Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome everybody to the House Committee on General and Housing. Today is Thursday, April 23. We're having a brief conversation before lunch. We've taken we had three or four witnesses yesterday on universal design issues, and it was very interesting testimony. And I just would like to ask people for their impressions of the testimony. I have it certainly caused me to have questions, which I hope we can resolve with further testimony and discussion, but I thought for just ten minutes, we originally had on our schedule that our attorney would come in today, this morning, but I know he's occupied in the Senate. He was wanting to talk about 03/28. I guess I do want to mention one matter having to do it for the committee because it's I think I'm gonna be giving him direction and I just wanna discuss it a little with you. Do you remember in that in 03/28, there is a section two that creates this council. Service Supported Housing Council. And there, you know, Service Supported Housing Council, etcetera. So I received the suggestion, which I naively thought was interesting, which was, yes, naivete goes on and on, which was that how about a fee, like $10 fee or tax on acreage associated that was in in current uses that was associated with second homes? And I knew that if we actually ever get a bill on that, and it was attractive because it could generate millions of dollars a year, which the idea was we could use for disability housing, which we don't have much money for. And I knew that in order to do this, if we actually had a bill, it would have to go through at least three committees here, if not four, and that's work for next year. But where I was naive was I thought, well, although the bill would be controversial and everyone would have thoughts, a study wouldn't be bad. How could people object to a study? So, I asked Cameron just to flesh that out and put it in here, and we have received a lot of negative feedback Yes. For all kinds of reasons that it's a bad idea, that it's hard to define, that if you're not careful, you're gonna get huge blocks of forest in there, that it's a very delicate subject matter, that the council is probably not does not have the expertise to get into this and on and on.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, do you really wanna break open current use? Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hell, and do you wanna have anything to do with current use? And if you do, why would you there's all kinds of

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: uses And that you can use it also the implications for the education fund.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. So, with your permission, I'm going to ask our council to take that out of the draft, 2A out of the draft, and just leave that for My feeling is it's not like I wouldn't consider it, it's that I just don't think this is the place to do it, study, and that if we want to do it, we introduce a bill and take the hit, you know, and essentially throw it out there and let everybody shoot at it. But is that okay? I shall watch council.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Regardless of even the content, we don't have money for studies right now. And so I'm just not sure what the direction with that was. Yeah. And they're they're also the whatever the current use governing body is, they are redoing the rules right now. I just read this morning that they're reconsidering the rules and taking public input, so maybe that might be something that could be discussed in that process.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: See if I can Well, that's what I'm gonna tell Cameron, and we can discuss it more fully when he comes to present the next draft. And I will repeat where we are, unless we only have two bills sitting with us now, now that S89 is out of the house. One is two thirty, which is the labor bill, right? And the other is three twenty eight, which is the omnibus sort of housing bill. Okay. Part of three twenty eight is a question of what we should do, if anything, about universal design, and I wanna put a question on the table that I am not asking it rhetorically. I am asking it because I do not yet know the answer. Does anybody understand what the relationship between the term visitability, the term adaptability, and universal design is. I don't, yet. I wonder if adaptability isn't kind of like what people are thinking about, but I don't know. Please, I somehow thought you might be had thoughts about this.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: When I'm thinking about universal design, I'm largely thinking about, and I have talked about adaptability and that it is a low cost investment that adds life to the house and creates a possibility for accessibility where none existed before. Those are all the things that I've been really consistent about talking about. But there are also when we talk about universal design writ large, there's a whole catalog of components to be considered. I really was only talking about the adaptability components because I, again, don't think that our state is ready for more than that, but we might be ready for adaptability.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is visitability less than adaptability? In other words, if you listed all the things that are required for adaptability, would you be meeting visitability plus?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No, because visitability, I believe, also includes having a ramped entrance, which is important, actually. Think it also includes the level

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: centerway. Yeah. So, because the way Mike portrayed it, said all new units, multi family units, have to be visitable. Yeah. But then he said, four or more units have to be adaptable, which would imply that adaptability is stricter than

