Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're live for Okay. Welcome back, everybody. It is still Thursday. It's still 03/26/2026, and this is the house committee on general and housing in case you're worrying, you're in the want. You're not. And what we're gonna do is take a little bit and look at a bill from the senate, an important bill that senator Watson's committee has been slaving over, s three twenty five, an act relating to, it says, studying the creation of mild bylaws, but that I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a misnomer, but it's, shall we say, dramatically incomplete. So, Anne, would you like to take it away, Ellen, in any form you want? Thank Assume we know nothing. I mean, S-twenty Hello,

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: everyone. For the record, Senator Ann Watson from the Washington District. We have indeed been working on 03/25. And just to clarify, that was the name of the underlying bill. We did a lot of work, and it will be renamed for the past. So this is the bill that we are using to update and one. So as you may recall, they're Act Act one from maybe up. Let me back up even further, just in case. So Act two fifty created threshold triggers. If you built too fast, if you built too densely, if you built too many units, then you triggered Act two fifty. But what that ended up meaning was that we had a lot of housing that was sprawl ish, that was nine unit developments or developers would choose to just outside so that they didn't trigger Act two fifty.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But we were in

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: a housing crisis. We need more housing. We need them to not choose to do that. Meanwhile, so I'll speak now as a former mayor of Montpelier, particularly with Montpelier, my experience there, the Act two fifty process was very duplicative with the Act of Victory process. And so one of the goals of Act 21 was to de duplicate the permit processes for municipalities that had robust zoning. Now, everyone doesn't necessarily have as much zoning or sophisticated bylaws as, say, Montpelier does, but they have some level. So

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Act 181

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: created a tier Sorry, is this useful? Okay, great. Just wanted to check. So I-one hundred eighty one envisioned what we would call a tier one area. Tier 1A is the most dense. It is the most populated kinds of areas that we have. It'd be like downtown. It's not just Popular, it's like downtown Popular. And then there could be also tier 1B areas, which are still dense and still centers, but they're maybe not quite as dense. And so a town like Montpelier could have a tier one A and a tier one B, but we also envision that there, actually the goal is for there to be a tier 1B area in every town that has some level of bylaws. We want to recognize that there are centers across the state in just about every town. And we want to encourage development. And so if you go for tier 1A, again, is an opt in, you gotta apply. You gotta show that you're covering all the Act two fifty criteria for tier one A. If you achieve that, you get a full exemption from Act two fifty. Right, great. If you have tier one B, you would get a partial exemption from Act two fifty. Again, that's helpful. That's great. So that was one thing that we addressed with Act twenty twenty one. Another failing, I would say, of Act two fifty was that because there are these thresholds, right? Like if you build just nine units, then you would not turn your act to 50. And there are places in Vermont that are sensitive, fragile ecosystems, that are unique ecosystems, where it's not that you can't build there, but if you build in a way that doesn't reflect the needs of that particular ecosystem or landscape, that you could actually do harm to that ecosystem even if you built less than 10 units. So that threshold was not useful in protecting our most fragile, most unique places in Vermont. And so it created this tier three sort of area, and that is under process right now. There was one iteration of tier three maps which were quite sweeping, and they have since been narrowed. So we're on draft two right now of tier three maps. The land use review board that was set up by F-one hundred eighty one is going through the process. One of the reasons we did that was because the intention there was to have a robust process that could take more feedback than could reasonably be heard by a single committee in a legislative session, if that makes sense. We are anticipating a lot of feedback. We want to iterate a lot and that that needed to happen in the context of this board to be able to continue to refine a product that hopefully ultimately makes sense. So we're on draft two right now of tier three maps. Just to be clear, if you hear someone say, I'm in tier three, I just want you to pause because nothing is final right now. It's possible, maybe they've seen a prior draft. So it's worth checking. And also, we anticipate that another round of tier three maps is going to come out in April, anticipating that that land that is implicated there is going to shrink further still. So there is sort of this balance between let's accelerate building housing and let's protect our most critical natural resources. By the way, they're supposed to be of statewide importance, right? Like these are not just, you know, here's a wetland, so we got to protect it. It's like, no, but is this a unique situation for Vermont? Is this interesting and unusual? And so we can go further into that. But that's what that does. So that's all background.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. It's also got your Anne Watson patina on it, is really interesting. Well,

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Okay. So that leads us to S-three 25. And as the both of these aspects, actually I've left out one other piece, which is, so tier two is anything that's not tier one and not tier three, and that's status quo, Act two fifty, plus something called the road rule, which is if you build a road longer than 800 feet, it would trigger Act two fifty, but if it's a driveway, the threshold is 2,000 feet. And for what it's worth, we hear testimony that 2,000 feet is the distance from here, from the capital to Willow Wands. I don't know if you know where Willow Wands is, it's downtown. Boy, do I. Okay, so maybe that's a whole reason, folks, but it's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's a bit open here. Anyways,

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: there's 800 feet for a road and 2,000 feet for any combination of roads and driveways. Rulemaking is happening on that, and I think there's potential for a lot of change right now. Hearing a lot of concern about that, and fair, fair. I get that. And I think there are some potential solutions coming through rulemaking that would say, well, I don't want to get ahead of the committee. But one of the things that I'm hoping for is that we're able to say, there's a number of solutions, right? Like it could be like, maybe we just exempt any single home from the role of the role. That would be great. Anyway, I don't want to suggest any further, but I think there's those kinds of things that could come out of the rulemaking process. And we'll get to see that, and if we don't like it, we can say, this doesn't work.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And can you remind the committee when that will be? Will, Alan, when will that come out?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The rule making. Well, so rule

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: making is kind of ongoing. Like, there was just one thing that came

