Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome back, everyone, to House General and Finance. It's the appear that's the General and Finance. House General and Housing, and no one even

[Unidentified Committee Member]: posted I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: thought you did. It is still February 20. And if the room is a little disheveled, it's because of a certain birthday, there's some food distributed. But we are proceeding with our legislative council to discuss and possibly vote on stage seven seventy five, which is the Rural Housing Finance Bill. We have with us Cameron Wood. Cameron, take

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it away. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Council. I'm going share my screen and we will walk through amendments.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Is that okay, little more? Is that good? Okay. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this is drafted as a strike all amendment draft 2.1. You all recall yesterday we did a walkthrough yesterday, at some point this week we did a walkthrough of 1.1. This is 2.1. It has been edited. The highlighted language here is the highlighted language from 1.1 that we've already talked about, but it is different from the bill is introduced and then there's also a section here that's been added that I will walk through here in a minute. You all recall the first change from the bill is introduced is you removed the sections related to the pilot housing program that was going to authorize tax stabilization for up to 300 homes in municipalities with less than 5,000 people. Those two sections were removed. So the first section you have here on the strike all is the special assessment bonds that John Gray walked through. So I'm not going to comment because nothing has changed from version 1.1 to this 2.1. Was the bond we're moving to section two, which is the housing special fund. So if you all recall section two is about credit facilities for the treasurer's office. So all of this is still highlighted.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But it's unchanged from the-

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The only change is the treasurer's office requested, so this version reflects a recommended change from the treasurer's office. There was a subdivision on the bottom of this section that said that for the 1% credit facility,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: so if you

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: recall they have the authority for the 10%, you're bumping up to 12.5% and then you're authorizing a 1% credit facility for the purpose of the off-site modular bulk purchasing of housing, etcetera. There was a subdivision in here that said for that 1% credit facility, the treasurer's office would have to consult with Vermont Housing Conservation Board, Vermont Housing Finance Agency, the state housing authority. And I feel like there was one other entity there, it may have been the department. That was moved down to the pilot program, the modular construction pilot program. The treasurer's office, and I'm not trying to speak for them, I'm just stating what their concern as it was articulated to me was they already have to consult with the local investment advisory committee on these credit facilities and funds that are or loans that are issued through these credit facilities. And they were concerned about creating a separate somewhat committee of these entities that they would have to consult with in trying to get those monies out the door. So that was their concern. If you wanna hear from them, direct any of those questions to them. But it has been removed here and it's been added later. I'll get to it in just a second. Okay, so that section is about the credit facilities. The next section, section three, which is on page five, this is about the special fund, this is where the interest is going. The interest from those credit facilities goes into the special funds. The other change that I made at their request, treasurer's office requests. Do you recall the credit facilities, they have that language that the treasurer has to invest the money in accordance with state's investments limitations and they have to comply with the Uniform Prudent Investors Act. That language was in the C1 about the interest. And they requested that it be removed because they wanted more flexibility on the interest and more flexibility on being able to invest that interest. It's a lot less money and it's interest on the loans issued. So you're not dealing with state funds that they hold. Remember they create this credit facility and they're utilizing state's average cash on hand to do that. And so because this is just interest, because it's not the cash on hand, because they wanted additional flexibility, they wanted to remove that limitation. And so that was their request. I've done it in this draft. If you have questions for them, I would have to direct those questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I just wanna say to the committee, I'm comfortable with this because there are so many provisions that protect the funds of the state under their hands. This limited omission of the uniform investment law, which has in it all kinds of detail

