Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, welcome everybody to the House Committee on General and Housing. Today is Wednesday, April 29, and second to last day of the month. Here today, what we're gonna do is take a we're gonna continue our discussion of universal design with one witness and then we're gonna have committee discussion, members of the committee, what I've come to realize is that we have real time constraints, Kelly, I'm just setting the stage here, we have real time constraints with respect to 03/28. Here's the deal, 03/28 has to go through appropriations, I mean, has to go through ways and means and appropriations. Then, it goes to the Senate. The senate only has a week to meet. They are meeting next their committees are meeting next week, and that's it. The last committee meeting in the senate is next Friday, May 8. And of course, there are all these exceptions, but I don't think this bill would merit one of those exceptions. So to me, unfortunately, what's come home to me is that we have to get this bill out today. One way or the other, whatever the vote, I think we've got to get it out today. Leonora, can you hear me, by the way?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yes, I can.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good. You know, so what we're going to do is discuss it after at 09:30, and we have a potential markup and vote after the floor. Miriam, I would suggest that he post potential vote also for this morning, so that we just gotta get it out. That may mean, I know when I wasn't here yesterday afternoon, you heard discussions with our legislative council that there's some ambiguities in statute, that the statute is not as clear as it should be, and we'll talk about how we deal with that, but however we deal with it, it's gonna be now. We just can't afford the time. Okay, so our witness this morning is Kelly Stoddard Poor, who's Associate Director of Outreach for AARP Vermont. Kelly, introduce yourself and please take it away. Wonderful, well thank you so much chairman, and And then you know what? I think we'll introduce ourselves shortly. I'm Debbie

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Dolgin, and I represent Saint John's Ray, Franklin, Victoria. Hi.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm Jonathan Matkins, Georgia Craft People. Joe Parsons, Newberry, Thompson, and Groton.

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

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I'm Marc Mihaly, and I represent countless Plainfield and Marshfield.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Morning, I'm Mary Howard and I represent Rutland City District 6. Welcome, I'm Gayle Pezzo, I represent Chittenden, 8 Colchester. Well,

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: thank you so much for the opportunity to be here this morning. I'm Kelly Sotapour. I'm with AARP Vermont. I serve as the associate state director for outreach. I lead our livable community work on behalf of the organization. So my focus is on creating age friendly, livable communities where older adults can thrive and remain independent. I've been with the organization since 2012, and it has been a really fantastic experience working for AARP. It's brought me all across the state, And my focus is on housing, transportation, public spaces, and community support services. And so today, I'm going to be talking a little bit about universal design and the importance around universal design. And I will send my testimony to Miriam afterwards. So AARP, those who are not familiar with AARP, we are a social mission organization. We are nonpartisan. We are a membership organization as well. We have 38,000,000 members across the country and 117,000 members here in Vermont. Our mission is to enhance the quality of life for all as we age. And so a big part of how we do that is our focus on the local age friendly communities. So housing, obviously, is a really important issue for older adults and for everyone across the age spectrum. AARP supports creating flexible, usable housing across the lifespan. We define universal design as housing that is designed for people of all ages and abilities that does not have to be adapted or specially designed afterwards. We encourage policymakers to require universal design and provide incentives for universal design for all new housing, particularly housing that uses public resources. So from a cost perspective, we see that universal design is most efficient when it's incorporated at the onset of construction versus afterwards because retrofitting can be really expensive. ARP research has found a couple of key features that are really important when we're talking about universal design. So step free entrances, wider doorways and hallways, accessible lever handles and accessible bathrooms. And those have minimal upfront costs, but can be far more expensive when outfitting a home afterwards. If housing becomes inaccessible in a few years due to multiple stairs, narrow hallways, unsafe bathrooms, we're shifting those costs further down the road to Medicaid, to family caregivers, and to municipalities. Universal design can be a strategy for avoiding those downstream costs.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Kelly, can I ask you a question? We've heard a lot about bathrooms. Bathrooms, yes. One element that seems to be, we hear a lot about, is the installation of reinforcement that will allow for grab bars to be installed.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Another is actually making the bathroom big, and that seems to be, to use a word, universal, we've heard that. Yep. You know, it's part of visitability, it's part of adaptability. A second issue is making the bathroom big enough that a wheelchair can turn in it. Do you consider, how important do you consider those two elements as to each other?

