Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're live.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Great, welcome back everybody. It is a little after two on

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: February 26.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: We'll be hearing a review of H-seven 18, an act relating to building energy efficiency. This bill coming out of the House Committee of Energy and Digital Infrastructure. The reason, I think this is just a flyby, we're not taking possession of it, but we're going to be hearing about it as it would, oh my gosh, words have failed. It's been a day. Relate to. Thank you. It would relate to Energy Co's when it comes to the housing, and that's kind of a large portion of our portfolio. I will let Representative Campbell introduce himself. We all know and love Ellen. So

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I will let you take the floor. What do you need?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: LLJC Office of Legislative Counsel. We have for you draft 2.2 today of age seven eighteen. I have a hard stop at three, but prep handle is here too.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: And I have hard copies if anybody wants it.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Maybe we have

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a few hard copies. We

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: can pass them down.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So,

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I wasn't sure how you wanted to go through. Think about the bulk here. Yeah, just maybe kind of explain the premise of the bill and where it's at at this point in time.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Okay, sure. Well, why don't I start then?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That'd be great.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Senator Scott Campbell of St. John's thirty, sponsored this bill and many other bills in my financial advisor's years. This bill in particular relies from the Building Energy Code Working Group that has passed summer and fall and the previous summer and fall, and the previous summer fall looked to that as a study committee and that working group slash study committee included members of the administration, the Department of Public Service, Division of Fire Safety, the Department of Professional Regulation, and stakeholders, architects, builders, district of Vermont, from lot of the cities and towns, folks like that, And we published a report that is on the Public Service Department website, if you're interested in seeing that, I think to bring any of that with me. But this bill sort of arises out of recommendations from these many years of consulting with everybody about what needs to happen to increase compliance with energy codes. So just stepping back background, we have mandatory energy codes in the law both residential and commercial. We've got residential energy codes I think since 1998 or 'seventy something like that and commercial codes since 2007 and again these are mandatory codes but there has never been any enforcement mechanism there's never been any inspection anything associated with these codes and in the residential sphere compliance has been spotty because on the commercial side compliance has been a lot better because typically we have licensed people involved, licensed architects and engineers and folks who not only pay attention to codes generally but also stand to use their licenses if they follow codes, and they're very much aware of that. So we don't have licenses, we don't have enforcement or penalties on the residential side, and compliance has been probably 50% or lower. There have been studies about it and it's really a kind of a hardy cage. But in any case, anecdotally, there's very little awareness to these mandatory codes among consumers, and even not that much awareness among contractors and others. Because again, they don't have to be aware of this. Rather than strategy in this bill is rather than trying to introduce some sort of enforcement regime or penalties or anything like that, the strategy is to try to stimulate more voluntary compliance. And there are two or three sort of basic tactics for doing that. One is, the first section mentions, the first section is not findings, mentions adopting a residential building construction code, because for my job, do have a commercial code, and that would be that's sort of the stage one of any sort of administrative mechanism for handling coats. Right now, as far commercial codes go, we have the Vision of Fire Safety, which administers all the other building codes, has adopted a commercial code which they call the Fire and Building Safety Code. They apply it to, first of all, they have jurisdiction over all public buildings, which includes all rentals, including family rentals. But they apply their fire and building safety code to residential structures of three units and up. And their code, their fire and building safety code, a, I don't know if amalgam is the right word, but it takes into account many codes that DFS has adopted, including fire cones, heating points to boiler cones, fire cones, of course, electrical codes, all different kinds of codes they've adopted. I can't remember the number, was some fantastic number that Director Mike DeRosche mentioned when he testified for our committee. So they sort of reconcile all these different codes and into one code they apply to three units about residential buildings and other buildings, commercial buildings. Right now, is no direct applicability to one or two family buildings, even though as they say, they have jurisdiction over same family principles. Adopting residential building code would at least extend that, the code that they can apply to those buildings. It would also provide a reference point for builders of single family and duplexes, whether the code is enforced or not. And this bill, I should be clear, does not introduce any enforcement or any mandates to fund builders. Doesn't change the existing mandates around energy codes, but it doesn't create any additional requirements. It should be taking a voluntary, basically a market incentive mechanism to try to get there. So let's see,

