Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome back, everybody, to the Committee on General and Housing, and it is still Tuesday, March 17. Some days last a long time, longer than other days. So what we're doing now is we have a bill, seven seventy five, which is a bill that is essentially a kind of rural housing omnibus bill, it's got six different little pieces to it, each of which help with the housing picture. And because it has some tax issues in it, and some funding issues in it, it went to two other committees. It went to the Ways and Means Committee, and it went to Appropriations. Each one of those committees made amendments to the bill, amendments which Tom and I are the author of the bill, Tom is the reporter of the bill, I think the bill is on for tomorrow. It's on notice now, it's going to be heard tomorrow. And as is the custom, as you remember how it works, after Tom and I sort of present the bill, then Charlie Kimball will get up for appropriations and present the amendment, and I guess it's Lynn, I'm not sure, yeah, from Probes who will get up and present the appropriations. And then we will be asked, Tom will have to stand up and say, thank you very much for your amendment, we love you, and here is the straw poll of our committee on the amendment. That's what we're doing right now. And So, to those two is the fact that Tom, in his brilliance, over the weekend discovered that we had a pilot program, just a pilot program, and we'd forgotten to put the expiration date.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: It didn't have the brilliance to see

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that before. Well, but yeah, the brilliance to catch it, which is more than Well,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: maybe the pilot program is gonna just be so fantastic. It'll go

