, if either one of you and I'm putting you on the spot, if you're not uncomfortable, that's fine, but just since you're here.

[Katie Gallagher (Vermont Natural Resources Council)]: Katie Gallagher with Vermont Natural Resources Council. I'm finding put on the spot, but my honest answer is I don't know what it would mean in this context. I'm not sure if it's referring to farm worker housing or housing for I'm not sure. I think it's vague in that way. I'm not sure. I don't know if you have.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: No, I think it's unclear. I think it's clear that it's off there.

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

[Rep. Rob North]: I thought Representative Burke was pretty clear exactly what he meant. It's when you're homesteading, you have a home and you live where you do your farming. So the same is true for the small scale agriculture, of course, you live where you're doing your activities. So it's just the housing for yourself and maybe your kids or your uncle or somebody nearby that's going to also work on the same little plot of land and do your thing right there. So, why it's at the end of the sentence. It's good to modifying, including the homesteading, small carriers and supporting housing. Supporting housing goes to the homesteading with a small scale. That's exactly what representative Burt's thought.

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

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah, why doesn't it say on-site housing? I mean, it's not clear kind of housing you're talking about. I mean, I guess you could think that it's on the farm, but it's not I just wish it was a little bit more criteria to housing that was on-site or on the farm site.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I find that I support the sentiment of this, for sure. I think it's important for us to support agricultural forestry enterprises. Feel like homesteading, most people who live in rural Vermont probably already feel like they're homesteading in many ways. That's what's happening. That's what kind of folks do. Even in town, we grow our own food in Vermont, many of us. Supporting housing is odd to me. We have supported housing. We've actually required where one unit is allowed to allow multiunit housing. We've supported ADUs construction, accessory dwelling unit construction. Those are things that are happening for everyone. So, maybe that just means it's benign and fine, but Instead of looking.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Thank you, sir.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: For a third time,

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: I really have to ask permission to speak.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You don't have permission. I

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: mean, going back to some testimony we heard from Todd Heyman, this is exactly the problem he was running into. I mean, he went through the whole process of getting a permit, an Act two fifty permit, they said it covered your entire property. He wanted to carve off a place for his aging mother to come live.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Then, nope, you can't

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: do that because now it's all categorized as a farm and you can't build a house there. So, that's what the supporting housing is going for. Wanted to be able to support his mother living there with him while he was doing his farming thing. Couldn't do it.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Senator Pritchard.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Yeah. I, you know, I think a big part of this to me is, you know, it's just another part of restoring trust, I think. You know, I I think I think this amendment, it it it probably addresses a lot of the folks' concerns that brought this whole thing to a head. And and I'm I'm just supportive of it. I think that's I think you know, I really love to ask that because I think it would be pretty unanimous that, you know, they would be supporting this. I think it's I I think it's I think it's it's a good part of of of restoring and making this right and and regain some of that trust. That's that's that's what I

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: believe I'm all for. Yeah. I I given what we've heard, I I I could certainly support adding in the homesteading small scale architecture, agriculture and forestry. I still have concerns around housing because of its lack of clarity. It seems like the smart growth principles, they're not binding, they are recommendations, but they ought to be relatively clear in terms of what they're actually meaning and to change them in a way that we've heard, and which I also agree, is not clear, just because it seemed to be

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: good lawmaking.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: But in terms of having something to look at in the future, I'd certainly be open to it. I just would hesitate to intentionally include something in a document that I don't really know what it means in that context.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is that any worse?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm at

[Kevin Gruber (Agency of Natural Resources, DEC)]: a point where I'm going to have to take a bio break pretty quick.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Probably where we are, which is why we need to move on. Let's make a decision. Did you have thoughts on this?

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: I wish representative Burt was here. We can ask him. Is it because there is maybe supportive housing supporting housing is a little vague, but is it supposed to be on-site supportive housing? Or is it supporting housing next I'm assuming it's on the same property, which would make it on-site. I think that somebody else had mentioned that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I just realized also he added the last word industries, which I think is kind of odd. That's in there.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: Minimizes the profits of development with these industries.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, well, he left it in there, and I think since industry level scale was of its concern last word. Maybe you should say activities rather than

[Rep. Ela Chapin]: industries. Representative Chittenden. If you guys are looking at the SMART Growth principles, they're on page 21 of the bill as we passed it out of our committee. A lot of the language is very vague and general. And so I just would try and encourage us to keep reminding ourselves these are principles related to planning, not related to Act of 50. And they say things like balanced growth with the availability of economic and efficient public utilities and services reflects a settlement pattern that at full build out is not characterized by certain things. Yeah, mean, it's just very general language and I think we should pass the amendment as it's offered.

[Rep. Chris Pritchard]: Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: With that, all those in favor of this amendment as as offered, raise your hand. One, two, three, five, six. Oppose, pose, raise your

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: hand. Two, three, four. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Supporting them. Alright. I think that's the amendments that we know of for now. With that, we will adjourn. We'll be up quickly, think. Well, mics will see.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: I will be out. And we'll explain it and why I'm withdrawing it.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Michael. Alright.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks, everyone.

[Rep. Kristi Morris]: Thanks, Leila. Adjourned for the morning.

[Rep. Michael Hoyt]: But don't

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: go