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Underwriting requirements.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Underwriting requirements and allows them to be a little more adventurous, I think it's a good thing.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So those are the first few amendments just based on the language that we've already reviewed together. So now we get to the off-site accelerator pilot program. And so what you'll see the only change here is this addition of the C2. So where I mentioned earlier, you wanted the treasurer to consult with these entities for the credit facility. They were concerned about that because they already have to consult with their local investment advisory committee. So they recommended this be moved down here. So as part of this pilot program, if you recall in C, this is where the state treasurer can use funds to provide a guarantee for bulk purchasing of housing for the pilot program. So the treasurer's office was comfortable with having that consultation as it related to this program. Which is what we really care about. Their recommendation was to move it here. So if the treasurer is going to fund the bulk purchasing for this pilot program, they need to consult with those entities before authorizing the use of the funds for that purpose. So I haven't changed the language, I just moved it into this Okay. Now moving on, we get to BHIIP, no changes here, we get to provide economic development authority, I walked through this language with you all last time under 1.1 but this is just amending the definition of what BHIIP can fund and it adds in that VITA can fund multi unit housing developments as long as they're not being financed by BHFA and as long as BHFA somewhat approves it because it says it has to defer to BHFA. So haven't changed any language there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is just adding another source of capital which we felt would help rural health. Correct.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So now we get to the language I've added in since we walked through 1.1. So you haven't seen this yet. Municipal plans. So this is language that currently exists in a bill that's on your wall. Nope, it's actually I think an environment. It was the administration's proposals packaged into a bill for this session. It's also in a Senate bill currently being considered by your counterpart economic development.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's their committee bill. Their housing bill. Was we didn't know whether the administration bill would move forward. We didn't know whether that senate bill would get to us. And, also, we sat down with counsel, with Tom, you were there, right? Tom, DHCD, I can't remember, it was at least DHCD and essentially talked about Clara. It wasn't the bill needed clarification. It wasn't none none of the substance changed at all. It just needed to be rewritten. I would

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: say there's one substantive change in that. If you look at this language, this is adding a new section into the regional and municipal planning's chapter, title 24. It's going in a sub chapter related to municipal planning. So we're talking about municipal planning here and it's a municipal plan shall identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs for the projected population of the jurisdiction and provide regulations that allow for the rehabilitation improvement or development of the number of housing units needed as identified in the land use plan, future land use map. Municipalities are not required to do these plans, this is saying if a municipality has their municipal plan, it shall include that information or and that's the difference I was just came out had the municipality doing both of these things and so this changed it to an or. So the municipality has to identify and analyze existing housing needs for the projected population Or include an analysis and I'm going substitute here include an analysis of regulatory and physical constraints preventing the municipality from developing sufficient housing to meet the regional housing targets developed pursuant to Subdivision 4348A A9 of this title. 4348A Subdivision A9 is the section that kind of requires DHCD to go publish the housing needs assessment. So you need to identify and analyze the housing needs for your projected population and provide the regulations that allow you to get there. Or do you need to include an analysis of the regulatory and fiscal restraints preventing you from developing a sufficient housing to meet the targets that have been outlined in the statewide housing needs assessment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's a question. Yes, Joe.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Both of those would still require you to open up your municipal plan and change it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And municipality is going to amend their municipal plan. They would be required to do one

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of those changes. Right. There's no time limits in this. So it's whenever they're amending their plan. Yeah. Correct. Okay. So the idea go on. I've

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: got a question. Yes. Or a comment, I guess. I would request that on the page above there that a municipal plan shall identify and analyze existing and projecting projected housing needs for the projected population my suggestion is, comma, including the needs of people with disabilities, comma, or or including the needs of people with disabilities and housing suitable to accommodate them, comma.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have a concern with adding that if you all would like to.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Opinions? I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: don't have a concern with that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I like that. I think that's great. Do you think that the or paragraph, that that's enough to put it in the first one because then in the or that would be, it's understood that you're explaining housing targets writ large to include those issues, Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I thought I my my understanding of the or is we're not gonna do it. So it's moot, right?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think you would add it in the one, the way I read this section is you're identifying your housing needs or if you're not going to identify your housing needs, you're going to identify the barriers to why you can't meet the housing targets in the housing needs assessment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And it could easily be partly. We can meet part of the needs, but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we can't meet all of them. Here's why. But I guess what I'm just trying to underline is if Elizabeth wants to if we want to make sure that there is a lens on the needs of people with disabilities, do we want to write something in the second, in the explanation of why you can't meet housing targets, that something acknowledging that there are housing targets that

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are specific to demographic needs to certain demographics? I don't know that there are any housing targets specific to individuals with disabilities or some other special need. There is, you all passed last year the report from the study committee to try to identify a plan to generate the housing for individuals with certain disability needs. I don't remember the exact language of what the committee was talking about looking at or if their recommendation is incorporated in the Senate's community housing bill to That's a separate issue. Yes, ma'am. What I'm driving towards is I'm trying to point out that I don't believe there is any housing needs report that identifies the housing targets for this population. So I wouldn't reference it in two because I don't