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: a question. I think one of the things when rep Jans came in to talk to the chair and I about this bill, One

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: of

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: the things that specifically that brought up that I think really pertains to this committee is the executive order and the protection that this bill has in it. Is that still in that bill? This bill? Okay. I think that would be really helpful for us to hear.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Okay. We'll go right through that if you want. Or should we go into the steps from the bill? Yeah, think

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: that would be helpful.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Any other questions before we get started?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first section is a finding section and I

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: think it does capture a lot of what you were just talking about.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Happy to read through it,

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but I'll do high level if I find

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: anything Page

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: three, section two is where the language starts. So section two is a report. The Director of Fire Safety shall report back on an assessment of whether and how the state should adopt a residential building code. That's due 01/01/2027.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: That process, the Division of Fire Safety has already started that process, they started actually more than a year ago, to assess whether and how DFS would adopt a residential building code, and they can do that by rule, they don't need to, it doesn't need be a statute. But the purpose of making that assessment was, well, what would we have to include, what would we have to drop, what would we have to reconcile with other codes in order to adopt a residential building code. And it's not simple, it does take effort. DFS, as all state agencies, is overwhelmed with other stuff that they have to do. So they've got, I think they held two sort of meetings, stakeholder meetings about this. Originally, bill included a date certain when they had to adopt the residential building code. They were not comfortable with that and they and public service asked if they would be, they said they would be comfortable with a deadline for finishing the process through arcing in and having that third language on for fifteenth next year. So this language is language of people's therapists and practitioners.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great, section three is a task force related to the residential contractor registry that already exists at the Office of Professional Regulation. And this would be an advisory committee to OPR to advise them on a few topics related to the contractor registry. So there are a number of appointees. There's 15 appointees, and then they shall advise OPR on ways to address shortcomings with the existing contractor registry, improve the web presence, identify outreach strategies, identifying and creating lists of trade specialties, and clarifying the relationship between registrations and certifications, expedite creating voluntary certifications, and assess how to improve energy education modules, which you'll hear a little bit about more later, and whether they administered by the Department of Public Service instead of the Division of Fire and Safety?

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: That relates to a specific set of energy education modules.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: We'll talk more about Okay, yes.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Assess whether the type of regulation for a contractor should be changed from registration to certification or licensure. Assess whether and how the regulating entity for contractors, whether it should be transferred from OPR to the Division of Fire Safety, and then considering any other strategies to improve and streamline the regulation of the construction industry. So this is a task force to advise OPR on all of those things related to the contractor registry.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: So, in principle, it's worth emphasizing that what we're trying to do is provide incentives for contractors to avail themselves of the many training opportunities that already exist. Efficiency in Vermont, state the weatherization program, other programs, there's the associated builder building contractors of Vermont, New Hampshire open to training facilities in the institute of last year, There are other training entities in Vermont, the Sustainable Energy Outreach Network, I think it's called, SEAN based in Bridalboro, does advanced trainings. There are lots of training opportunities, but there hasn't been enough incentive or requirements to get voters to take advantage of that. So really the focus, my focus, and what I'm trying to provide for energy code compliance isn't getting more compliance for energy codes so much as encouraging builders to get trained, because we are building better insulated tighter buildings, and if you're not aware of the airflow and motion dynamics involved in those kinds of buildings, going to, you very well could create problems, primarily mold, mildew, rod, and any structural thinners if you're not aware of technically. So that's the focus. Just wanted to emphasize that again, I probably said it before, so I say it all the time.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, sections four through eight are all nearly identical, and they're about training for the different trades and professions regarding energy codes and compliance. It's there's And a few different trades that are addressed in here. Did you, if you want to talk about that or do you want