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: I think they're both really important. The reinforcement in the walls and then having the radius turn around in the bathroom. The other important piece is the functionality of the door. So pocket doors are really important and can be helpful in those cases because then individuals do not become trapped behind the door if the door, if they fall behind the door and the door has to come open. So those are sort of the three key features. And then across the board is to thinking about the flooring as well. So floor that is going to reduce slips is also important and level flooring, you're not having a change in the level of floors.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: All right. Should I go ahead. We just interrupt.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Yeah, yeah, no, no, I'm happy to answer questions. I think it's much better that way. So at ARP, you do a lot of research and our last home and community preference survey, which was a national survey that we conducted across the country, asked a number of questions amongst those 50 and older around universal design. And what we found was that there was strong support amongst those 50 and older for new homes to be constructed with universal design elements to promote safety, independence and quality of life as we age. So this is just the survey here. Know that you want to reduce the number of papers that you all have, But I will also email that as well so that you can have a copy of that. So it just shows a number of the features that are at higher importance for individuals. So that is really informative. We also, in July 2025, we also did a Vermont polling as well around universal design and it reflects similar to our national community, the home and community preference survey as well. So as we know, Vermont is aging. We're amongst one of the oldest states in the country, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. We skew the oldest in the country. Currently based upon 2020 census data, 20% of our population is 65. By 2030, one in three Vermonters will be 60. So thinking about our demographic shift, we're going to see this happen through the middle of this century, right? And it's not going to start to decline, it will just plateau. So as a country we're aging and as a region we're aging faster than the rest of the country. And so the importance of really making these types of investments in homes is really important so that people can live in the homes through their lifespan and as our needs change. So as we get older, mobility changes, balance changes, vision changes, our strength changes, and so we want to make sure that the new homes that are being built are adaptable to meet those needs. All right, also just another piece on demographic shifts is that what is also paralleling our aging is also increasing disability as well and single person households, which I'm sure you're aware of. So we have an increase in single person households and an increase in disabilities can put individuals at greater risk as they're living alone, having to deal with stairs, narrow hallways, inaccessible or unsafe bathrooms can really create the risk of falls. So a home that has been constructed here in Vermont in the next few years will likely see the life of an older adult through the course of that home. And so we really want to think about making sure that there's some of those key features that can support aging in place. And I do also want to mention that not only is it important the type of housing that is being built, but also where housing is being located. And so we are very supportive of making sure that housing is located in and around our downtown village centers so that we have access to services and amenities and connectivity, which is really important from a social isolation perspective and also being able to meet your needs and thinking about our transportation system and what they can absorb as well. So Vermont's multi sector plan on aging, AgeDrawn Vermont, I'm not sure if you've heard about the plan, but it's a ten year multi sector plan. And it also calls out as a key strategy of creating universally designed homes to be able to support independence, safety.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Who is Kelly? And sort of institutionally, where's the home of AIDS Straub?

