Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's beginning to be I have no reason not to be. Welcome back everyone to the House Committee on General and Housing, and

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is Tuesday, April 21, and we're about to take up one of the two bills that's been actively in front of the committee. This one is a housing bill from the Senate that contains various elements to it, S three twenty eight, and the subject matter that we're about to take up is universal design, and in particular, one of our members of Burrows has an interest in this area that she'd like to talk about, and then Cameron, at her request, our legislative council, produced a draft, which is not a complete version of S328, but it is part of S328. I think it's labeled draft 1.2, and will walk through, Cameron will walk through that, and then we can have a general discussion. So I'll tell you what, why don't you start, Elizabeth, and then Cameron can Does take it from

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: that work for you? That works fine for me. Okay. I'm going to quickly go through a series of very simple reasons for including universal design in a modular housing both purchase accelerated. Number one, it normalizes the concept of including universal design. Number two, it creates the possibility of additional accessible housing in a state that has almost none. Number three, and most importantly, it truly, actually expands the housing market. Number four, it creates housing that starts to address a very large sector of need. Number five, with bulk orders in modular housing, it's actually inexpensive. Number six, it increases the value and decreases cost. And number seven, therefore, it is a prudent, efficient, economical use of state treasure. I looked at a number of resources I would be glad to provide to you. If you are interested, let me know. But one of them was realtor.com, where an article about Fair Housing Month from April 20 '20 '5 began by talking about the fact that federal law requires new multifamily dwellings with four or more units to include specific accessibility features as of 1991 passage of the ADA, which are at least one accessible entrance, wide doorways and hallways, accessible common areas, usable kitchens and bathrooms, step free showers, reinforced bathrooms, and reinforced bathroom walls for grab bar installation. Those are the very bare minimums. Realtor.com, in that same article, pointed to a very specific trend in home purchases for single family homes, which is that now that housing has become as unaffordable as it has become, families are purchasing homes for the whole of their lifetime. They're purchasing homes that they want to stay in for the rest of their lives and, where previously a family would average twelve to thirteen years in a home. The concept has sort of changed over since 2008 because of the unaffordability of housing. Either way, a single family home usually can be expected to have a sixty to eighty year effective lifespan. In a normal housing market, that would be five to seven households per the lifetime of the home. But now, that is falling shorter. And so these value universal design brings about value boosting upgrades that pay off over the the life of the home. Zero entry showers boost resale value by 3%. Widened doorways and frames boost value by up to 30%. Bathroom models up to 70% on return on investment. And, today, there is a 60% probability according to realtor.com. There's a 60% probability of a new house being occupied by people with access needs. The cost of including basic universal design in the design of modular housing averages 1% to 3% of the total cost of the housing. And the return on investment averages 3% to 10%. And most importantly, and I think really This is from realtor.com.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I have