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: me to just read through Travis? Well, why don't you read through the first one?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the first one is section four, which is on page eight. So this is for architects, engineers, and property inspectors. So there is an existing requirement on an education module for these professions. And currently, there is a requirement that it shall not be more than two hours that's being struck. And then the module shall explain how the work of the profession or trade intersects with the energy codes and affects the energy, airflow, and moisture management dynamics of the building as an integrated system and shall include education on the state or utility incentives relevant to the profession. And it shrinks the existing language, which is that the education shall provide general information on the state energy goals and energy programs. So it's adding more specific language about some building science as opposed to what just the goals are.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: So this section, Ellen explained, applies to professors regulated by NPR. And this is the section that was referenced in the powers and duties about assessing whether the energy education modules in this section should be administered by public service rather than OPR. We always testifying on committee, they observed that they don't have any expertise in this, recommended that public service, which does develop and update energy codes, that they would want who develop the energy education model. So that sounded rational but decided to leave it to a task force made up with all these state offices and state members to make that assessment. So that's for this particular section alone. The other next three sections, four sections are the same language basically, apply different areas of statute that affect other traits. So there's heating technicians, there's boiler inspectors, there's electricians and plumbers, and the same language is duplicated, although except for boiler inspectors, which directors like the Roshery observed really aren't not appropriate for them to be to have energy code education because there are energy module energy education modules because they are inspecting active fact and actually they're inspecting insisting boilers not in the construction situation. So he asked if that section construct the field, so we did that.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That brings us to section nine which is on page 13 if you're following along and this is the report So OPR shall conduct a sunrise process to assess whether home energy rating system raters and energy professionals should be regulated professions. And so that's due 11/01/2028.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: This was like that before the summary process.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Summary, summary process? That's the finished standard process for determining whether and what sort of regulation profession should have. They do a report, they do an analysis of the economic effects, what other states do, and those sorts of things, that's what they call the sunrise report. And they have requested, originally I think it said they were to do that this year, and they asked to have another year, so again, and much of this has been changed, we were on draft 2.2, much of this has been changed in response to requests from agencies.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then the last handful of sections are about the enforcement of the residential building energy codes and the commercial energy building codes. And there's two separate things that are happening. First, there is the issue regarding the governor's executive order. And then there's also an issue about clarifying municipal authority to enforce these energy codes. So first, quickly, I don't know how much you've heard about the governor's executive order from the fall, but one of the directives in the governor's executive order was that builders were allowed to comply with either the twenty twenty four RBs and CVs, which are the ones that are currently in effect, or the prior version, which was the twenty twenty RBs and CVs. And this is a bit of a problem because the attorney general pointed out in her opinion that that conflicts with statutory law. And so there is existing language in the RVs and CV statutes that allow for basically citizen suits against builders for using the wrong code. And so there's some legal ambiguity created by what the governor said, and there's a safe harbor provision here in subsection K in section 10, and then also in section 11. It's for both the RVs and the CBs. And it says that any builder that complied with the twenty twenty RVs or CVs during the period 09/17/2025, until amendments to the RV's rules are adopted, they shall be safe. The state shall not bring in enforcement action solely for that, and then no damages, penalties, or other relief shall be awarded an action based on that. An attempt to acknowledge perhaps good faith efforts by builders that were complying with the governor's executive order. So that's in section 10 and in section 11.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: And that is language that was suggested, proposed by the Department of Public Safety? Service. That is service.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Then there's also this other component of both ten and eleven, which is about So though we have these existing residential and commercial energy codes, there hasn't been enforcement. It has been very unclear about who has authority to enforce them. So this is adding a specific direct language that says there's municipal authority to enforce. So a municipality may enforce the RVs within the municipality in compliance with this section. That's for the RVs and then the similar language is added for the CVs, the commercial. And then to just be very clear, language is added in section 12 that a municipality that has adopted codes and regulations for the buildings within the municipality may also incorporate by reference the RBs and the CDs as they are established and then have the authority to enforce them. And so that means that they can just incorporate by reference the codes that exist at the state level into any building codes they already have and then use that authority to enforce them. They can't change them or deviate from them.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: They can just incorporate the state codes that already exist. The reason for adding this clarification both entitled Senator's Public Service Title and entitled 24 the Municipal Title is that there's been at least ambiguity and lack of clarity about whether municipalities have this authority or not. If you read the existing language in section 12 under read 101 a, It's to be uninitiated it sort of appears that oh gee I guess they have that authority. This filing may establish codes and regulations for construction maintenance repair and alterations of buildings may include provisions related to building materials, structural design, toxic waste, etc, etc, heating systems, fire protection. It sounded like they might have that authority but we were advised, oh gosh, probably almost three years ago by an attorney at the Public Service Department that he didn't think the authority was all that clear. So one of the topics that was under discussion in the Building Energy Code Working Group was whether that we should make that clear. There is some concern about minutes, ballots adopting different procedures for enforcing codes, maybe enforcing them differently. By saying that the existing codes may be incorporated by reference, The attempt is to say that the codes have to be the same, you have to enforce the codes as they are. There is also, this is also trying to facilitate a non governmental effort through Energy Action Network to develop uniform procedures, both for the purposes of eliminating that problem, that might be a different procedure for municipalities, but also making it, having a body of procedures that other municipalities that are considering wanting to enforce energy codes could then adopt. So that's where this comes from and the reason it's included here.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And then the last section is the appropriations. Yeah,