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: out It was formally extended, I think.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Oh, so let's back up. So what, maybe this is a good time now to jump to 03:25. Because what we were hearing was that from everybody involved was that there was more time needed, that it was just not sufficient. So all of the dates, so there's a process for the tier one places. We extended the interim exemptions to 2030 to ensure that if projects are moving forward and some place wants to be tier 1A or 1B, that their projects that are moving forward under the interim exemptions would not be interrupted if they somehow went to tier 1A. So there's intentionally some overlap time between when a town might become tier 1A and with the interim exemptions to ensure continuity of projects. So that's one thing. All I would say, so we've pushed back basically every major deadline, every implementation deadline in Act 181. And some of those were just us building out, so knowing how the process would step forward, what needs to happen to lead to a certain implementation deadline, we played all that out. So that's how we arrived at some of those dates. And there was one negotiation within committees, that's no secret. And we had a five-zero-zero vote out of committee on this bill, which was great. Part of that was getting to implementation of the road rule at two thousand and thirty.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Oh, we've got a lot of questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Debbie and then Tom. I just, I actually have a

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: lot of questions, but, so when it comes to Act two fifty, like what's the backlog for having your permit, if you want to call it that, processed?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: I think there would be other people who could answer that.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: So, I mean, you're talking about environment and all that, but when I look at the windmills in Lowell and the impact they've had on the environment, which wasn't pretty. I mean, I guess they have to shut down now at certain times of the day because of the bats or whatever. And also there's been a lot, I would say, at least in St. Johnsbury, we had Ever North redo a artery, dollars 9,000,000, and I think they got nine apartments out of it. And they applied to this town not to pay property tax for ten years. So then that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: gonna

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: put more on me as a tax payer because the town's gonna need their money. Is it gonna be, or is it just up to the town, like can these people that are gonna build in rural areas? Is there gonna be any subsidizing them to They're gonna have to put in a well, a septic system, maybe a mound system if it doesn't meet the PERC requirements. So is there gonna be any subsidizing for them? And is it just up to the town as far as paying taxes for X amount of time?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: So that's a great question. Of, correct me if I'm wrong, I think it's fair to say that none of Act two fifty F-twenty one Board three twenty five has any directives to towns in terms of tax incentives that they might be offering. And there's no appropriations in 03/25 that would go directly to developers. However, have you all heard about that eight zero two Homes program?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh yeah.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yes, okay. So we did have an appropriation, we had two appropriations in 03/25. So one is to appropriate some money for the eight zero two Homes program to develop some more designs, have a greater diversity of styles and meet different needs. And then the second appropriation actually came from the rural caucus because there was a lot of interest in, especially for tier three areas, that there be more outreach or engagement with rural folks. I think that's fair. And so there's an appropriation there of $100,000 to do that. Now they had hoped for a mailer and a mailer would actually be probably much more than that. This is just to, in a way, it's a placeholder. There was an amount that was recommended to us and wanting to honor that. Like, yes, we want engagement. We want feedback. And that might take some money to do. I realize that's not totally towards your question, but the answer is otherwise no. There's more I could say about 03/25 unless Go ahead. So the filter, I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: would

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: say the goal of 03/25 was to give people the additional time that everybody agreed they needed to move forward and to make tweaks to the rollout to ensure that it went smoothly. So for example, currently, the way that tier one places the law was being interpreted was that you had a tier 1A area, that that place, that municipality, you would have to take over all the Act two fifty permits that already existed in that area. And that was feeling wholly daunting to municipalities. They were like, we don't want to buy for tier one A if it means that we have to do that. And so we made it clear that they do not have to do that. If those properties come up for what would be an amendment, that becomes a municipal permit at that point. Their tier 1A, they'll have their own process. And so if a change needs to be made, it'll effectively be a municipal permit. And it doesn't just sit on top of the Act two fifty permit, it replaces the Act two fifty permit. So then they're just enforcing their own permits moving forward. So that was one of the kinds of tweaks. There's many tweaks like that. Guess I would call it the smoothness of the rollout. There's a lot in this bill about the regional planning commissions and how their processes work. So there was a request that So through the regional planning process, they come up with a future land use map. And it's kind of building blocks, right? So the municipalities have their own local zoning. And then work together with the regional planning commissions to come up with a sort of stitched together map. And then those maps have four categories that would be eligible for either tier 1A or tier 1B. Gosh, I'm not gonna be able to name them all. It's like village centers, downtown centers, village areas, and it's just true when you meet. Then, oh no wait, plant growth areas. So, one of the requests we had was once these future land use maps are in place, then it is up to the town to opt in to tier 1B. And they wanted to be able to do that whenever they were ready. And that makes sense. And that could happen at a random Wednesday night select board meeting. There's not necessarily going to be aligned with whatever the regional planning commission is doing their process. So, we wanted to make it clear that towns could opt into tier 1B anytime. And that was otherwise not the case or not clear.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Could you just refresh me on what's necessary to qualify as tier one B?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: That is a great question. I feel like I should defer. I can take a stab, because I think I know. Unless you want to go. I do

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: not want to go. Okay, you start.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Okay, okay. So it requires that, I believe it's a place that has So it has to be mapped as one of these four categories. And then I think it also has to, well, it's not clear to me. There's parts that are not clear to me. One part is in order to get to be one of those areas, those definitions are in statute, we could actually just look at where it is in statute. I could actually probably pull it up in two minutes, if that's useful. Yeah, we have it right there. It's like the elements of a future land use plan. Because the thing that's coming to mind to me is that it might have to have access to water or sewer or sufficient soils.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, that's Water, sewer, or sufficient soils. Or sufficient means you can handle the septic.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But you still have to have water? You have to have water

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: in Not necessarily.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. One or the other. Yeah. Oh, okay. You can have wells.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, think, because you were talking about the way that it was written, it was this.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah, yeah, no, that's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: good. Or this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Ashley. This has been really helpful. Does S three twenty twenty five? Yep. Okay. Does it still have the requirements that Act 181 had for municipalities to enforce existing Act two fifty permits within tier one A? Did you guys address that at all?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. We