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: several other, I think, eight other sources that I can share with you all. Most importantly, universal design, we we I'd like for us to think when we're thinking about universal design about the universal part of universal design, which means that the housing is actually open to the whole housing market. It can be purchased and used by anybody. Whereas housing that does not include universal design is not open to the whole housing market. And when we think about how we want to use our state treasurer, what we actually want to spend our state treasure on. My pitch is that we think about spending it on housing that is open to every person in the state, spending it on housing that, just like with energy efficiency, spending it on housing that will cost less to the person who lives in it over a period of time, whether that is a twelve to thirteen year residency or if it's a sixty year residency. What do we actually want our state treasure to be spent supporting, and that's my pitch. Debbie, then we'll ask Cameron to walk through a draft and be prepared. Also, what Elizabeth was saying, I just wanna do some real life experience, and I don't know if people are noticing, but people want more soaking tubs, so the sides of the tubs are higher. And, you know, we visited some friends and we're like, you know, it'd be really nice if we had a grab bar just to get in.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, they ended up putting grab bars in there of a back edge. Like, they put them in their bathroom, and they go, it's so much nicer. So I have to say, you know, like, even the size of our bathtubs are changing. And did you talk about toilet pipes at all? I did not talk about that level of detail.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I just But the You know, real life experiences. Yeah. The the bathroom the bathroom upgrades without universal design are really quite expensive.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes, Mary. I would just like to say I really appreciate Representative Burrows' comments. The governor keeps saying we have an aging population, and the aging population would love to sell their big houses if only they had a place to go. There are places in Rowan City where senior housing is, there's a waiting list for years. I would think it would be a great suggestion if the governor would contract with one of the places we visited and build modular homes, duplexes, so that people with young families and seniors could move into them and the seniors could sell their big houses. We've been in a housing crisis for years. It just didn't happen with COVID. And I think I've mentioned before, on a personal note, when my husband needed to go to the hospital several times, when the ambulance came, they couldn't get the gurney into the bedroom. They had to back it out. And then we need ramps and we need bars and all of that. So I think it's really important and I think we should consider this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Cameron, you want to walk us through the draft that you prepared? I would be happy to.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel, I will share my screen.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So it would be section, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we did a quick walk through or a quick review a little while back, but just to pull us back, it's draft 1.2, it's just drafted as kind of what we would call orphan language, just kind of a standalone. This obviously, the first piece of this would be in addition to the language that you already have for the off-site construction accelerator pilot. So that's why that's listed as section four. It would replace the current section four that you have and the amendment that you're reviewing for S-three 28. But then the second piece is just listed as section X because this would just go at some location of the bill if you all wanted to move forward with both pieces. Excuse me, so section four off-site construction accelerator pilot program that you all are familiar with. You can see I've shifted some of the subdivisions in B because I've added this B2. The B2 is housing units funded through the pilot program shall incorporate universal design elements to ensure accessibility to the greatest extent possible to all individuals regardless of their age, size, ability, or disability. So keep in mind this is a pilot program and there is language in here that authorizes the treasurer to expend money. This kind of coincides with the credit facility that you will have in the section I think right above this. And so if the treasurer's office was utilizing some of that credit facility to help purchase both purchasing housing for this pilot program, then the housing would have to incorporate universal design. Everything else remains the same from what you have in your current amendment three twenty eight. The only other change in this section is the report that has to be done by DHCD. If you all recall, it has to include information on and this is lines seventeen and eighteen whether to enact a statewide building code or codes for off-site modular construction. And so this would incorporate within that, including whether to enact building code elements related to universal design. Then the other section

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Can I ask a question about oh sorry, is this a good time? Do you want to go through the rest of it and then I'll come back to this?

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Quickly, the next piece is directing DHCD as part of its development of the Homes For All eight zero two Homes catalog. DHC shall incorporate universal design elements into each draft home, excuse me, each draft home design to ensure accessibility similar language to the greatest extent to all individuals. So for the pilot, separate from that, as the Department of Education moved forward with the eight zero two Homes catalog, they would need to incorporate universal design into those home designs that they've been developing. That's what the language would tell. Go ahead.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Thanks. So my question is, yeah, at the bottom of page two, lines eighteen, nineteen, it's about the report, including whether to enact building code elements. I just find that just having a yes or no as our request from them may not be quite as nuanced that we would like them to explain, you know, would rather see some of it, including how to enact building code elements when You we get to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: know what I would suggest to the committee, we're going to hear from like 10 witnesses. I think it's safe to say you're going to hear a lot of varied opinions on the questions of what universal design consists of, whether the figures that we were told that came from a number of sources, gather, but from realtor.com are accurate or not, we're going to hear a lot, and I would suggest that we return to this, the drafting, if we want to, after we hear those witnesses.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Okay, I just, I really want to put a pin in it because, because I think that what we will discover is that universal design is a very broad Because set of both at the one end, minimally, very midful lifts to perhaps some heavier lifts. And so, I cannot even imagine letting them get away with coming back with no, don't incorporate it. That just seems like why bother calling for a report if we're going to allow that to be a valid response. And so if you just switch it to including how to enact a building code related to yours design, then we can decide whether to do it or not or in what capacity.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will just acknowledge the point. If you want to move forward and you want to ensure that the information coming back to you is reflecting what fortunes and what the building code should say as it relates to universal design elements, then you may want to specify that. I agree with Rep. Dodge in the sense that it does just say whether to enact one. And so in theory, that could just be me. Yes, enact one with no further detail on it. So however much information you want that report to include, we could clean that language up a little bit to be a little more specific. Yes.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm kind of parsing out my thoughts on this, and I think I'll probably hold on for them until we've heard from all of our witnesses for tomorrow, but I'm still trying to figure out, and maybe Cameron or Brett Burrows, you have the answer, is do we have a definition of universal design in state statute?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not to my knowledge, no matter what.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No, we do not. That was supposed to be a study, but that study got ripped out last year in the conference committee.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So one of the questions as we're discussing this that I'm, again, trying to figure out how I feel about it is how can we possibly add all of these stipulations into the pilot program such as that without an actual definition? It's like the carp before the horse, it kind of feels like.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Can I ask a clarifying question about stroke? Or just on that, do we not I'm trying to remember and maybe I feel like there's a parallel here with when we would talk in transportation about smart growth or like complete streets. And I think complete streets became sort of codified, but it took a really long time, and there was a lot of input from crucially AARP that I think speaks very directly to what we're talking about, talking about rollability, walkability. So I think that it would be helpful to talk to the folks who have done that work about developing models of complete streets, which helps to prioritize and asks, is it even feasible to say I mean, we can say as a state, it would be really great to add bike lanes everywhere that you can. Every time you're going to build a new road, evaluate whether you can set up a bike lane. That may not be realistic everywhere, but this feels very parallel.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: mean, sorry. Please. Just to be clear, this is not requiring that universal design be included in everything. This is asking it to be included in the pilot for modular housing that's ordered in bulk. And that's why it's less expensive. I wouldn't dream of trying to push at the very end of a biennium a statewide mandate that was never going to happen. That's not the question. I don't I mean, that's a waste of our time. Jenna?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, to wrap Bartley's point, did you have a definition of the design that they should follow?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I have the HUD