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: It's at Dale. Dale and the health department also manages some of it, but the staff person sits at Gayle. And we actually are having a resolution read on the House floor today that will be marking, I believe, May 7 as H. D. A. And if you want to stop in Room 11 this afternoon for lunch, the older Vermonters office will be meeting as well and recognizing the work of pageant Vermont. Vermont has taken meaningful steps in regards to integrating universal design into publicly supported housing. VHFA's program standards and also the eight zero two Homes catalog, being able to integrate universal design. So VHFA maintains the universal design checklist. And this checklist is really encouraging to encourages additional functionality and accessibility for housing beyond just what the minimum code requires. BHFA's checklist treats universal design as scalable and flexible, recognizing that not every feature will be feasible in every unit, but that the design should anticipate changing needs over the life of that home. And their checklist includes at least one no step entry to the building and unit, wider doorways and halls to allow ease of movement, lever style door handles and faucets, which are easier to operate across the age and ability level, slip resistant flooring and adequate lighting to reduce fall risk, and bathrooms designed for usability over time, including walk in threshold showers and wall blocking for future rather than bars. So one of the key challenges with universal design here is, in this bill is that universal design isn't currently defined or incorporated in Vermont statute or statewide building code. And because we have not defined universal design in statute or code, it makes the interpretation by agency differ. It could vary from agency to agency without defining first what universal design is in statute or code. It can also create different interpretations from builders without defining universal design. And it could also create uneven implementation from municipalities as they're asked to align with zoning, permitting, or inspection practices. And then furthermore, it's just one of the pieces that is really important from ARP's perspective is that universal design not be considered sort of like this niche product that is on the market, but it is really marketable across the board and is applicable across the age spectrum to have that flexibility when designing for universal design. So just thinking about the sequencing and clarifying of universal design. So perhaps some suggested language changes is that there's two suggestions that I have. That using universal design in the pilot program here with eight zero two Homes is intended to inform future consideration of statewide definitions or standards related to universal design, recognizing that such standards do not currently exist in Vermont statute or building code, or until such time as universal design is defined statute or code, program implementation should prioritize flexibility, consistency with existing BHFA guidance, and suitability for voluntary adoption by private builders. So we are obviously very supportive of universal design. We think it's really important, but understanding that we want to make sure that there's clarity and that universal design is defined in statute and building code to ensure that implementation

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: across the board. Questions about the committee? One of the challenges

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: that we're looking at is that universal design is this philosophy informing design in general. It's hard to point to a specific checklist that a contractor needs. If you, does AARP have a nowhere point to there is an incised list of the things that should be included?

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: We do have a list of items, but I would say that leaning on what BHFA has already created as their universal design checklist would probably provide the most consistency because that is what's being used for publicly funded housing. Their guidance would be, I probably the best for Vermont. We do have one that I'm happy to provide.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: we also have model legislation around universal design that we have created. So I'm also happy to share that model legislation, if that's helpful, but it's probably more than what, at this point in the session, you wanna tackle.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think, so you have AARP has proposed sort of sample legislation. We do. I would actually suggest you submit that with your test letter.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Okay, I will do that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It is true, it's very late in the session, but we're uncovering the need, I think, to address this issue more thoughtfully next session. And I think it would probably be in this committee and I think it would be good if we had what you've got.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Yes, I'll send it. It's quite a large document and we've got the model legislation, we also have local ordinances as well with model language. So I will send that and I will also send the link to the preference survey as

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, great.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yes? Does your list align with VHFA? It does. Exactly, or

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: the list is more extensive or yours is? I'd have to look through their list one more time just to verify that. I think that theirs is reflective of, because they use the ARP guidance. So in part they use ARP's livable community guidance to develop their checklist. Ours has a few other components that are probably not included there, but let me verify that though.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Okay. Great, thank you. You're welcome.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other questions? Do you think, I mean, we've certainly learned that there is no clear statutorily defined definition of universal design, we understand that. Do you think that there is enough of a general understanding of what universal design is that one can even use the term in legislation?

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: I do. I think that because the market has shifted over the last decade in regards to universal design, And I think that with enough strong language around the intent of what universal design is trying to achieve, then

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that could work. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Kelly, thank you so much for taking

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Oh, time out of

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: your can I quick Sorry? Sorry. Go ahead.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Hi. Kelly, I was wondering, just I thought it might be helpful if you were involved at all. I know that AARP was directly involved with the development of the complete street standards.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: was wondering if you could maybe show parallels between those, you know, the process to getting towards that, into putting that into state statute, the kind of similar goals and whether you have, you know, seen it to be, found it to be effective and whether, what lessons we can take from that, taking from transportation to housing?