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: just did. Yes. Okay. Yes.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: We took that. We've made it so that the enforcement of any Act two fifty permits stays with the land use review board until they come up for amendment. And then it would be the municipality's own process to hear that amendment, and then it becomes their permit. So they're only ever enforcing their own permits. And so we anticipate that that would probably transition them organically over time, maybe one or two a year at most. So it would be a lot less of a load on the municipalities.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tom, did you have a

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: question from Debbie? One is just for my clarity. If a municipality, for whatever reason, does not opt in to tier one b. Yes. If they change their mind ten years from now, do they still have a process to consider that?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: We discussed that briefly, but I don't know that we came to any conclusions about, like, the rescinding of a tier one b.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. No. He says, Duane, can they opt in ten years from

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Oh, yes. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry. Just good question. Yes, yes, that is absolutely And I might add, so right now there are priority housing projects, which I'm sure you're very And familiar so we've extended, this extends the priority housing projects just in general, but it also has a part here that says that if there is a town that is eligible for tier 1B, but they don't opt in, that priority housing projects can still be built there, and that there's no expiration date on that. That goes on in perpetuity. Because again, we're in housing crisis, we need more housing.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Okay. Just a comment because the last I heard from Alex Weinheimer, they were at public hearings on two or three Yes. With biomass in late May or early June. Oh, okay. The last kinda, like, news email Okay.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: I can be you. I agree with it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sorry. Whatever. Just okay.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Is the is the wildlife corridors are are they going to just be refined similarly to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the road rule while making everything else?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: That is my understanding is that they are that they are gonna actually continue to, well, the total dams implicated in tier three is going to continue to shrink. I think that's gonna be mostly the habitat corridors. But you should hear from Alex and hanging about that. But just to put it in a bigger context, I'm anticipating that tier one areas might be on the scale of two to 3% of the state. And we heard testimony from Alex Weinhagen in our committee that right now, the land in the current draft is somewhere between 5% to 8%. And he anticipates having that. So that we, I mean, my goal would be for there to be balance there, that it also ends up being something like 2% to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: 3% of the state.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I have a final question, but if

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: somebody else has got it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, go ahead. Okay. Is

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: there discussion, it may not be this Bill, but is there discussion about streamlining the process? Because the the act of the application and everything included is still very much the same, and it's still cost prohibitive for a lot of people. In the interest of economic justice, if anything else, is there discussion in making the process, the application, the ancillary costs? So, you know, the application costs one thing, but this study and that study and this engineering got all adds up very quickly.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yes. Well, let me back up. I very much appreciate that concern. This film does not affect that. That's something that I have interest in and I think maybe some future work, but that is not here. Okay. Though, I will say, again, this is one of the concerns that came up in the process around tier three, was that this was a request that we got, again, from multiple stakeholders. There was interest in the ability of the land use review board in the tier three areas to not necessarily apply all of Act two fifty. So that they wanted to be able to just apply the portions of Act two fifty that they felt were relevant. So for example, if you're building like, I'm making this up as an example, this might not be the right one, but if you're building a single family home, do you need a traffic study? Probably not. Do you need an impact on school study? Probably not. There's probably types of construction and it could be what the project is. It could be based on whether we're talking about headwaters or habitat corridor. Like what is the concern? I think it's reasonable to try to align, this is why this is a tier three area and connect that with these are the parts of Act two fifty that we feel apply. So we're giving them authority to come up with trying to match that, if that makes sense, that they do not need to apply all of So Act two

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: three twenty five grants the LERB authority to alter the nature of its Act two fifty review to match the issue. Yes. It does give authority.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yes, it does give that authority. And it could be on a, that could look a number of different ways. It could be on a project by project basis. It could be on a, you know, if it's this type of project, here's what to expect. We have yet to see how that could work. Ashley?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Let me just say really quickly, thank you for the work your committee did. I've been very vocal against Act 181

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: because of

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: the concern that I have in the housing realm, but also how it affects Will Vermont. So I do want to say thank you and really appreciate that you're working towards balance. We really, in Act 181, we aligned a lot of our extensions, Act two fifty extensions, or exemptions, excuse me, to the Homes Act. And I'm hearing this bill has a lot of extensions Yes. Of those For my brain, are there any exemptions that you did not extend?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: No, I think they are all extended in, if we would call them interim extensions, they all got extended to 2030, January. All of them in? Great, thank you. There's other deadlines that are not 2030, but

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: it's Oh, 02:30.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yeah, but I can say that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And could you go on and talk about non, unless you, if you're done with Act 181, what else is in 03/25? Is there anything, studies, appeals?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Oh, yes. Thank you. You're so good. Okay, so there is a report due back here, which is on discretionary review of housing. This language did come largely from DHCD themselves. I don't want to put words in their mouths. They were like, If you must, then here's some language. And I think it's worth it. So, I'm going back to the eight zero two Homes program. The administration would like to just go statewide with that program. I think our committee was not ready to but do we see value in the eight zero two Homes program. So part of what this report is asking for is thinking about eight zero two Homes is one method of eliminating a kind of municipal appeal. Are there other ways to eliminate municipal appeals? Or I guess I would say, have the appeals front loaded in the planning process.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would love

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: to know what those options are. And then it does also specifically ask for a report on the eight zero two Homes pilot program and recommendations, oh, and also recommendations for how we could potentially be improving the efficiency of appeals for municipal zoning permits for housing. Let