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: It does have some of the same components, for example, accessibility of common areas.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's adaptable. Yeah. Yeah. But I don't know that visitability, he just had a 36 inch door and, you know, outlets and interior hallways have to be 36 inches, etcetera. Accessibility, it's just all over. Like, I'm looking at a section of the code called accessibility standards twenty nine zero seven, and it says any residential construction has at least one floor exterior door 36, interior doors 34 or open, 32, interior hallways that are level, at least 36 inches wide, environmental and utility controls that are heights, you know, and bathroom walls that are reinforced to permit attachment of grab bars. What's that? Is that visitable or adaptable? That's adaptable. That's adaptable. Yeah. But adaptable

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I mean, if you think about I think about my friend Shelley, who was diagnosed with MS quite young and could never go visit any of her friends because she couldn't get inside their houses. So what would Shelley need in order to be able to visit her friends? That's what visitability is. So it's not that Shelley necessarily needs a grab bar, But Shelly would need a way to get inside the Up common space, like Olivia. Get inside the door. Get up and over into the entrance, through the hallway to Olivia. Be able to use the bathroom. And that was my next question was, what is the bathroom standard for visitability? Is it toilet, but not necessarily shower? Yeah. Okay. But would it be a pedestal sink? I don't think so. Because when when all of the other witnesses yesterday were talking about it, they were talking about how that's the remember, that's the last thing to get changed out. Yeah. And how so I think that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm just wondering where these terms visitability and adaptability are defined in the code.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Said in '19

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in nineteen

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: ninety ninety six six, Yeah. They adopted the rules of ADA accessibility guidelines.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. And then in 1997, Moore

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: and he

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: gave 20 USA, you know, BSA 170 something or other, and I can't find it, so I'll have to look.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: What did hey. Hey, welcome.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so Hi. I'll tell you what, we're only gonna take a minute here, but we're live.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll join you for a minute anyway.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: We're trying to distinguish between

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We know that you're having fun downstairs. I was in, well,

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, what was really fun was a fire alarm.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, right, yeah. Basically, on 03/28, second here, hold on a minute, on 03/28, the draft we've been working off of, it's 2.1. Yes, Plus then you've got the form 1.2 of the universal design. Yes, sir. Right, okay. I would like to suggest that I have permission from a quorum of a committee, a bare quorum to do it, that the next draft you take out 2A? Yes. Okay? It's already done. Already done. Okay. Just because for all reasons that we discussed, it's too big a bite. Yes, Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I I would like to suggest that we take out universal design and replace it with the criteria that the Division of Fire Safety already uses for new buildings with four or more units. Just apply them to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll tell you what. Let's start this way. At this point, we're trying to understand what the current landscape looks like. And the current landscape, yesterday, Deroches from Fire Safety testified that multifamily units have to be visitable and if they're over four units, they have to be adaptable, right? I would like it if you could forward the variant the places in statute or regulation that define what those mean. This an adaptable? An adaptable. Because they're very attractive. They're in code already. We're trying not to bite off too much. They're in code already. They're used already, and I think that it would be good for the committee to understand what they mean. I don't think hopefully, it's not a book. You know, hopefully, it's a list that we can we can be that we can consume. When you get it, can you send it out? I think, unfortunately, there's another term, accessible, and I'm not sure what the hell that means. So there's a section twenty nine zero seven of 10ZSA called accessibility standards. It's terribly written. I do say so commentarily. It's incredibly unclear, but it has a list of five items. But again, it's you know, how does that relate to visitability and to I I just don't know. K. So if you could, I think it would be good if you could send that out and also be prepared to come in here and straighten it all out for us. I can try.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, at a minimum I'll see

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What's counsel for? I mean

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it looks like I can try to hunt them down and see if we're there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. I think that would help us a lot. And then we can discuss what we wanna do. One other legal question, which I'll bet anything, there's no right line rule or anything about it. One of the points that was made during testimony yesterday by Alex Farrell was, I mean, he was it was a modulated testimony, but he did point out that one of the reasons that he was reluctant to have us mandating what has to go into or not into eight zero two Homes is that eight zero two Homes doesn't exist in statute. Eight zero two Homes is an entirely administrative creation which doesn't exist either in regulation or statute. It's just they cobbled up the funds out of their own budget and they're just doing it.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: Is that really their money comes from somewhere, doesn't Yeah, right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And so, is that other than just sort of practice, culture, etcetera, is there any problem there in terms of our saying, oh, well, eight zero two Homes has to do this or that?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: You could go even broader and make it applicable to every single program that they decide to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: create from now into the future and solve that problem. Right, know, sure. Do we have to define it? Here's how I would respond to them.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: There's nothing in statute about eight zero two homes, is it problematic to add something in requiring them to do something related to that program? Legally, no, you're the legislature. But I mean, we