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: and this might change.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It will change, let's be honest.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Well, this includes an appropriation from RGGI revenue fees. You're aware of the regional greenhouse gas initiative. Regional greenhouse gas initiative is a capital invest program that the state has been involved in since 2008, I think, and generates some revenues from the state. Revenues are estimated every three years in concert with the development of a, it's called a demand resource plan that the energy efficiency utility basically EVT, light gas and PVD put together and come to agreement with public service department and public utilities commission for efficiency programs that they will administer over the next three years, so it's an every three year process. So the efficiency programs are the expense side of it. The revenue side of it is RGGI and also what's called forward capacity market. It's an electric efficiency thing that you don't need to know about, it's just another revenue source. Anyway, the RGGI revenue has greatly exceeded what were anticipated three years ago, so there's now about an $8,000,000 balance in that fund. So it seemed to me since I've been working in the energy world for this pilot, using some of that money to promote compliance with existing codes, it would be a clear nexus to using that money. That's what's called thermal money, by the way, is used these thermal burns, these efficiency burns are used for weatherization and mostly that, there's some other transportation incentives in there too, but mostly for to supplement weatherization assistance program funding and also three d thermal program I used to work at and an EBT, Efficiency Vermont, programs to help folks with improving efficiency in their homes. So the nexus to me was, well, of funding retrofits to existing buildings, why don't we also stop building buildings that need to be retrofitted by having them provide with energy code. So that was the nexus to me. I'm beginning to see that this might not work, and so we may turn this into a general fund appropriation although the chances of having someone would also fairly say I don't know, I'm still figuring out what's the best way to do this is. There are people and organizations who have said that they would support the bill if it were a general fund appropriation, not a regime corporation. The danger with a regime corporation is once you start reading an existing sort of pot of money, that opens it up to, you know, it's like flood in the water and the sharks come flying around, so you want to be careful about that.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Great, well thank you for being so thorough. Are there any questions from the committee?