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: me clarify one thing or ask you to clarify one thing. So I understand exactly what you're saying about eight zero two homes. And in fact, in our rural housing finance bill that we passed, we passed a number of the administration's proposal, but not the proposal that they go statewide for eight zero two homes because we felt it wasn't ready yet. But is there there's a lot of discussion all over the place of as of right housing. In other words, how do you do what you just said, push up to the planning level issues so that you get to the point where a developer can walk in the door and get a building permit, Apart from eight zero two Homes, I mean, zero two Homes is one possible approach. And, you know, let's build homes is kind of nosing around this, everybody's talking about it. Do you view this as a right housing as an appropriate subject to be discussed in that report? Or is it kind of limited to eight zero two Homes?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Oh, no, it's definitely not limited to eight zero two Homes. I guess I reference that as an example. The kind of thing that we are interested in. But in general, the intent is to, how do we move the appeals further upstream? Right. That

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is, in my opinion, a very complicated effort, and one that's really worth pursuing. Who is in charge of this report? Who is supposed to So do right now it's DHCD. DHCD, okay. Would you say DHCD, that it came from them? I thought you said BHCD. Oh, BHCD. Yeah.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: I'm sorry. Yes. The Department of Housing and Community Development.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And you said that was just about zero two though?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: No, not all

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of it adds up right now, it appeals. But

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: it also includes, it carves out, like, also, we want to report on the eight zero two Homes pilot. We want to how it goes, what they learned from it. Does that answer your question?

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: It does.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Debbie?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I mean, what's the fear of just throwing all this out and not have ACT 181 or even ACT two fifty? What's the big fear?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Of not having, say, ACT two fifty?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, in

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: not just not having any of these tiers. I mean, the fastest way that I know to put housing in a spot is using manufactured homes. That would be the fastest.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you for raising that. I wanted to flag-

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: But we're in a crisis. Suspend all of this for-

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Well, I guess I would say it's probably not appropriate to suspend all of this everywhere. But this is one of the reasons why Act 181 is actually being really successful right now in turning around our housing starts. I actually have a graph downstairs, which I'm wishing I had brought up here with me, I'm happy to share, that if you average the housing permits over the last basically ten years and the number of housing permits that have started since Act 21 went into place, it's 39% higher in Vermont, which is, I think, a fabulous testament to the effect that this has had. Because I think you're right that it is appropriate to release some of these requirements in places that are already asking those questions. And we'd hope that municipalities continue to work towards that so that we can grant more of those kinds of exemptions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's see, do we we have a little bit of time, eleven, fifteen, yes. Perhaps fifteen minutes is a walk through,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I can, I have to leave soon?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You have to leave soon, okay. So I think, then why don't I leave it, what other questions do people have of probably what's going to be standard or Watson? I'll leave that.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What are you needed?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: What room number are said it's downstairs. Oh, yes. Do want me to go? Can go grab this one. Oh, I'm in Room 8 usually. It's natural resource of energy.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Other questions?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I do want to flag,

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: would say, in priority housing projects that are part of the interim exemptions, I think there's a dialogue that's worth having around the role of manufactured housing in priority housing projects.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We've

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: passed an act which is coming, I guess it might come to you, the mobile homes. I'm not sure, it's either you or Senator Clarksons, I'm not sure of this committee, but we passed a rather extensive piece on mobile homes, and manufactured housing, and in the rural, you should just know, in our rural finance, which is, we'll probably go to Senator Clarksons, but I bet you're going to want to weigh in What a it does is, it's in that bill that we took and refined the requirement that towns confront their housing targets and tell us if they couldn't make them, why not? That's one thing. And the other was expanding the treasurer's 10% for Vermont Oh, yes. To 12 and a half percent for Vermont without changing the name, and also an accelerator program to allow aggregation of small projects, I got you, just a minute, aggregation of small projects for the used manufactured manufactured homes or off-site modular homes into larger orders, which then could possibly benefit the industry, the off-site modular industry, and it has the treasure backstopping those orders with guarantees, And so that's all there. The and so you're sent you just said there's a report in the report, or you think that the PHPs PHPs, we should discuss manufactured housing, is there anything about that in the bill? No, there's nothing

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: about that. We really did not take that. So that was something that came to me sort of after the time for our discussion sort of passed.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I I don't don't know

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: if there's anything else we're Joe,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you had a question. I just had a

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: question behind the thought process behind the exemption of H3. Yeah. For the exemption is Oh, yeah. Nodding applying to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yep.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Places that are over corridors or floodplain.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yep.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: What's the reasoning behind saying just because somebody else had built in the floodplain, we should call that priority housing areas?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: So because this is a priority housing area.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Another area we should stay

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: away from.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: This is I mean, that's a good point. This is language that exists in other parts of the

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: The problem with it is there as well.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yes, fair enough. So just to back up, we included it here just to be consistent. But your point is well taken that just because somebody's already built here, does that make it okay? And I think we're just trying to be as recognizing that there are places that are already impacted. So, I mean, fair point.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think it's a

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: terrible policy, just personally. Just so you're aware. I mean, it just goes back to me like that, you know, like just did your friend jump off the bridge, right?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: I'll try to it,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: let me just be a little more specific. It starts by saying this exemption does not apply in areas that are river quarters and floodplains, except as areas as suitable

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: infill

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: as defined in the Jurong Hazard and River Court rules. So ANR has been going through that process, and so it is applied in the other exemptions as well, but it starts by saying that default is that they are not the areas that these exempt housing units should be built, unless per the rules they have been defined as suitable for infill.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But they're also in the floodplain still, correct? Correct.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: There may be ways to do it.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: So you're saying that rule says that we have areas of floodplain that are fine to build in?