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Great question. Well, One of my favorite pieces of my work is working on Complete Streets. So Complete Streets passed back in 2011. I wasn't at AARP when it passed, but it certainly took a few years in collaboration with V Trans to come up with language. And so Complete Streets requires any newly constructed road or road that goes under maintenance to consider all users of the road, people of all abilities. And so making treatment to the road so that people who are walking, biking and using public transit also have access to the road. And it has been, in some places it has worked really well and in other places it has been challenging in regards to implementing complete streets. One of the pieces that's most challenging in our existing statute is that there's no teeth to complete streets. So there's a form in which that is filled out by the town to decide whether or not the return on investment is worth making the changes to the street. So there are ways out of complete streets, but as we have seen over the last decade as well, there has been a change in culture around how we get around in our communities and the need and the desire to find other ways for people to be able to walk safely or bike safely to where they want to go. So that is, I will say, been the biggest challenge is that there's no teeth to the statute itself around complete streets.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So the local government can opt out.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: You can opt out. You have to demonstrate why that the cost was exceeding what you would get out of the project. But more and more people, they want this, they want to be able to walk safely in their community and not risk being injured. Kids want to be able to bike to school, to walk to school. So the culture itself is shifting. And then we've seen local ordinances pass as well. And then writing of Complete Streets into town plans as well, strengthened to get that on the local level.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other questions? Kelly, thank you.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you for the good work you're doing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Members of the committee, I'm just repeating because Elizabeth joined us and Leonora joined us. Elizabeth and Leonora, can you hear? We're in a discussion phase now.

[Kelly Stoddard Poor (Associate State Director for Outreach, AARP Vermont)]: Yes, of course.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: K. What I said earlier just when we just started is that what I've come to understand really is given schedules, this bill has to go to ways and means and appropriations, and the problem we got is then it goes to the floor, and then it has to go to the senate, and the senate committees are only meeting through next week. They stop their last days Friday next. Well, what that tells me is that if this bill has any future, it has to get out today. We just have to vote it out. So, what I've done, Cameron is busy We in the Senate this have a fairly long, not really long, somewhat long floor, We're gonna have to meet after the floor and vote this out. We're not. I mean, it's really at that point. My apologies to put us in this position, but I'm now realizing that given the senate schedule, I talked to Allison Clarkson this morning, you know, they are meeting three hours a day now or nine to eleven because the floor starts at eleven, so it's really a very constrained situation. I'll just say my impression is, I think that it's been really interesting to have all the evidence that we've been hearing on universal design, it's been really interesting to me, and regardless of what we do today, it seems to me that this area could use some attention. I don't know whether the best thing is to leave the definition to process, you know, as we earlier attempted, you know, a committee, a summer study committee, or whether we should do it just taken on next session, and you know, in this committee, and just take it on, become the experts we need to be, and just clean up the legislation as necessary, I don't know. I am struggling and I think we have to just this is what we have to do today with something that's relatively simple that we can start with that works. So anyway, I just wanted to throw it open to the committee as to what people's thoughts are.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'll just share my thoughts, I have to, being asked to get out of Zoom meeting very quickly here. I like to keep universal design on the radar, but there's a lot of work to do. There's a lot of you know, the camera's talking about how much of a deep dive is going do for us to give that definition. Can we put it on the list of one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and that should make eight things, I think. Do you mean the Pilot program.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Pilot will consider the following elements, a

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: b c

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: d e f g h.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: We make an I, whatever Yeah. H. Yeah. Whatever is next and put universal design there. So it is still on the still on the radar, and we're still looking at it. And throughout the course of the three year pilot, we're still looking at it. And because we gotta look we kinda have to pull all these spreads together to give us some definition before we can do anything definitive with it a little bit more. In addition to what apparently is already being done, which is good. That's my thought, I gotta bring up