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Okay, energy, when I started modernization over thirty years ago, I discovered that energy was an eye laser. Now I've discovered that energy pros seem worse.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Feel the energy pros so much.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: But I have to answer any questions.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Are we doing that?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: We just did.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, we did the straw. Oh.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: We haven't done. I think we have to do it.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's what I think we're

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: doing. Okay.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes, I do have a question. So you're saying, or even renovations that you're doing to a building, that these, you want this to apply, and how much space, I mean, I'm not aware, so I'm just asking, when you have your house so tight that you have to have an exchange of air, I mean, I'm assuming it's sort of like, because I did put a gas fireplace insert in, but I didn't want it pulling oxygen from the house, so I put it like two chimneys in. So is that the type of thing that you're talking about when you have this air exchange when a house is so tight it can't breathe?

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Yes, well see houses don't breathe for people.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Well, do

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: have to move with men, but they don't move with them.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Yeah, and you really want your house to be as tight as possible, but then you do need ventilation. One of the principal differences between twenty twenty RVs and twenty twenty four RVs? I'm thinking about this.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The beef place. No. I know, was joking. I know what it is.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: One of the principal differences is that 2024 did require mechanical balance ventilation, in other words barrier heat exchangers or energy recovery ventilators in different names. It's really a good idea because you do need a lot more ventilation for health reasons than buildings provide even older There have been all kinds of studies that show that buildings that breathe, that are not carried over to life, are too rafty in the winter but not drafty enough in the spring and fall when the windows are still closed but they do not, you don't have the temperature differential driving a lot air movement. So how

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: much space does that unit take to have that air exchange? Not

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: that the unit is that big but you want to have ductwork built around the house.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So it's almost like I'm going to equate it to when people have two more star air heating system, that's being having stuff work all over the place. It'd be like that.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: You don't need as much ductwork as you would need for a heating system, but you can, because you're not necessarily hitting every room. You don't need every room for a return, for example. But you do need some ductwork.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I really appreciate you coming in, Campbell, and I'd like the committee to, I'm going do a straw poll on, age seven eighteen. Thank you for your time, Ellen. Careful now.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We are tight sorters. Can I

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: get a

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: straw poll, all in favor of the strawing on this as positive for What?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: All in favor of what?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: To straw positively for seven eighteen.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: For the

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: bill we just heard

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: to take it up?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, this is a flyby.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So, the bill is not in our possession and is in the possession in Scott's committee, but we were asked to do a flyby because residential codes have to do with housing, which is in our jurisdiction. So then, just for new folks, then, or had people listening online, then Scott will report back to his committee how the straw was seen as favorable. Again, it's just a straw poll. We don't need the clerk or any of that business. But, so all in favor positively in the straw discussion.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, you can. Is there something you want to

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: talk about? No, I just know that he had his hand up. I think you did.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: No,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm really sorry. I came in. I was going to say

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: were about

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: to ask the question.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm sorry. Any discussion before we pull? Yeah.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I don't know enough about this.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I know so, I mean, do I just not because I don't know enough to vote yes or no.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You can abstain.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Okay. Well, we're we're happy discuss further. Can can I clarify anything for you?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: So I'm looking at the here's one because question that I would have to discuss summer.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: I put all my weight down.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: The codes so the the twenty twenty are bees are acceptable until there's sort of the last revision or RBAs rules were adopted or if it was adopted, how long does that? Alright, technically

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: the twenty twenty four parties are in law right now. The governor's executive order from September said that builders can use either twenty twenty or twenty twenty four, but that's the, as the attorney general observed in it, was asked to make a judgment on her opinion about the legality of that, she said, well, that's not actually how you change rules. Evidently the governor agreed with that and so has started a rule making process that would basically codify his executive order and allow builders to use the So term 2020 that rulemaking is in process. The Public Service Department took testimony the February and as proposed the rule, and that rule is scheduled to be heard by LCAR, I think it's March 19. In

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: two fifty areas, which are considerably expanded if everything you want, if you want goes into effect. Is this still the case that the stretch coat has to apply? This doesn't have anything