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: know that it exists. We could just say, include an analysis, this is two, of the regulatory and physical constraints preventing missponditions, don't fit in housing to meet the regional housing targets identified in the plan and developed pursuant to. In other words, in one, we have said, you should look at, in one, we've added that when they look in the plan, have to look at developmentally disabled disabilities. It's true. What he says is housing targets, there's nothing in the housing targets.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I get that right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, so we could just say in the plan.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So keep in mind, this is one, is saying in your municipal plan, you shall identify and analyze your protected housing needs and provide for regulations that are going to allow for you to get to the needs that you've identified. I understand the point of wanting to add in including the housing needs for this population of people.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, which is something that it would be new.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes, and

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that was not in forty three-forty eight.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly, and so two is saying if you're not going to do that, then you need to identify the barriers that are preventing you from hitting your housing targets. I think you could include something in there about barriers for hitting housing targets for this population. My point is, I don't think there are housing targets for subsets of populations of people. So I don't know that it makes sense to reference it here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: In the second portion? Correct. Yes. Well, what it sounds like to me is it feels like just by leaving it, if you're not including it in the second portion, that in and of itself could be a barrier. The inability to meet the needs of people with disabilities is a barrier in and of itself. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ma'am. Go ahead.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No, but I think

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're spot on, yes. If you're not identifying the housing targets for this subset of population in the statewide housing needs assessment, that itself may be a barrier to you being able to identify the housing needs for your own municipality in one. That's what I'm interpreting you're saying. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So if it's in one but not in two, then that can be a barrier.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I think you would want to potentially, this would be something referring to or deferring to DHCD who's responsible for developing the statewide housing needs assessment, which is a federal requirement, you may want to ask them whether or not you can or whether or not it's appropriate to require in their statewide housing needs assessment and identification of the housing needs for any subset of the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's see, Representative Bartley, you have a question? You're online now, right?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, sorry, in the car. Not a question. Cameron actually just said everything I was going to suggest. I think maybe we take this time, if it's something the committee feels strongly about, to address the housing needs assessment and make that recommendation to change the language there, because then I think it would automatically trickle down to this language if it's already in if it's already if we address it in the housing needs assessment.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I can go look. Mean, again, the statewide housing needs assessment is a federal requirement. I don't know what in the federal regulations it says if anything about identifying population needs or housing targets for specific population needs and that's what I'm saying DHCD may know right off the top of their head oh it actually does have this little thing here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Could you, I'll tell you what I would I think there are some other questions and I have some, but would you just finish this section first?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, yes. Okay, so again municipal plan, if you're going to create one you're going to amend one. It must now include this either identifying your housing target needs and how you're getting there or if not identifying what the barriers are to getting there. If you're going the second route it must also include this information under these subdivisions, which includes a quantification of your existing and projected needed housing types, including location, age, condition, and occupancy required to accommodate existing and estimated population projections. It's in there, yeah. Inventory of sites including zoned, unzoned, vacant, underutilized, potential redevelopment sites, and analysis of any constraints to housing development such as zoning development standards, infrastructure needs. Detailed, a detailed description of what actions the jurisdiction may take to accommodate the projected housing, excuse me, the projected needed housing types, including updates to specific zoning or municipal bylaw provisions, updates to specific infrastructure and including municipal water. So it's saying, if you're not gonna identify the housing here and you're gonna identify the barriers to housing, you need to give us all of this detailed information. So I see it as somewhat of a, I don't know whether this is an intention or not. I'm just saying, I see it as a somewhat of a, if you're gonna go that second route and tell us what's preventing you from doing all this housing, you're gonna go through all of this extra work to identify all of this additional pieces of information. Okay, go on. Okay, now you just have a sub B and a sub C which would apply to both. So this applies in the section generally. The housing elements and there was a recommendation from Ellen in our office to change this to element because it's an element of the plan. Housing element of the municipal plan may incorporate by reference any information or policies identified in other housing needs assessments adopted by the governing body, identified in the regional plan, or published in the statewide housing needs assessment. So you can incorporate information that's already published in other areas. Amount and then this is in the subsea the amount of detail provided in the analysis beyond the minimum criteria is at the discretion of the legislative body. Nothing stopping you from going into much further detail that he can so choose. And then that's the end of this section. Will state there was a potential recommendation to include a subsection that required the regional planning commissions to provide assistance to municipalities and I would argue when you go back to the regional planning commission's duties they're already required to do that. So I didn't feel the need to put it in here. They are required to assist the municipalities whether or not they all have the capacity to do this stuff, something you may hear that they do not or you may hear from witnesses of whether they do not. And then that's the only other change. So no other amendments to the bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. We have this on our agenda again after lunch. I believe that there is a pressure on us if we favor this to act because it has to have a drive by at least to house government operations. It's going to go to house ways and means. It's going to go to house appropriations. That's a long path. We only have next week before the break. After the break, the last week before crossover is crazy. It's just crazy. I mean, it's a time for us to look everything else. So I feel I have to tell you that if this is something the committee likes, I feel pressure for us to act today, if possible. In order to act today, we have to give instructions to counsel to make any changes that in this draft that we want, for example. So, one is that we add a reference to individuals, with individuals with disabilities, to the first paragraph. When I look at the text of the second paragraph, if you can't make those, all the things you have to show, it's broken down by population, and so I think it's in there. However, I do have a question for you, council. My assumption has been that many towns will say, yes, we can meet some. My assumption has been, yes, we can meet some of the housing needs, but we can't meet all, and here's why. Do you see this as either or, like they have to go one or two? Can they do one and two? We need to put into two to the extent that the agency the town cannot know, concludes it cannot meet the housing targets as per a, it needs sort of one or whatever it is then?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. I will say I don't think there's anything that's going to stop a municipality doing proposed if they subchutes. I think if you wanted to specify that if you cannot meet all of your housing needs, then you must do number two. It may be worth a clarification.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Or all or part. No, that if you started to by saying to the a town, what is it, municipal government determines it cannot meet the housing needs in one, then it shall undertake to follow it or something. Right. Right. I mean, I can see a lot of towns are gonna say, yeah, we can do some. We just can't make all of them. Joe?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'm just where did the all the language for this come from for the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The administration's bill. So, wasn't Alex revised a little