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Well, I think that's still a process? No, that rule accepts some the

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: It's just one

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: of those odd things where you're like, there's other houses there. Let's keep building in floodplains.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any questions? Hey. Thanks a lot.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Really appreciate it. Yes. Absolutely.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Very helpful to us. Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Chair Bill Neville?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hello. 25.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Interested, I'm happy to grab one of the graphs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Three Senator if Watson? We're on everyone.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Oh, sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Everyone, what? They are here? Can keep rolling.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Yeah, Matt's here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. We are going to proceed with testimony since our next witness is here. Matt, you want to

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: If come you don't mind a little early.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I don't know. Have you been before us? I don't think you have. It's not under this configuration. My name is Matt Cota.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: I'm with the firm Meadow Hill. We're a nonprofit management advocacy organization. I'm here today on behalf of four specific clients. Well, why don't we introduce ourselves to you?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Go ahead. I'm Deborah Debbie Dolgin, I represent St. John's Creek, Concord and Coorsy.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm Tom Charlton, I'm just a guy. 2 Parsons, Groton, tops on Vancouver.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Leonora Dodge, Essex Town, City Of Essex Junction.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: Marc Mihaly at Caledonia, Plainfield and Marshfield.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Emilie Krasnow, South Burlington.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Mary E. Howard, Rutland City District 6. Yeah, that's 0. Chittenden 20, Colchester.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: Thank you, appreciate that. So specifically, why I'm here today is on behalf of four organizations that I serve as a managing director for, includes the Vermont Transportation Energy Network, which is a division of the Vermont Retail Grocers Association. Those are the convenience stores and gasoline stations that we rely on to fuel up. It includes the heating and cooling contractors of Vermont, which are the heating technicians that install the air source heat pumps, boilers, and furnaces that we all need to stay warm or cool. It includes the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, which includes the retail heating oil and propane companies in Vermont. Includes the Vermont Vehicle and Automobile Distributors Association, which are the newly used car dealers and truck dealers throughout Vermont. Matt, just a quick question. Does the heating cooling technicians include people who do, what is it called, air exchangers, they install air exchangers, those sort of active HVAC systems? Yes, that's correct. So the heating cooling contractors of Vermont trains over a thousand heating technicians a year. Plumbers, electricians all have to have licenses and all have to have continuing education. Gas and oil techs all have to have a certificate of fitness issued by the Division of Fire Safety, and we provide the necessary training for them to keep those licenses and keep working. Okay, go ahead, thank you. So as you can imagine, these are competitive businesses that belong to a trade association. They don't agree with each other, and of the four that I manage, they definitely don't agree on much. However, they do agree on this policy, is they ask me to ask you not to pass it into law. Think about You're referring to extreme heat. Right. Our concern, of course, is most of these jobs, of which there are over a thousand of these companies, or 10,000 employees working for Monarchs, and most of these jobs are solo. If you think about someone who you might call because your compressor for your heat pump is not working at night and has to go outside and replace it or fix the line sets. They're not working as a team, they're individuals. We deliver to 75% of the buildings in Vermont, either heating oil, propane, or kerosene. These are individuals in trucks that get out of their truck, that spend about twenty minutes outside your home at a fill pipe, filling it with fuel when it's dark and when it's cold. That's part of the job. They do over 400,000 of these deliveries every year. Most of these occur when the temperature is above 30 degrees Fahrenheit. That's the job. They've been doing it for one hundred years. And I think it was instructive under earlier testimony, we've had over six years just six complaints about workers in the cold. We do over 400,000 deliveries a year in the cold, standing outside, listening to a whistle for your tank to be full so that you have the fuel that 75% of Vermonters need for heat, for hot water, and to cook. We'd like to continue doing that without further regulations other than the very robust regulations that exist under boat shift. Questions?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Go to the point, like it, thank you.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: Thanks. Yeah. It's his first day. Joe? Is there anything it is. Believe me. Is there a anything in particular about the regulation? As you've probably seen, there are various iterations of this bill that have come here. Is there anything in particular that the regulation that I mean, I assume most of the trucks are heated. I mean and many of them are cooled. What what is it about the regulation that is difficult? Well, so the fifteen minute rule, fifteen minute tends to be very minimal time that you'd be standing outside your truck in sub zero temperatures, and so all of them would not be under this exemption. In addition, if you're fixing a line set for a heat pump or you're entering a cold basement to thaw pipes so that home doesn't sustain tens of thousands of dollars worth of water damage because there is no heat, That would be below 30 degrees Fahrenheit. The idea that we have over 10,000 employees that work solo that would have to have a flat bulb thermostat at $40 a piece, you might think, well, it's a big deal. We're talking over close to a million dollars worth of thermostats. I can understand if I sell wet bulb thermostats that might be of extreme value to me to have this law passed, but for everyone who has to buy one, it is an unnecessary expense. You deliver heating oil and propane, you expect to get up at two in the morning and deliver it to the house in sub zero temperatures. That's the job. And if you're not, as an employer, adequately equipping your employees to handle that, well then there's a complaint process. So far in the last six years, zero from the heating oil industry or propane industry, and only six total. Oh, okay. Was gonna ask They're not from our industries, as I understand. Okay.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: That's helpful.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: No complaints from heating, cooling or fuel dealers. Not that I'm aware of. There's only six total. Six years, even though we deliver, get out of the truck, stand in the cold, below 30 degrees, 400,000 times a year. Yes.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Hi, sorry, but I was outside the door when you began. Do all of your employees, when they're delivering fuel, stand at the wellhead to watch the fuel be delivered, or do they hook it up

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: and then go sit in the truck and then come down? I'm just wondering.

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: So, as a fuel pipe, whether it's propane or kerosene or heating oil? No, they are required.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Sort of like when you fill up your car with

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: gas, you're supposed to stay in

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: the air. When you turn on the nozzle, you hear a whistle. That whistle is the air coming out of the tank during that second pipe. And as soon as that whistle stops whistling, you know that there's no air escaping, so you know the tank is full. And that's when you have to manually turn it off. That's how we deliver heating oil propane for a hundred years. How

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: long have you yourself been in this business?

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: So I'm a lobbyist. I manage trade associations, auto dealers, fuel dealers, heating contractors, gasoline marketers.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: So how long have you been in that business?