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: I do with the

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: mean, it's aside from, I know that's not in this bill. Yeah. But it is an additional cost, it's not, it does add to the cost of building something.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Yes. So, yes, I mean, I would presume that that would be unaffected. Although you bring up a point that I think is also worth mentioning, that whenever an update is made to the RVs or the CDs, part of the process that the Public Service Department goes through is a cost effectiveness analysis. And it's a rigorous analysis about how costs weigh against the benefits from the consumer's perspective, from the building owner's perspective. And they did that with the update from 2020 to 2024 and made some changes to the proposed 2024 armies and I don't know about CVs actually based on that cost effectiveness question, but they determined that over the nominal life and not one hundred years, but over, I don't know what, I don't remember the exact numbers, but let's say fifteen years or something of the upgrades between 2020 RVs and 2024, and that the savings would outweigh benefits. So it is it is they are cost effective. How does the additional expense of the stretch codes

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: have the same cost benefit in the same house that's built a few 100 yards away that's not in 1950 and is the lower code. It's less expensive. Yeah, well would be the same cost analysis

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: presumably. That's perceptive and I think that's right. I don't know if the stress code undergoes the same cost effectiveness test. Okay.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: The reason the reason I'm asking is

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: it

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: again, the housing that we have not mean, I don't want I don't know that a a mortgage or a lender is gonna look at it and say, oh, know, you're gonna be lower so you can afford a higher mortgage. I don't know if the banking industry has made that exception yet. So it's still an upfront cost question to get started. I've had I've had contracts canceled because of the stretch of just that little bit of a difference.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: If for all.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: One of the challenges we're having in providing housing in Vermont is the cost, particularly when different government agencies get involved with additional this criteria, that criteria, and address the situation. We address a whole lot of things that are real issues. We have projects that have been canceled this year, phases of projects, because the cost of building 1,300,000,000,000,000 in there is gonna look about $700,000. Well, I know. So I have my app my overall apprehending is if we can, at a reasonably moderate set of codes, build 10 houses, I don't wanna be building eight explaining to two people living in their cars why we can't. That's the overall that's the philosophy that's kind of the formative question. I don't see anything here that will change that or make it any worse. You know, it's an awareness and it's communication and it's training. Was there any discussion as to whether the voluntary certifications would eventually become required?

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: No. There is one section in here about asking the task force to consider whether contractors who are now required to register, which is the least form of regulation, also be required to have credentials, which would be a non exclusive kind of situation or be required to be licensed, which is an exclusive kind of situation. So for example, architects are not allowed, you can't I'm

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: really sorry to interrupt, but we have one more bill we have to do before we get to the floor. I know. And so, but I guess are there other questions for Scott? And again, you don't have to participate in

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: the straw poll if you don't want to. Okay. Oh,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: no, no, no. Just wanted to be clear like it's a straw poll.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: So

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'm

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: also into it, you know, Scott, it's something I've been into for many years as well. So are there any other quick I just want to keep efficient. Are there any other questions for Scott before we straw poll and release him back to his committee?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: No, I just want to thank him for doing so much of this work for so long. And it shows a lot of,

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: a lot of

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: legwork talking to a lot of people and it's not always

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: No,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: absolutely. This bill is a perfect example and Scott's perseverance on this issue as long as I've been in the building. And so I really, I agree, Rev Dodds, very commendable for your work. So I am going to propose the straw poll. All those in favor of strawing positively for Rep Campbell's bill, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay. So do you report that back? You wanna write it down?

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Better write

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: it down. Do

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: you need to ask? Do you need to ask?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are there any opposition?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, we have to do that part. No, yeah, it's true. Who would like to straw poll it unfavorably? Okay, one. So then one abstain.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: So general housing.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'll let Scott determine how he wants to report it back to them.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: So six-one-four, four people are absent,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: right? Yeah. Well,

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: six thirteen and one abstained.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Again, it's a straw poll, but Scott can report back to his

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: six thirteen and one abstained.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thanks so much.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Representative Campbell, always a pleasure to see you and fix your work. Okay.