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: could just in terms of form, we can refer to a program which isn't defined in statute. Yes. Okay, that's all I wanted to know.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: You know, I mean, long as, it kind of goes back to what I was talking about with the Secretary of State thing, you know, and whether you want to put something in statute or just have them agree and acknowledge. As long as they understand what you're talking about and you feel comfortable that they understand what you're talking about, then I don't see any issue with it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, all right, that's all I wanted to know. Actually, that may be something we could consider, but it's yes, Saudia. Alright.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. And just also, even though it's not funded through the eight zero two Homes is not funded by. It's a program. Sorry. A program that they did their own. And also, it's still part of the legislative budget. So, you know, it's it's not funded. They found it in their own funding source that comes from the budget that we passed.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. I don't doubt that we have the authority. I just wanted to know if we'd have to, like, define it, identify it, all that kind of stuff if we

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think you need to if you all are of the understanding of what you're talking about.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Well, think everybody yeah. Think it's

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: pretty clear what you're talking about.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. It is. Okay. Alright. Any other I'm gonna let us go have lunch. We're gonna come back here after lunch. After the floor floor. Yeah. After the floor. We're right after the floor. We'll come back here and take a look at S 230. S 230 is like getting there. It's at the point where I think Sophie can have a copy that we could vote on if we want at this point. We can vote out as 02:30. Even with all our absentees. What? Nah, you know, let's see. I just had on here a possible vote. Yeah. Yeah. If we don't vote it out, then we can do it on Friday or we can do it on Tuesday, but it's getting there. I'd like to get that off our plate. And it, by the way, doesn't go, at least in its current form, I did talk to Betsy Ann, the clerk, and Betsy Ann went through it. In its current form, it doesn't go to Approach, and it doesn't go to Ways and Means.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Originally, did it ever originally have to go to Brooks?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It was the Senate. Draft 7.2,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: it just has no appropriation. The Senate version, the original. Well, even our version. No, but is not the trick, is that if it ever did?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's an interesting question. If it ever did here, yes. If it did in the Senate, I think that doesn't matter. That's the Senate.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So, if it ever did once it got out of the Senate and came here, then it initially did in the House have an appropriation. I

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: don't know how they treat it. So if it had an appropriation but was removed before it came to the House, therefore it doesn't have an appropriation, it sounds like he's saying that then it doesn't need to go.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's the airline flight crew, it's the domestic violence, it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: agreements not to compete, that's it. There was no mediator. Oh, no. The mediator has to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I talked to Robin, and I asked Robin, should we put it in and should there be an appropriation? I talked to her twice. First she said to me, you can put it in without the appropriation. Then the second thing she said to me is don't put it in. We don't need it in because it's in our budget. It's not in their budget.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So it is an issue in the process. It's issue in conference. Okay. We don't need to signal it. Because then this would force this into their committee again. Yeah. And so that was never in their senate bill. No. So it was just something we considered adding. But if we don't add it, then the bill's not gonna approve. We don't have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to add it because it's in our budget.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, no, I know about the mediator measure, I'm asking about whether anything else in 02/30 has ever

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: had Not an to my knowledge, and E. A. Says, but C. Anne says, she went through it, that we don't have to, doesn't have to go either, so I'm interested in getting it out of here. But I don't want to rush people, and the last thing I want to do is vote. If we have a bare quorum, why do that? Yeah.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: Betsy Ann used to be my supervisor, so I

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: was I always listen to Betsy Ann, too. She's very thoughtful, careful, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: She's usually, but not always,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: right on the length of the session. It's magical. Wasn't BA the name of the leader of the A team? BA? Yeah.