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: wasn't Alex in here telling us like how simple it would be to like, if you can't meet him, just let us know why. Why do I have to put it in my town plan to just let them know why?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Would that be That's the news.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: In a document to If it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: not already in know? Plan. If it's already in your town plan, you just submit that.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Nobody's town plan has all this in it as to why you're not getting your housing targets.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So you think

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was thinking about should be

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: what is the wanna put it back up just for a second. I just wanna get to the point where we have given him enough so that after lunch, he's just back with the draft. Legislative body. Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I also want to know, we're going to discuss now about the community action CVOEO request for the funds, but we're to wait until after lunch.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The CVOEO, remind me.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Action asking for a full time

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Full time, help me out. Yes,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: identify it for me.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: E. Schulenberger, I believe, that's what I was talking about, the mobile program request that was referred to earlier, and our understanding was you said you wanted to put language into the hospital instead of the budget room.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is for?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: This is for outreach and advocacy work in the Mambo Dhoni arts. It would bring it to support a statewide program. The program is administered by CBOE over all of the CATS.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think we should put it, I don't think it belongs here, and I think I made a mistake. I think the question is, I don't, personally, I don't think it belongs here. Think, I'm wondering if we put it in the landlord tenant bill. Well, no, that's But, let's come back to that. I think I The request was for the budget memo. The budget memos? And I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: think favorable views were about one level.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, you as well. You

[Unidentified Committee Member]: thought there was a portion of the treasurer's 10

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't know, but it's not

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, God.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'll come back to the budget memo in the afternoon. Okay. We gotta do that. I'm sorry, everyone. I apologize. Yeah. Okay. Planning for housing targets. Go past one. Okay? To two. Now, how about, I am asking, how about we just say provide to DHCD instead of saying include, see, go up there, two, it says include, what if we were to say provide to DHCD?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It's also it says it has to be a new town plan to start.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. The start.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's the start of this whole thing. Yes.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Means that every single town in the state of Vermont now has to open their municipal town plan. Well And have either of these in it, or the next time they do it, which might be nine years from now, and this is absolutely pointless at that point.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There is no timeline.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Exactly. So if I'm what's I mean, it's not nine. It's seven years your town plan is good for. I think seven. That's not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: random recollection.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're trying to get info now. Your point is