[Matt Cota (Meadow Hill; representing VT Transportation Energy Network, Heating & Cooling Contractors of VT, VT Fuel Dealers Association, and VT Vehicle & Automobile Distributors Association)]: I've been lobbying here for twenty two, I've been in this building for twenty two years, two is a reporter, twenty is a lobbyist. So you were a reporter before you became a lobbyist? Thanks. Sure. Any other questions of Matt? Hey, thanks a lot. Thank you.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Thank you. And it's always safe to have folks come in from, that spend a lot of time in other committees, but then we get to hear the process. Is Curtis here? He's online.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: He's online, great. Curtis, can you hear us? And would you like to join us? We just see your name.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: It says connecting to audience.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We need elevator music. Is that the lead music? Oh, yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I think it is.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's the lead song? Girl.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: I mean, I'm not I have a Nintendo Switch. Just the new kid thing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. We'll have to discuss it. Yeah. What? My nine year old has to do with it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. Right. I'm everyone's child.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: people say and I don't mind. This is live.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Perhaps it's still He's having trouble. What? Do

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you want to disconnect him so that maybe he'll

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Okay,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Maybe what we'll do, while we're waiting for Curtis, is Richard here?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Not yet.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Not yet. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, well then, we'll just sit tight for a little bit.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we've got it right there. Right?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Curtis, can you hear us? We see your name, we don't see your picture, and we haven't heard anything from you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And we're not muted, right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're not muted, no. If he can hear us, he's not able to signal that he can hear us. Say nothing.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: What is your thought, Miriam?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wanna text him and see if Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Did anybody here catch the one yet? You've been up last Sunday. I did. You were there? Why? Oh, yeah. You were there as I laughed. As you laughed. I just told them a while, and you looked so Oh, we see that you're muted. Curtis, do you want to speak up so we can hear you? Unmute yourself.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Can you hear me now?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Was yay. Alright. But

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we can't see you, Curtis. Is your camera off for a reason, or are you just being shy?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Just a little bit of glare here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think I get a

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: turn there.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Hey. We see you, Yeah. If we start freezing up, you can always turn your camera off.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Alright. I think I can hear you guys and I can see you. So just let me know when I'm clear.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Curtis, you're on. Why don't you introduce yourself? You've been here before. You know the committee, but introduce yourself. I don't know. Have you heard any of the previous testimony?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: I have not.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll summarize it in a sentence. OSHA testified well, it's more than one sentence. OSHA testified that it does regulate in this area that of the 1,700 complaints they've received in the last, since 2020, 26 of them, 2020 some of them were for extreme temperatures, and those resulted in investigations that led to, I think, three situations where there were, you know, any any action was taken. And, you know, various associations have testified that they don't think we should go beyond what does. But I did. We very much wanted to hear from you.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Well, I appreciate that. Good morning, mister chair and members of the committee. My name is Curtis Clough, president of Teamsters Local five nine seven. Wouldn't surprise me to learn that we represented a fair share of those complaints that were made about extreme temperatures particularly as it relates to cold. You know, I'd like to thank you guys for the today. I think it's an important worker safety issue. Yesterday, as I'm sure many of you are aware, it was a hundred and fifteenth anniversary of the triangle shirtwaist factory fire, which is widely credited as being one of the early driving forces behind workplaces. Employer associations said that the things that were put into place after that incident were not necessary either. You know, this bill has made an opportunity to make an input forward in worker safety. You know, we are lucky enough to live in a state that experiences the full range of seasons. This leads to higher risk of worker injury due to flooding temperatures, including risk from being exposed to high temperatures without acclimatization as well as extended periods of cold temperatures, which lead to a whole range of temperature related injuries. According to recent analysis published in 2025 and available on the National Institute of Health website, The risk injury increases linearly with the increase in temperature for workers in high hazard industries. This is across The United States, including in the Northeast. The risk was increased by twenty two percent in states that lacked occupational heat rules, and the conclusion was that heat exposure increased the overall risk of work injury. Elevated temperatures have been shown to impair hand eye coordination, lead to muscular fatigue, impair memory and judgment, which can also lead to increases in other types of workplace injuries. Other studies, such as one performed by the UCLA, have consistently shown higher risks of injury on days that have elevated heat index, contributing to more time away from work to recover from injuries. These injuries can have a lasting impact on the lives of workers who suffer them. Furthermore, this impacts workers in other ways because they risk losing their employment and their ability to provide for their families. Most of these studies focused on days of 80 degrees or higher, when they were studying the heat index. Vermont workers are particularly at risk during periods of extremely high heat index because we simply don't exist in a world where we have those consistently high temperatures. When the temperature skyrockets in late spring, as it has for the last several years, usually May, workers

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: are

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: not acclimatized to the heat. This leads to a high impact on Vermont workers. Workers who who spend most or all of their workday outside of climate controlled buildings are at higher risk. Injuries from cold temperatures are also a risk in the state of Vermont there because there's no standard that many employers are required to live up to. In our experience with representing workers in the warehouse industry, it's just lack of standards that leads to a moral hazard that many employers are unable to resist. When workplaces fall below 32 degrees, vital safety equipment begins to fail in facilities which are not appropriately heated. Workers have encountered facilities that process hazardous materials with frozen eye wash stations, frozen emergency showers, not mentioned bathrooms without functioning sink and water fountains. This could be prevented with basic requirements to heat all facilities to a reasonable temperature to keep vital equipment from freezing to keep employees safe. According to the GAO, older workers are working more hours than they ever have in recent years and are you know, the studies show that they're more susceptible to injuries related, particularly to high heat. We have even seen peaks in recent years of workers working forty four hours a week. As you can imagine, working forty four hours a week, whether it's outside in high temperatures or low temperatures, does lead to a range of unsafe situations. Studies have shown a real positive effect in states that have laws on the books to prevent temperature related injuries. The real question that we should be asking is, given that the research has shown these rules have shown a reduction in harm where they've been implemented, can we really afford to wait any longer to protect workers in the state? Our experience with reporting things that are unsafe due to temperature has been that VOCA will do an investigation, but they won't implement any kind of a remedy unless vital safety equipment has been impaired, like Iowa stations, like drinking water. So in situations where part of the building is heated, employees are still can work in any temperature and along a whole range of temperatures without that being something that VOCA either I I don't know if they can, but they certainly won't step in and tell an employer they have to turn the heat on. Our experience has been they'll tell the employer they can't let safety equipment free. That's what I have to add to that and look forward to answering any questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions? Tom? No. I'm sorry. You did.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, I'm sorry, Joe. Go ahead.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm just curious if that