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: the other Okay, yes. So since the timeframe is an issue, is an issue, Why would we wait until after the floor to vote for it? Is Cameron coming in and then we're gonna do a walkthrough, and couldn't we vote then?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, oh, no, no, it's just No, wait a minute, let me be real clear. There's nothing stopping us from Generally, when we take a vote, we've got to have a draft, okay? So, normally, when we have a draft, we rely on Cameron to produce the draft. And Cameron's in the Senate now dealing with in Senate economic development, guess, is that where he is, which means all of our bills. So, we're not gonna pull him out of there. I think we could, amongst ourselves this morning, if we wanted to, the committee could agree on some simple language idea, and then we transmit it to him, and then we come after the floor and vote. He's only available in the afternoon. So the floor is at from, like, one to three, so we'd have to come back at I don't after hi, Saudia. Hi. So we'd have to come back afterwards. Saudia, did you have a chance to hear what we've just been talking about?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I did, but when I was transitioning to the Zoom, I Tom was talking when I tried to transfer over to the Zoom, so I I caught the last part was when he was giving off his list of things. So yeah. What was the conclusion? Well, did anybody speak after that, or is that where

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. We've had a couple of conversations, but I'm just gonna repeat and summarize for a moment. What Tom was proposing, right now it says in the stat in 03/28 as it is now, it says, the pilot will consider the following elements, A, B, C, you know, it's a bunch of things. So, Tom was suggesting that we just add something like universal design, elements of universal design to that list. Then I was Saudia saying that unfortunately, we really don't have much time. We've got to get this bill out today if we want it to have a future, because it has to go to ways and means, then it has to go to approach, and the real problem is, then it comes to the floor, then it has to go over to the Senate and the Senate Committee, and Senate committees are only meeting through next Friday. So, we really can't wait any longer. And so, I think there was what Tom said and I said earlier is I think this testimony has been really interesting, and I think that this definitely merits the attention of this committee in more detail. It sounds like the statutory regime leaves something to be desired entirely aside from how broad it should be, it's not well articulated, and so that's something we should be taking up next session no matter what. But the question is, what do people feel comfortable doing today? Tom was proposing that we simply add it to the list and call it elements of universal design or something like that, and I wanna know how people feel. What what's the pleasure

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: of the committee on this?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Marc, I have a question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Are the money committees also only meeting till next Friday downstairs?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I I've been told that all the committees are only meeting until next Friday, but I can't believe that's true. I I don't know. Emilie, I just don't know.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And frankly

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I'll I'll find I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: just don't know. Yeah. I just don't know how reliable it is to predict anything.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. It was actually related it wasn't even related to this. It's another bill I have. I'm on my way in now, so I'll just ask when I get there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. But