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: This just seems so not in not congruent with what Alex was talking about. She makes it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: I have a question. Hello? Hi.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: I do. That does make sense, Joe. I agree. Also, what's the is there? What's the Cameron? Is there? What's the enforcement of this?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There is none.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: So this is just you do this and tell us or just

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The funny thing is that it's

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: not even tell them. They're gonna have to go look for everyone's town plan to see what they wrote. Doesn't even I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't if you were to direct you

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: to tell them.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: I'm sorry to hold this up, but yeah, something about this doesn't make sense.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it says just to answer I didn't see anything in the amendment section after a very quick glance but it does say in the section four thousand three eighty seven that all plans including all prior amendments shall expire every eight years unless they are readopted according to the procedures.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: This is just to get the data if they can, and then they might, and then, like, I it's just more and it's worked for municipalities?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is a this here's what's going on. There are a whole bunch of requirements on municipal plans. None of them have timelines. It's just here's what you have to have in your plan. This is a first step. What we are doing is adding to the requirements of what's in your plan but you've got to look at your housing targets and see if you can meet them, and if so, so indicate. If you can't, then you have to tell us. Why? Why not? Joe is making a good point, do you have to tell us why not in your plan,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: or

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in some other way? And I think he's got a good point. I it could be, put it in your plan and to the extent you can't communicate with DHCD, all the following.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: And there is no enforcement though?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's no enforcement for any of it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Okay. I'm just no, I understand.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: making sure so that if a municipality is like worried, nothing bad will happen. Can I make a suggestion?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Understanding that, like, I mean, I think from our con all of our conversations regarding this, even though there have been little, We wanted it to be simplified. We wanted this to be a tool for the legislator to understand what the barriers are, but didn't want to burden municipalities. Since we have a decent belief that this language will be included in the senate bill, does it make sense to maybe take this language out of this bill, allow the senate bill to come to us? And if it's struck out or it's not there, we can we just have more time to kind of craft this the way that it makes the most sense as it comes over from the senate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The reason for I mean, we can do that. The reason for putting it in is that I have no idea whether the senate bill will get to us, and I don't know whether if it is that it'll refer be referred to us as opposed to environment. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So we wanted something that would be out there that would make it happen.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. Good. Nice.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. What if we crafted language in that first line that's currently it says a municipal Can share plan your screen again? It currently reads a municipal plan shall to say to add something like a municipality shall, its municipal planning process or independently,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: know,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: this, a survey. And we're asking for you a check over. Yeah. Yeah. Just I this The way that Cameron has presented it to us is exactly the way DHCP came into committee with their ask. Their ask is, please incorporate housing targets in municipal planning. And so I don't know whether their reason for doing it this way was as a way to incorporate housing, but not burden, whether that was the balance they were trying to achieve. But if we're trying to get more information back, if that's the urgency, we don't want to burden municipalities, then giving them the option to do it through their municipal plan activities or outside of those municipal plan activities.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that the way to do that would be to leave A as it is with the addition suggested by Elizabeth. And then when you get to B, it would be or to the extent the plans are not, the targets are not achieved, to provide DHCP an analysis, blah blah blah blah, isn't that, wouldn't that do what?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just saying that it can happen outside of your municipal plan, because right now this is mandating that it happens in your municipal plan.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What I'm saying is that one would say it would be a choice. No, no, no, wait. You would it does mean this whole long section is filled with things that have to be in municipal plants. And we are adding to what has to be in municipal plants. It is an identification of existing housing and needs and accommodating the projected population. I think that they really want. It's a minimum thing. We're saying these housing targets are real. It's time to put them in the planning statute. What we're doing is providing an off ramp, by a big quote, and the off ramp is to say, and that's why it's poor, to say to the extent that they're not accommodated, then you have to inform DHCDY. That's what I'm proposing we change, but it would be in the plan, that's the idea. The reason that there's no, I feel like if we want to make it more of a requirement for planning, we're going to have to take it out because we don't have to take testimony from the league. Mean, the league has signed off on this idea as it is. I think if we said that all that other stuff doesn't have to be in the plan, like Joe said, I think that makes sense. In other words, the plan should just say, here's our housing needs, here's what we're gonna accommodate. I think the other could be a memo to DHCD. Yeah. How do people feel?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'd have to mull it over. Just