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: the situation you referenced, regarding, frozen pipes of, like, eye wash stations and stuff like that, which wouldn't be a clear violation, I would imagine, have been remedied in that situation.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: As in did OSHA come in and demand a remedy, or did they eventually get repaired?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'm just curious if that that is an ongoing problem or if Voci came in and said that that needs to be fixed and it was fixed. Just curious.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: It's an ongoing problem. They will freeze. You know, we they the employer will fix them, and then they will freeze a couple days later. Sometimes they'll freeze on a day to day basis, and they won't fix them until the cold weather subsides so that it gets warm enough so that frequently, it's because facilities will have doors open or they will just have no insulation. And, like, the eye wash stations are installed on an outer perimeter wall instead of in a, like, more central location where the heat gets to, and the outsides you know, the the outer areas of the building aren't heated, Or there's a door open, and they're not required to close them, so they'll freeze a dozen, 15 times in a

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: year. And

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: this location is in Vermont?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Is it the responsibility of the owner or the employees to shut the doors?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: The employees would like a door shut. The the owner in this case, we're talking about a particular UPS facility. The owner feels like the production flow goes faster with the door open, and it would cost them a few thousand dollars to install a barrier that would allow them to keep the door shut that they have open.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. We've heard testimony, as I'm sure you can imagine, that there's a whole slew of occupations where people are outside, inside, spend most of their time outside and or work alone, and that installing wet bulbs in every location or trying to trying to figure out a way to regulate such activities are very is very difficult. Any thoughts?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Well, I mean, certainly, I can understand that it would be difficult. I think a better question is, is the safety gain to the employees something that is desirable? I I imagine that it would be difficult in certain situations to install wet bulb thermometers in particular locations, but I don't know that that necessarily means that it's not wouldn't have a good impact on safety.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions of Curtis?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: With regard to UPS, is this an ongoing problem in other states? Or with regard to any kind of large warehouse with a lot of trucks coming and going, is this a problem that's larger than this one location?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: I would say that it's an UPS is the industry company that we're most familiar with. I would say it's not completely uncommon in warehouse locations that we've seen. You know, there are there's one particular location where they don't even have a they're literally just a parking lot. So there's nowhere you know, if if their truck doesn't work, there's nowhere other than their personal vehicles they can go, you know, as far as keeping warm. It seems to be pretty common in the warehouse industry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But that would be a yes, that it's not just UPS, it's the warehouse it's similar kinds of facilities, warehouses, etcetera.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Yeah. I would say it's a yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Does the union have a grievance? Does the union have a process that's internal to the union to deal with claims by employees that they're not being appropriately addressed, you know, that complaints aren't being addressed. Is there any or are there provisions in contracts if it's the extent to which it's a unionized industry?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: So there definitely are provisions negotiated into certain contracts related to temperature and heat. But generally speaking, I mean, a a remedy in law is going to protect workers who are not in a unionized industry as well. So, you know, that's the utility we think of OSHA being able to regulate these is that it will apply to just one small band of workers.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any further questions of Curtis? Yes. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, no. No. No. Sorry. I was having a light bulb moment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You answered a light bulb moment. It's my finger. Any other questions of Curtis? Curtis, thanks for finally making the effort to get in and talk to us. Alright. Take care. Bye. It's been a few minutes, so we'll stay live. You wanna just turn off our