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: on forever. That's exactly what DHCD kind of had that in mind. Anyway, so those are the three amendments. Take it away, sir.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. I will walk you through each amendments.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: As a spoiler alert, we, I'll speak for myself and Tom can speak for himself, but spoiler alert, these are okay. They're not perfect, but they're okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The first amendment here on the screen is from the Tramineal Ways and Means. Okay, the first three amendments, the first amendment on line six, the second amendment on line eight, and the third amendment on line 10 is removing the authority of the treasurer's office to keep the interest on the credit facilities that are established within that section. So if you remember on July, treasurer's office currently can loan up to 10% of the state's average cash on hand through their global investment advisory committee process. The bill poses to increase that to 12.5%. It then proposes to add the separate credit facility of 1% for purchasing of off-site constructed housing. Those were all changes that you all recommended. There were some language that also allowed the treasurer to keep the interest from all of those loans. Which now goes to the general fund. Currently goes to the general fund and then it created the special fund where the interest would go into and then the treasurer's office could further make investments in housing from that special fund. The first, second, and third instance of amendment from the Ways and Means Committee removes all of the provisions related to the interest. So special fund goes away, authority to keep the interest goes away.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The reasoning very simply is, well, reasoning in ways and means was, if appropriations wants to appropriate a million bucks, you let them do it, but it shouldn't be automatic. The appropriate and also, knew, I mean, this is something we knew ahead of time, that it's very likely that if they hadn't taken it out, appropriations would have taken it out, because it's taking it out of the general fund for housing, and they have very, very, very little leeway in terms of what they can do, and sort of to lose a million bucks now and it could grow is something they probably didn't want to do, and once you get rid of that, well, what's the point of view? There's no reason to have the separate fund, and Ways and Means doesn't like separate funds. I'm not thrilled by that, but I feel like the essence of what we really wanted, which is, remember, we live in a world of incrementalism in this building, but we really wanted us to increase it from 10% to 12.5%, and to allow them to use one of those percent as a credit facility to help them, the aggregation of off-site modular housing, and that stays. So the biggest part of the bill stays. I'm not thrilled with it, but I'm okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, the fourth instance of amendment here, if I may, is offered by Me. Ahead. By your vice chair. It is a change to the language around the housing element of the municipal plan. If you all remember, there's a lot of language about in the housing element, the municipality needs to provide all of this information regarding the ability to meet the housing targets that they've identified. And if the municipality can't meet those housing targets, you all propose to have them issue information to the Department of Housing and Community Development about why they can't. The primary change I didn't bring my notes because I wasn't anticipating being here as early, but the primary change is in sub one, it had in there that the housing element has to include identification and analysis of existing and projecting housing needs in the jurisdiction and identifying the regulations that the municipality would put into place to meet those targets. It doesn't really fit in there. I'm not saying that it would be allowed if they wanted to identify the regulations, but they do have to enact those regulations and bylaws separately. So the proposal was just to remove it so there isn't any, I don't mean to speak for you madam vice chair, but no kind of confusion there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: She didn't get to comment.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so that was the first change is just removing that language from the subdivision one. Then the next big change was under the sub two, if the municipality cannot meet its targets, Again, you all added this in to require them to provide information to DHCD and under this A and B, so part of the analysis that they have to provide to DHCD, quantification of the existing and projected needed housing types and an analysis of the constraints to the housing development, there was a lot of detail in there about the location of the housing, the age of the housing, etcetera. There was just a lot of really descriptive information that was required in those sections. So a lot of information has been removed. So it still requires the municipality to address how it meets its housing targets in the plan. That's still there. If they can't meet the housing targets, they still have to notify DHCD. That is still there. They still have to include within that analysis a quantification of their existing and projected housing needs, an analysis of the constraints to the housing development, what are the physical and regulatory things prohibiting you from meeting the housing targets, All of that is still there. There was just a lot of the very detailed information that was removed. So they wouldn't have to go that second, third layer deeper to identify location of the housing types, age of the housing types, etcetera. Madam I can pull up the former information if that would be helpful.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think I'd rather just have Madam Vice Vice tell us how it happened and what you think and how you feel about this amendment.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So I feel good about this amendment, seeing as I had brought it to our esteemed led council. If you remember that week, we had heard that VLCT was in favor of the original targets language, but that they were unable to come testify. I think they had 20 other requests for testimony. So they were unable to come to our committee that week, and also had not had the chance to provide us written testimony. So when the chair and I brought this for our flyby in GovOps, I ended up chatting with Samantha Sheehan from VLCT. She asked what the best way was to have this language amended, and it wasn't that they were against it, it was just simplifying it, making it more straightforward. Again, at the heart of the reason I brought it up originally is to make it easier for our municipalities. So instead of having a floor amendment, I worked with Cameron and I worked with Rep. Kimball in ways and means to get it put in their language, and that's how it came about. I figured that'd be a lot easier than a floor amendment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is a classic example, again, of keeping, they kept the essence of what we care about. I mean, remember, Joe put it really well, we want data, we want to know, we know most probably most that most towns will not be able to meet their housing targets, and we wanna know why. That's the whole point in order to figure out what to do about it. So that's what this is about. So anything else? That's it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or the Ways and Means Amendment, that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is the conclusion of the amendment. Tom, do you want to comment? You're the reporter of the bill. How do you feel about it?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: I feel fine about it, and I think it simplifies the section, which I think make municipalities feel better about it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I feel fine about it, except I wouldn't have I would have rather not lost the interest, but I understand How do people feel about it? Are people okay with this? I'm asking for I'm I'm essentially creating this austral pole. Anybody who's okay with this, please give me a thumbs up. Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You want me to write the stuff?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. It's one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And remember and remember, everyone, straw polls don't count as voting.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. That's right. That's right. Saudia, you've got a career online still ahead of you. Okay. Okay. All right, next.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next is the amendment from this is gonna get easier

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: as we

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go. The amendment from the appropriations committee which is a simple taking out the section related to the positions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There were two positions with EACD, they weren't in the governor's budget and