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think if we're this is a this is just a report requirement.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The second part is yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, no. If it's already in the town plan, they can report that. They can report Yes. If we're going to change the requirements from what's in the plan, that's title 24. There are definitions of what has to be in the town plan elsewhere in statute. Right. Where we need to, if we want to add criteria or be more specific about, we need to change it somewhere else. Because that informs the plan they've got that informs what they have.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I thought this added something to the municipal plan of fire.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, this going in title 24 in the chapter related to municipal plan.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is going into title 24. But if we change

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that, if we're gonna add any well, this is reporting on what's already required in chapter 24.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Does chapter 24 contain in our material on housing plans? Yes. No. I mean, on accommodating housing? No. This adds it. So but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if I'm back to it, it should be you know, get that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: At 24, we'd say 4388.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 4382 in the list of what a municipal plan should have in.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's there's a list.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: There is a list in forty three eighty two. So And item 10 is housing element shall include recommended program for addressing low and moderate income persons housing needs as identified by the regional planning commission. It addresses income thresholds but not accommodating.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Counsel, do you think that we should be amending this section to Ed?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think you need to, no. There may, if it's going in its own section, it's still going to be applicable, so as mentioned, this is in title 24, four thousand three eighty two. Just so you're all aware, the kind of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Apologies

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for moving around, the kind of construct here, right. This is all in title 24, chapter 117, municipal regional planning development. So this is where you have municipal planning commissions, the regional planning commissions, all of their structure, all of their duties, of their requirements, etcetera. And then you're getting to this municipal development plan, authorization for municipalities to do their municipal plans, what has to be in the plan, so that's the section we're referring to specifically this four thousand three eighty two. When you go here, talks about the plan has to be consistent, etcetera, and then all of the information that has to be in the plan. And it does have to include a housing element that shall include a recommended program for public and private actions to address housing needs and targets identified by the Regional Planning Commission pursuant to statewide housing needs assessment. The program shall use data on the year round and seasonal dwellings and information that was just mentioned. I don't think you need to amend that if you don't want to, it may make sense. There's a lot of detail to have its own separate section to say that this information is going to have to include all of this. It's going in that same subdivision. So it would exist right here under the I can't highlight it right under the 4387. It's going to go right there. And so I could tweak this lead in language to say reference back to this 10, but that's why I changed it. If you recall, that's why I changed it to housing element earlier because that's what it's referred to here as a housing element. So long story short, I don't think it needs to go, wouldn't propose breaking this 10 down to a bunch

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of different subdivisions. I think having it as a standalone section is okay. Okay, so I've been actually addressing housing targets as identified by the Regional Planning Commission. Regional Planning Commission, the housing needs assessment includes data about households with disabilities. But their housing targets don't at the moment. Is the play we were going to part of my brain is still thinking about Elizabeth's point, is it in the Regional Planning Commission that that direction needs to come from then? If anywhere.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What direction?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's tied up to have and built into this plan an element that is specific to housing targets for individuals or self isolation people?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's gonna be up to you as far as at what level do you want that. I don't know that the region We're straying into an area that I'm not familiar with. So if you have detailed questions that you want about regional plans, would refer you to Ellen. That's not been her portfolio. So what I don't know is I don't know if a regional plan is required to outline how a municipality is going to get to their housing targets. I'm assuming not, because I don't think an RPC doesn't have the authority to enact specific zoning and policies and bylaws for municipalities to meet the housing needs of that municipality. So I think if you're going to include what Representative Burrows is recommending, it's probably best at the town level, not the regional level.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Would the region not identify it as a need to look at?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: He doesn't know. So what I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member]: thinking what what I'm thinking is there's this bit in our bill is probably not the place to put it. Where wherever it is defined that this, this, and that need to be addressed in the municipal plan, that might be where we want to put it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's where I go back to, I think that's what direction would you all like to go with that. You had the report from the study committee about how to develop a statewide plan for the development of housing for this population of individuals, where you think it's appropriate for that to exist. Is it at the state level? Is it at a regional level, which I don't know to what extent an RPC is gonna have access to the type of information to know how to develop housing for a population of individuals. I don't know that a municipality would, it's possible. So that's where I can't answer. I just don't know where you all would like to stick that requirement and where it makes the most sense. My recommendation would start with the report that came out from that study committee that was you all directed them to come up with a state plan to develop housing for individuals with developmental disabilities.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think we have different questions before us. One is, are we going to stick a reference into one of disability? Number two, or are we gonna leave it out and deal with it at another level separately? That's one issue. Another issue is in two, are we going to limit to, are we going to say, well, if you don't, to the extent that you cannot accommodate the housing targets, you have to explain in a memo the following, or are we going to make and put it in the plan? And the larger issue is, do you are we going to my feeling is either we're going to deal with this today or we're going to strip it. I just don't we we're out of time. Elizabeth has Yeah. Elizabeth.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thanks. I looked through all of the VHFA reports on housing and the demographics report, sections of those reports for the last several years. And currently in the state of Vermont, there are two sixty eight total rental units that are for people with disabilities. My thought is that it's not necessarily, I just want it to be said out loud. I want it to be addressed somewhere, somewhere that we are, we know that we live in an aging state. We know that we don't address the fact that we are under, we have a massive ninety thousand currently, the number of people with disabilities in the state is ninety thousand, according to VHFA, and we're not addressing their housing needs. And my feeling is that by simply putting it into a local requirement, it's actually at that granular level easier to manage as far as collecting data or addressing it. Thanks.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, First of all, before we deal with this how do people feel about changing to into a memo? Yes, Joe.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It helps, but it still not it just doesn't jive for me what the whole point of this is and timeline. So with it in there, I mean, with it in there for me,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If the options are work on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it or strip it, then I'm a