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: requirements for multifamily, four or more family units, which are the ones that I listed off. Very basic. Widen door frames.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just curious if there's something that should reference. Because if they build to this standard, but then they go, well, what? There is no standard for my law. You could say Right.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: The HUD. Here's what it is. Yeah. Yep. Is this Yeah. That is yep. Blah blah And, again, the art, that is not where we are. Where we are is one little piece being that's to be included in part of a pilot program, not stick built, but modular housing, to see whether it's possible.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is that a document something we can put on mini the page so we can get

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: at it? Well, was also going to wonder whether or not we need I'm looking I'm going to look like I'm digressing, but I'm not. It just looks like it. Last year, if you oh, wait a minute, before I speak, Saudia, you've got your hand up. I'm sorry, I didn't hear.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Oh, you're fine, you're fine. You can digress for a minute. I was just going to ask if we could define, I mean, can we come up, we define so many things. We define family members. We define, you know, who what roles are. So I don't know if if we could look at the HUD language that Elizabeth proposed and for this instance, come up with what that defined as is for for this instance.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And, Paul, one of the questions, I guess, I'm gonna follow-up with another question. I urge members to look at the list of witnesses that is currently listed. I ask that we start with Mike DeRocheurs and Landon Wheeler from the Division of Fire Safety, because specifically, as Elizabeth alluded to, you may remember that last year in S-one hundred twenty seven we included in our big housing bill a study. The reason, and it was Elizabeth that helped, was the primary hand on this study, and it had a committee to come up with a definition of universal design, in part because, as I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, you felt that the lack of a definition was a barrier to implementation. Is that true?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Specifically, it was about the VHIP program, where in what now is 5.181, we expanded the housing part of that bill to include money in VHIP for expanding accessibility. And then BHIP didn't use the money for accessibility because they said that accessibility was not defined. So last year, the question and also, VHFA did not want to agree to universal design being any sort of universal mandate without having universal design be defined. And so that study was supposed to be three meetings