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as Approaches have to do at this point, they take most of the money, if not all of the money and positions etc out and then incorporate all of that into the budget typically is how that works. It's dead, it's just not in this bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you have anything that you've heard from DHCb about that? I not heard.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: What did you hear? They weren't surprised.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Remember that prox has three options. One, rarely exercised, is they can say, oh, wonderful. Of course, we'd love to spend the money, and they leave it in the bill. Very rare. The second is they can think, well, we might want to really include it. They strip it out and make a note for themselves, put it in the budget. And then the third is they strip it out and tell themselves it's never going to see the light of day. That's the end. And the reason they do this third is, they don't want to create a situation in the future where something is funded and no one who's reading the budget would know it, because it's in a different act. They don't like having appropriations scattered all over the place. So, very often, they'll either strip it out, or they might put in language saying, so much money, if there is money, if funds are available and in the budget. You know, in other words, they'll refer everybody to the budget one way or another. So, are you okay with this? I'm okay with this. How do I have? Do I have a straw poll? Where are we on this? Okay, same vote. Saudia? I don't see your thumb. I don't know. Where is Saudia?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think she's You were in my pocket. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Okay. Yes. Emilie, did you have

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, no. I was just drawing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just raising your hand. Yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Draw positive.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Then the last amendment is the Charlton amendment. Oh my gosh. It's terrible.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this amendment, as mentioned, is sponsored by representative Charlton and it is adding a subsection G into the section where the off-site accelerator pilot program is. You all remember in the bill you have this pilot program agency of commerce and community development consultation with BGS working to identify with municipalities ways to utilize off-site production housing and they have to come back to you all with a report in 2028, I believe about recommendations for legislative action and possibility of implementing off-site building code, all of that language. So the pilot is there, did not have an end date. And so what this amendment would do is just adding a subsection right at the bottom of the section saying that the agency of Commerce and Community Development shall cease the demonstration pilot on June 30. Unless, of course, that gives time for it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to be re upped if people want to end the terms. Tom, do you wanna talk to us about the logic behind this amendment and your communications with regard to ish? Certainly.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: This the language in r seven seventy five has existed since before the session, and there was actually no sunset date in any iteration of the upside accelerator because everybody was just so enthusiastic. 2030 coincides with the housing, the very general housing goals presented by the governor, which is x number of homes by 2030. At the moment, 2030 is maybe we'll have built all the homes by then. Don't know. But by that point in time, we'll have an idea

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: how to proceed. So comments, thoughts?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I have something to say.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Shoot.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's not about the amendment, but the overall bill. Can I say that now?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Of course.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Tom, I just wanna say that I I don't know if I could say I'm proud of you. I think this is just such a good bill, and I'm so happy the work that you did and your tenacity. And this is gonna be so great for the state, and you should be really proud of your work. And I'm excited to vote yes on the floor. And if there's any problems, I'm here to speak up and support on the floor.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We're gonna yield to the member from South Shore.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The non rural member. But thank you so much for your work on this, and it's really important. And, Cameron as well. So thanks, for following it through, and I'm excited to vote for it.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member; Reporter of Bill 775)]: Yeah, shout out to our chair who understands the special bond districts and all of that language. That's the special assessment. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I am going to attempt to explain bonds on the floor in less than two minutes. I can possibly do it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You didn't last year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, so I so I shouldn't bother the issue. Yeah, if somebody has

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go from there to her

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: people to the last year, you can say, I believe that's been asked and answered in I twenty twenty

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can see. Do I have a thumbs, a straw poll on this, please? Saudia, you're up. Okay, thank you. At this point, we have is it true, Mary E. Howard, we are concluded, right? This concludes I have not said the A word. This concludes our business for today. Tomorrow, we start remember tomorrow and Thursday, the floor is at one. We're off the 03:30 schedule and you can see why after the day, and tomorrow is just as bad. Great, Jimmy. Well, that's right, because one of our bills will be there. A hospital for bills. So, we are convening at 09:15 and going through to noon. Some of us are going to be wandering in and out as we have to go to other committees. This time, the Senate committees. In other words, remember, the Senate is starting to get our stuff, and so they want to talk to us. And if that happens to any of you as part of the bill, go. I mean, it's just, you got to do it. Yeah. Happy going to the of the week. Yeah. And and Tom is going, and I'll be going. You know, we've just got got stuff we've gotta do, and we just keep going in terms of the testimony, and the vice chair will take over for me, and then we'll we'll just manage it. So we're starting tomorrow at 09:15. Any last things before we adjourn for the day? In that case, we are adjourned.