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: strip it. Because the the whole point of this thing is to try and figure out what towns need. Like, that was out to saying, we already kinda know what we're gonna hear from towns. We just wanna see it in writing so that they can direct us legislatively to where a funnel of things too in what towns maybe. So the idea that, like, even if you kept, like like, this the or section became just like a report to DHCD, section one might be five years from now. Your town might be like, yeah. We can definitely do say the first section there, but we're not opening my town plan because we just finished it up and we're good for I'm not redoing my town plan, which isn't redo. It's, you know, it's a lot easier process that'll make it sound. But they'll go through the whole process and opening it up and timelines that go with that just to add this in for information that you could just tell them. It could purely all the whole thing could just be a separate document to DHCV.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What do you wanna do, folks?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, DHCD requested the information.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: They they DHCD is

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: proposing this language, and

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: the league is supportive of this language. Oddly enough, they're the ones that requested this. But number one, like I said, why would you put it in your town plan if they just want the information? And number two, it never tells you to give them the information.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, that's what I'm so that's what I was gonna say. They requested it, but they didn't ask for them

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to

[Unidentified Committee Member]: give it to themselves. Now they have

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to go through everyone's town plan to see what they wrote.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We just need to pivot. So I think the goal is ultimately it doesn't need to be put in the town plan. It just needs to be collect this information and get it to the people who requested it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: K. Yep.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And there's a whole lot

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: that go on with that. By when? Like, what's what's the document like?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Like it. It's a generous timeline. I think that's still

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think that there's two goals. I think that there is the goal of getting some kind of survey response back on a granular level of what challenges are and where. There is also a goal, I think, in telling municipalities that when you do a town plan, you should refer to the housing targets, and if your town plan cannot promise to reach those housing targets, explain why. So,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: we're not selling them to bring them to whatever they've been doing. I like that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Part of it is giving reality to the housing targets. We're saying essentially, we've gone to all this trouble to create these housing targets, so we want to make them real. To make them real, you put them in your plan, but if you can't, then that's a so there's two separate goals. One is just to make the housing targets real. Yes. Another goal

[Unidentified Committee Member]: you're explaining?

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Yes. I am.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So one is to I am emphasizing what we just said. One goal is an actual stand alone goal, which is saying, let's take all this work on housing targets and make them real, which apparently apparently has been supported by the league. Then, the second is to provide an off ramp by saying, well, of course, here in paragraph one, if you notice, it doesn't refer to the housing targets developed by section 4,348, it doesn't refer to that, it just says, provide regulate, it just says, identify the housing needs, and, but two says, if you can't make it, tell us why. So I'm proposing that we leave one and we include provide DHCb for two. I'm also proposing that I know that I think we could say provide I'm afraid that if we put a timeline on it, we're not gonna get support.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: What about just when they're doing their plan? That's what they're saying.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, Joe is sort of saying, like, when is the hell is that going to happen? But I think that it would happen the whole thing is going to happen over time. It's not going to happen right away. Only tied to the plan, it's not. Yeah, well, the problem is, if you don't go through the exercise of doing planning exercise. If you bother doing the planning exercise, you're either gonna put it in you're not gonna bother doing that except for the planning exercise. They may not