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: Thank you.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No blazing here. You guys

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: feel like I can talk

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: over a beverage sometime. Okay. Now we are going to be honored with representative Elizabeth Burrows from our very own committee. As can see, we've got a case to the bride. Do this for me. That's Thursday. I know, so

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: we have It's

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: funny, I was gonna just say, all right, let's just when are we gonna press? Let's start passing stuff while Marc and Ashley are gone. But we don't we'll be good. Yeah, we'll be good.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Okay, so

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: we're gonna hear 74

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: H-eight 74, an act relating to municipal acquisition of abandoned residential and commercial property, municipal regulation of housing, and state funding for housing development. That's a mouthful right there. It is. Yeah. And Representative Burrows, you take it away whenever you're ready and

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: nice to see you. Nice to see you too. I didn't call this bill using what we do have bill. Believe any of it costs any boat. That's always fun. I know, right? So, let's see, where is it, where is it? Okay, I'll just, I'm gonna go ahead and just read to you the short form as it is right now, and then I'll explain it

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: to Okay.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Statement of purpose. Bill as introduced. This bill proposes to authorize a municipality to acquire through voluntary sale, judicial foreclosure, or other lawful means, or alternatively to impose incrementally increasing fines on any residential property located within a designated downtown or village area that has been abandoned. Property acquired would be used solely for a public purpose such as medical housing, transitional housing, rehabilitative or respite housing, or youth or community facilities. Separately, the bill proposes municipality to acquire abandoned commercial property located within a designated downtown or village area and dispose of the commercial property to purchasers who demonstrate a material local economic presence or commitment, operate or intend to operate a startup or small business, and contribute to the downtown or village economic revitalization. In addition, the bill proposes to authorize municipalities to enforce habitability standards for residential and commercial rental properties and to adopt controls on annual rent increases subject to certain limitations. Don't worry, I got you. None of this is statewide. This vote proposes to limit funding via to individuals improving individually owned residential properties, provide additional funding for first time home buyers purchasing residential properties needing repairs, and provide funding incentives for housing developments built specifically for senior citizens if a development includes housing for visiting relatives, housing for medical personnel or respite housing. Finally, the bill proposes to require that all housing developments receiving state funds incorporate universal design principles in the designs of the housing development to require that a certain number of housing units be fully compliant with the ADA and to give priority to applicants with a disability for units designated for individuals exiting homelessness. Now, The purpose of this bill is to create tools for municipalities. What is proposed in here are ways for municipalities to get out from under, I don't know about Chester or other areas of the state, but in my district, we have some delinquent commercial landlords who don't keep the commercial property maintained, they don't heat it adequately, and so the first question is asking commercial landlords to just adhere to the same standards as residential landlords. Keep the temperature at 60 degrees so that if there's a restaurant that comes in, it doesn't have to shut down in November, which has happened over and over and over again, and so forth. It creates a way that is legal, it is constitutional for,

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: starting with the commercial properties,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: it creates a mechanism for towns to be able to adopt that

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: would allow,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: would force any commercial property that's been abandoned. There are many in our area of the state because it was the, what do you call it, the machine tool kind of area. And when those businesses all left, when those manufacturing facilities all left, the buildings were purchased and now owners of the buildings use them as tax write offs. So when other businesses want to move into them, they're kept in a static state and a really great example is Springfield, Vermont, which has been hampered in so many ways by this kind of bad action. So it creates a mechanism for a town to be able to end that. Likewise, within a downtown area, for residences, it creates a mechanism for a residence to be forced sale of a, I don't wanna use the term forced sale, it creates a mechanism for a town to be able to adopt a way to take over an abandoned residence in a downtown area. But it would require that any property acquired that way be used for a public good. So, things like medical housing, which is defined as housing for medical staff, temporary housing for medical staff, but also housing for families of people who are in the hospital, respite housing, or a teen center, it finds a way for the town, if the town is gonna use this, they get to define what is as a public good. Transitional housing is not true.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't want to rush you. Love it. Oh, you still have time. I just want it to be because it starts digging and then I know,