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Okay, thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are we back on totally on? Yes. Everybody, we were just off live, well, we were on live, but off of audio just because we were waiting for a witness, and the witness that has arrived, the distinguished executive vice president, director of safety training and member services for AJC, the Associated General Contractors. And if you're wondering where you are, this is the committee on general and housing. It's still March 26. So, Richard, take it away.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Thank you very much. Again, my name is Richard Wabi, and I am the Executive Director of the Associated General Contractors. I also oversee the Vermont Independent Electrical Contractor, a trucking and driving wing of AGC as well, and the Vermont Ready Mix Association, as well as the Vermont Timber Frame Association. So we have quite a valley within that. What, my concern or reason for being here is your, reviewing the Extreme Temperature Working Protection Act. Within that context, OSHA, federal OSHA, has for the last five years been trying to pass and put in place a similar one, which I believe will probably be in place in the next six to twelve months. It is up for review right now, and we have made public comment on it. So what I am telling you is probably similar to what the feds are looking at right now and has been the holdup with this, is everybody seems to keen on construction or a couple little ancillary industries that may be affected or may have problems with it. We've been lucky enough over the last two years because we started on this journey in Vermont about two years ago. We've been lucky enough to partner and work with the Vermont Ski Area Association in developing policies and plans for our two industries and how we can move forward within this and how we can protect the workers and employees in the field. When we look at the industries in Vermont that would be most affected by a Temperature Worker Protection Act, construction, of course, is in it, and I've got a contractor with me today, Derek Fennoff. Agriculture and forestry, which nobody even thinks about in this mix, they would be directly affected out in the field, manufacturing and warehousing within those large areas, restaurants, particularly kitchen areas. Last year, we had to respond to three different OSHA inspections within kitchen areas and help them develop plans and put in place. Employers are very, I won't say enthusiastic, but very open to how they can protect their employees on their own versus being regulated. I find employers tend to push back when you tell them they got to do something, but if they turn around and say, we got to do something, we change stuff all over the place, and we make it work for those people that are working for us. I mentioned manufacturing and warehousing, I'll also mention transportation and delivery. Think about the number of UPS, FedEx, and delivery trucks out there that are not outfitted with air conditioning. They do have heaters. Do not have air conditioning in those. And we didn't even hit on the outdoor recreation, the summer camps, the parks, the things like that, that are all exposed to these extreme temperatures as well. Utilities, energy, the municipal and public works arena, and then the schools and colleges that run throughout the summertime. I know Norwich for one has no air conditioning in their facilities, even the president's office doesn't have air conditioning. So healthcare, so anyway, that is my piece. I believe the bill itself will affect nearly every Vermont employer across our fair state and have an adverse effect. I also included within my handout with which I emailed to Miriam this morning, the what we used as a contractor compliance guide without you asking. We already presently use it. What they have to have in place, as a matter of fact, why I say we ran out of here and why I had a contractor sitting with me is this morning, we're doing a multi part training of extreme temperatures this morning, silica this morning, and then there was something else and I forget. But but we're presently already doing that without being told in the contractors. We just left 25 contractors down at the office that are going through this presently, and they are covering everything from wet bulb globe thermometers to the extreme written plans and the type of training we have to have for employees. The last thing I probably didn't include, and I've only got one copy in front of me, but I'll throw it on the table and you're welcome to fight over it, is we do have outline and a yeah, I'll just call it an outline of what what and how we put together an extreme temperature safety plan today without being told to do so across our group. We represent two twenty, two thirty contractors across the state, which makes up somewhere around 12,000 of the 17,000 employees that are employed in construction right now. I will stop and leave it open for questions, or you can question Derek if you would like as a contractor.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How's that?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: And I

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: didn't I haven't even upset anybody.

[Senator Ann Watson (Washington District)]: Not yet.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Working on it.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Yeah. I will. Derek said, do I really wanna go with you, or are you gonna get thrown out today? Questions

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: by members of the committee of the list?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Betty? I just have a comment.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Go ahead. Thank you.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm I'm when I look at this list, I'm like, isn't this what we teach in school is to check the weather, and then they use their little cutouts? Like, I'm gonna bring a rain jacket today, and I'm gonna like, I I just feel

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: like we're being you know, it's I think we'll have some we'll have time for committee discussion. I'm just wondering whether they're

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: So we present an answer to that kind of an answer to that. We no. No. You're you're good. We at the start of most days, we have a five or ten minute safety talk. Within that safety talk, we will identify particularly in hot weather and I know in cold weather, we'll identify within these arenas where there's a shade tent, where there's a warming hut, we'll identify the use and the ability to have water on that we supply anyway. It's not a big deal. And and we'll identify those breaks and whatnot that you can look forward to. We have and I know I Molly, I sorry. I keep sucking you into this, but we have, as well as the ski areas have worked on training leadership personnel in being able to identify both heat and cold trauma that occurs out in the field. That we as normal, you and I probably wouldn't even notice, right? But you see it. And as leadership, you have to be able to identify it. So, yes, when you say, should we be and I know you didn't say that, but we don't need to post the little raincoats because we're telling them ahead of time they should have brought that. Next question. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You know what? We just to let people know, we have an amendment to a proposed amendment, Tom Stevens has proposed an amendment to, and we're trying to see if we can hear it before lunch, otherwise we just have to hear it, We'd have to break from the floor to hear it. But I don't know if we'll be able to just letting the committee know. But for now, are there any other questions on the witness? Yes. Go ahead.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. I think one of the points you brought up of how many industries this really actually affects, which is pretty broad, pretty broad. But to make the point, I think one of the reasons that the construction industry is brought up, and if you'd like to speak to it, feel free. Just the nature of juggling job sites that somebody wasn't planning on going to today. This job fell through. Now you've got half a day over here. And the larger an outfit gets, we can be talking about 30 different places that we're sending people maybe depending on how the day goes. And it that is a statistical nightmare. Well,

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: it's a logistical nightmare and Derek's probably a good one to speak to, but within that context, no one job site is different from the last one and we provide the same assurance of safety and protection on every one of the job sites. And I know Derek had was working last summer with a, road crew that part of the crew was moving from, say, crack filling to pulp repair, I'm gonna say it was in Cabot, but it could be incorrect, but within that crew, it's not only the fact that you're moving people from Danville to Cabot, but then you're moving within that Cabot, the steam, you're moving them to three different sites. So within those sites, we make plans to have the necessary tools. I call them tools, but the the the shading kits, the water, the things right within those particular sites. We also make sure because of our ability to track folks now, especially technically, we're gonna make sure that they're updated as to where this stuff exists and how to access it immediately. They also reap report in to either a super or foreman. I I was just

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: kinda like that's for me why I kinda living in that realm. That's kinda why I just think of our small flooring industry and the number of contractors we work amongst their job sites. And just I mean, just for our relatively small crew, it's

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: Well, we took lot of

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: different job sites going on.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: I'm gonna speak for other people, and I shouldn't. But we took what Molly does in this area where they have warming huts at the base or the top of each one of these lifts, right, or areas and we made it portable within the construction industry because we needed that type of thing in the other season, right? And that's what we were looking at. So that's my 2¢.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do any other questions of this witness? I know we're going to have committee discussion on whether and how to proceed, if at all. I would hope we would both discuss. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Richard Wabi (Associated General Contractors of Vermont)]: You're welcome. And again, I would love to spend the afternoon with you all, but we have a class going on. I'll make a rain check.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, Miriam, are we going to attempt to do anything or We're going to return temporarily and possibly come back soon.