[Unidentified Committee Member]: be revising their town plans, but they are all in conversation with the regional planning commissions this year Yeah. Right. Land use. So it's on their tape between here and the end of the year to have that conversation with the regional planning commission.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the tier three map.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. I was just about

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, so are you saying, you would be happier if this whole thing was a report and a date rather than Just report. I don't know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if I should use the word report, but I meant, you know, these accounts submit. You know, I and this has been part of their conversation with their own planning commissions some point in the course of this year. Can they what is their plan to meet the projected housing targets? And if not, it's just as simple. It could be like two lines. I don't know if the regional planning commissions could aggregate this, because they're already talking about it, although there may not be, might be more

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: consistent Believe me, if you're, unless we're making, if you wanna make this something like, instead of saying a muse plant shall, if you wanna say municipalities shall, without a reference to the plan, do

[Unidentified Committee Member]: all this. And if they want a reference to their plan, that's great.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, if you wanna do it without a plan, then at this point, we can do that. I'm just saying, whatever we do, we have a choice, either it's very simple and he can make the change now so we can vote on it after lunch, or else we strip it out just forget it. Which way do you want to go?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm afraid of being simple and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: asking for the information. Just as simple as you can.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I but I don't wanna rip if you wanna simplify this, let's take it out because it's just that's another whole job that's gonna take ask. We'd and if we change a lot of it, we're gonna have to take testimony, etcetera, and all of that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't think so. Not you just put the municipalities' child as they're currently doing this, because that's a valid point. Everyone is looking at these new tiers, new maps, new zoning, everyone's having to go through all of this right now with the way everything is changing. So if as they're doing this, then that, it can be in a congruent with the same No, no, I agree. Agree with same

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If you're looking for a timeline.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: With the and I and I what I have to address is most of these conversations are about land use Right. And not the actual laws.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. So Depends what city what towns

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think at this point, I'm in favor of taking it out because it's we just don't have a clear idea how best to do it at the moment. It does mean not do it, but I don't think we can iron it out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I think

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I suggest we put it in the way that the agency asked and the way that the that the league has agreed upon because it allows at least it becomes another conversation in the next

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's more likely to get attention in the next time if it's in there?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. And

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's like why say no if right now it's not very onerous?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right? The plan doesn't have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a timeline. It doesn't have It's mandated.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's a plan. Right. It's just

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: trying to universalize. And the league

[Unidentified Committee Member]: are okay with it. They will see something.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. They do this

[Unidentified Committee Member]: every day.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So Just like when you do your plan, make sure to look at the targets. And if you can't do the targets, then indicate a step by And Well If we don't have any kind of remedy for what happens to you if you don't, like, if they wanna keep it that way, then

[Unidentified Committee Member]: If they say this will work.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Unless we want some kind

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of Yeah. Believe it work. Or we can ask them to change it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. I mean, I personally am fine with just the change that everything in two is in a report. Okay. I'm okay with that. Okay. And what I'm going to suggest, ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to suggest the following. Counsel. Would you end those feel free to have someone yell at me if you disagree. I'm gonna say, counsel, will you make the change about adding into one disability person abilities that turn two into the extent that, you know, etcetera, and provide DHC an analysis of, and rewrite it, and then after lunch, which will be at 01:15. Okay? Is that okay? 01:30?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 01:30? 01:30. 01:30

[Unidentified Committee Member]: is fine, but before you finish, when is the analysis due by?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. I'm afraid that if we add a date, then we're gonna have to take testimony.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. Mhmm.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So I'm just what I all I'm proposing is I'm just trying to get us a draft. So we'll reconvene at 01:30. Everybody think about it. I'll take a straw poll. Okay? And after lunch, I'll take a straw poll and just we'll just do it, and if we can't do it, we'll strip it out. Okay? Then we'll take a vote on the bill without it or with it. How's that? It's just a way of moving. I just wanna move this. Yep. Okay. Alright. Lunch at one till 01:30. We are adjourn