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: but it's only 20. Oh, no, you're good.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I just wanted to Can I ask you question? Ashley's gonna jump in. Oh, I just have a question.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And I apologize because I am coming in late and I will be back and watch. Does this allow municipalities to define what a public good is?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Okay. In my

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: proposal, it allows the municipality to define what a public good is. The public good is not defined as such. It really basically creates the possibility for the town to be able to acquire a building that they need. Like, for example, transitional housing. Like, the town wouldn't necessarily have the opportunity to acquire a building in the downtown area, but there are also abandoned properties. So this would create a mechanism for the town to

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: be able to do that.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And again, of this is statewide, this is just a way for tenants to be able to do it.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I just have a question, because we have filled in, you described, in fact, one was in my written testimony by our town manager, and I mean, I feel so bad for the woman that owns this, but it's like, nobody's, they got everybody out Residential or commercial? It was, well, was commercial at one point, wow it's residential. So would she basically just give it to the town and just say, hey, she's done with this, I can't do anymore? She told them, yes, yes. But there's a mechanism in here to And then when the town gets it, who's gonna be doing the renovations?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Let me get to that part. Oh, sorry. So that was the, I just described the abandoned residential property. Abandoned commercial property, it's a mechanism for a town to be able to acquire a commercial property, it's by Cameron Wood, it's constitutionally legal, it is a mechanism, I'm not gonna go into detail about

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: it, because I don't know whether you care about this well or

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: not, but a property that was acquired this way could then only be sold to a business that demonstrates a global economic presence or commitment, or is a startup business, or contributes significantly to economic revitalization. Hang on, let me just get through the list first so that I can say all the things. It creates a possibility for municipal rent stabilization to be driven by the town, but statewide, just a possibility for municipalities to be able to go into rent stabilization. Then it also has a section on senior and medical housing, in which So there's a whole kind of meshed together program that would include development of medical housing, which includes housing for visiting relatives or medical personnel, respite housing, housing for certain short term medical personnel. But it would also include independent housing units and tier supported housing, including assisted living. And then there are several different financing mechanisms. And then the idea being that that would create Using those funding mechanisms would create vacancies in housing that is currently underused, because we, as you know, have not only a shortage of rental housing, but an overabundance of underused housing, and we've never really addressed both of those sides of the problem. So, creating this way for managed care would free up some of the underused housing, So it would create a way for first time home buyers to receive kind of tests. Again, it doesn't any, doesn't require any funding, or have funding actually, but it would actually create a flow for first time home buyers to be able to receive grants to improve the formerly underused housing, so that everybody actually gets into the housing that's appropriate for them. And then universal design, everyone of course,

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: That's who I am. That's my brand, yes.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So what was your question? So I

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: think my question's gonna be too long, and I think it's gonna be too long, so I think that

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: you can talk separately, because I

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: have a question about our intersections. A lot of these, ideas from the state land bank, so the working group is somewhere in the area somewhere. Know a good idea is to bring just language there that would help expand what you're having.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And really, it's really all about municipalities having tools so that Windsor Provider, Springville Provider, wherever they actually could get to

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: the problem of giant empty buildings, bought up by private equity.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: You know that Shaw's, the Shaw's Plaza down in Springfield? Like two more buildings in that were just bought up and they're gonna have money, they've been bought up and now they're just gonna keep a money because this tax write up and it's not hiding.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It also doesn't help trick deals, it's not right. That's

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: been a huge thing. That's been a huge thing all along. This does create a way for municipalities to be able to address it. That's the thing. So using what we do have. Well, thank you for listening.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Thank you for bringing you forward. Thank you. I have a picture of a house that I've been talking about. Oh, I've

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: got a photo of that. Oh,

[Rep. Scott Campbell (Sponsor, H.718)]: it was many years. Really? Really? You're

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: still up the stairs until tomorrow.