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of a

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: group of different people who would be Defining. Able to you know, stakeholders who would be able to to define it. But based on what I think somebody not liking summer studies,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it was cut. Well, it was cut. It was one of the items that was cut out of the cut. The reason that I asked Mike and Lamoille first is because what I was told at the time was that study was unnecessary because it was duplicative of what they were doing. So I want to find out what are they doing, was it duplicative? I want to try to get the bottom of that. I admit that in the face of this disagreement where Senate members were saying it's duplicative, we just went on to I mean, we had two and a half days to go through the whole damn thing, and we just went on. It wasn't because we ever got to the bottom of it. So I think that's there, and then we have Alex because DHCD is charged with implementing pilot program, and Chris Cochran because he does eight zero two homes. And then if you look at other witnesses, we have Fecto Homes coming in because we thought they'd be a source of information on what could be done with manufactured homes, what was being done with manufactured homes. And then Jason, for obvious reasons, Mr. Modular, in. You all know him because he was guiding us what we were doing. And then we have others coming in as well. So if there are people I'm just wondering, for example, who would talk to us if we get the HUD documents saying, who could talk to us about that? Is it facto? I have a couple of suggestions. Would any of them, well, and I'd like to hear them, but in particular, could anyone talk about the HUD standards? Who would that be?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Can I ask a question while Elizabeth was looking for that? Sure. Looking at the blame bridge, it says, or I'm on page one, line 18, housing units funded through the pilot program shall incorporate universal design elements to ensure accessibility to the greatest extent possible to all individuals, regardless of their age, size, ability, or disability. Is regardless of their age, size, ability, or disability necessary?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Probably not.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But we're saying it's universal design.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will admit, I borrowed that specific language from an external entity. I'd say it's fair to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: say that no matter what, we're going to want a wordsmith.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah, If I we do it at all, yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I borrowed it from the Center for Excellence in Universal Design is where I got that specific portion of the piece. I don't think it's absolutely necessary to probably pass on, if you're saying to the greatest extent possible to all individuals, that includes everyone. I think you may want to what I assume may sometimes get lost is you want to ensure multiple perspectives. And so, for example, individuals with disabilities may not be representative because most individuals may not be thinking about them when they're designing because it's not they don't have those experiences. So if you call them out, then it helps signal that's what you're expecting. But no, if you just said, to the greatest extent possible to all individuals, then that means everything. You?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Next is Emily. And then you.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I did a Google search because, you know, and it said for if you wanted the perspective of Vermont and the HUD, perhaps the Google suggested

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: VSHA.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That they manage the state level programs here, so they might have the perspective.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, actually, that's that's interesting since we have a person here who's at least listening on behalf of the

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But, yeah, that's what the Google says.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I know. Well, Ron Wilde is sitting here, but we're not gonna meet him. We're not gonna put him on the spot. But, anyway,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I just wanna say this witness list is not complete. The options, as I've said before, are we can try to put language in the bill, or we could just hold hearings and then have stand alone legislation next term. Those are our options, or drop it. I mean, it's up to us. Yes? Just again to clarify, the reason that I was offering this amendment in this bill is because this is about modular housing. This is about full purchase. This is about a pilot study or a pilot project, and it's not about a statewide mandate, which would never pass. That's not where we are right now. I'm not at the point of considering state building codes, that we're not there. We could be at the place of having it be included in a pilot study and then considering whether we want to use our state treasurer as we consider full purchase of modular homes, whether we want to include universal design in it. Please, I am asking you to not make this bigger than what the amendment asks.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right, because then that would be It's

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: not gonna happen.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Would be like every section provided housing or whatever. That's not what you're asking for. Yeah. Could we invite someone from AARP? It would

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: be nice to be able to yeah, I've got a contact there. We could ask. But it would be nice to be able to not go that's not going to happen. I have 12 ADA related bills this session, and not one of them has passed. Like, we're not there yet. We need to start somewhere where we that we can build from. So that's why I offered the amendment rather than trying to push one of the bills that I already have. Also, would I'm not asking for a hearing on it because this is about this project and not about anybody thinking that they're gonna come back next biennium and pick this back up. This is actually about the timing. So if you don't want to do this, then let's not bother with the hearing. That is a waste of time. That's my feeling.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other comments before we will I mean, we're gonna hear from witnesses, and I think offline we can talk about more witnesses. We do have the time to get into this a little. I think it would be it's something we've been talking around for my own feeling is it's something we've been talking around for a while. Frankly, I think it's safe to say there's a lot of controversy about it. There are people who believe that it doesn't save money, that it costs money. I'm sure that the problem with defining it is that it could be defined in various ways. Some ways it'd be more expensive and more elaborate than others. And so I'm just saying, I don't think this is easy. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, however, since we've often taken on things that aren't easy. And I think that part of the reason to hear witnesses is to flesh out these issues for the community. Well, me put it this way, is there anyone who would like to drop the whole thing? No. Okay. All right. Well, okay. That is the threshold question, I'm honoring what Elizabeth said. I don't think that having testimony means that we'll necessarily go with this language, I for one favored some testimony. All right, at this point, we don't have anything else today, so everyone, I hate to let you just sit around and be flurred, you know, but Does anyone have any last things they want to say to the committee? Tomorrow, we are convening at 9AM on this issue. Alright? So I will see you all then. Any last comments? We are adjourned.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Before you go off or after you go