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think we should vote today.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: K. Gayle?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: That's my vote. Think we should vote today, but I'd like to go with Elizabeth.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Elizabeth. Everybody's kinda looking at you. Yes. Do you like or not like being the person everybody looks at? Depends on the day. And then Saudia Saudia has her hand up too. So okay. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I I agree with you that universal design ought to get a a full discussion in the next session is what I've always wanted. However, in this bill, the idea really truly is to make sure that adaptability and visibility, by way of the codes that are already enforced by the fire safety division are included in the pilot. Was really my goal, to make sure that adaptability and visibility are part of the pilot, not considered in the pilot, but and I I I'm not sure that the people from the Division of Fire Safety understand that we're really talking about or I'm I'm really talking about the designs and that the Division of Fire Safety would not have to inspect every unit that came out of the pilot, but that they be included in the designs. I don't think it's a good idea to hunt this because this is a really narrow and simple way to get it started. It's an opportunity. I think it really, I think the discussion over universal design will necessarily be long. You may not be able to do it in one biennium, actually. It's been kicked around for a long time. If you want to do a full exploration of it, it ought to require a lot of time. It will also require breaking open building codes, which is a whole another ball of wax. So it's a bigger subject matter than I think we all realize. But don't, the arguments against including it, including visitability and adaptability in this pilot have historically been related to cost. And we have heard that that doesn't necessarily hold water at this time for this pilot. I if I if I could hear other reasons against it, I I could understand better why not to do it now, but I I don't understand why not do it now. That's my feeling about it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Saudia and then Leonora.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. So yeah. I would second those sentiments that Elizabeth just shared. I I would say that now is often an afterthought.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You hear So will you start again? Because now we can hear you.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Can hear me now? Okay, I'm sorry. And I second Elizabeth's thoughts. And I was just saying the problem with so many things that we do, not only in, you know, in in the world, but in the legislature, especially explicitly, is equity is often an afterthought. And when we do that, I mean, we just heard testimony this morning on the the not even just this morning. For the past two weeks, we've been hearing testimony that the cost to do it after the fact is is much higher than implanting it in the design. We're not mandating. We're and and to and adding it to those list of things that Tom was listing. And I think, you know, as saying, you know, elements of universal design as it relates to visibility and adaptability, I think is perfectly reasonable. We do have some definitions of what that means. And if we want to reference VHFA, then so be it. If we wanna reference the fire code, so be it. But without mandating that the the fire inspector has to go through and inspect each individual unit, it's not that. It's inspecting the design and not even inspecting the design. We know what the code is for the design. So it's just saying consider implementing that. And I think if you do it now, like now is the time, not after the pilot has begun, the designs have been implemented, everything's off and running, and then it's like, oh, whoops. Well, now let's try to go back and retrofit these things. I I think it's it's just we we've heard testimony more testimony on this subject matter during this session than we have other elements of other aspects that are in the bill, in the same bill. And so I would say, in my opinion, it's not yes, it's something that continues next session, but not something that waits until next next year. One, we don't know who's gonna be here. Two, like, you know, we we have taken extensive testimony on this subject matter over the course of the past several weeks. And I think we do have some clear definitions. It's a matter of do we have the fortitude to put those words on paper and make it make sense for people to consider as they're going forward in the pilot program. Know, eight zero two Homes is doing this on their own. And we're saying, thank you. Yes. Let's champion this language. And let's say, this is the way forward. When people are doing something right, we should do more of that, not less. And so how do we translate that into this bill so that it can manifest in a way that doesn't produce a cost burden or stress burden to the folks, but provides an option in a meaningful way to meet the need of Vermonters and meet the needs of developers so that everybody wins.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Leonora.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I just the only thing that I wanna add to that is that the way that we can the way that the current statute reads about accessibility codes in our state seems to specifically exempt prefabbed and manufactured housing. And so that is where I would very much like to exempt this project, the pilot, from that exemption. And so I think that that's why we really could use beefing up, giving this some teeth. And I think that we heard that they're trying to do that with eight zero two Homes, but nothing precludes this project from eschewing eight zero two Homes designs, right? And using some other design entirely. So I think that's why this language is needed. We've heard that these are actually not difficult things to implement. We have now pretty much built up, you know, identified the most important elements of accept of not accessibility, but at least visitability and adaptability. And I think that it's not only feasible, but wise to make sure that we prioritize this in some way for at least the pilot, if we're not willing to dig into the whole language. And I agree that going with those terms and referencing those visibility and adaptability standards is wiser maybe then that's where I might differ from the rest of folks is that I don't really wanna use the terms universal design unless they're referencing the specific fire code standards, fire and safety standards of visitability and adaptability.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Other comments? I have a thought, but I'm gonna if there's other comments, I'd like to hear them. Yes?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I wasn't here when Fact Out came regarding unmanufactured homes, but I did watch a little bit of it. Did they say that that's custom?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, it's custom, yeah.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It is custom.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah, it's custom. Adding on that expense to something that has one specific design. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, and yeah, for manufactured homes at the moment, it's custom. Okay. Here is a proposal, may I make a proposal? Hey, you're just back in time. Really? Yeah, I'm about to make a proposal. While you were gone, Tom, both Elizabeth and Saudia really emphasized that as much as they agree that this is work for the future, we shouldn't hunt it all to the future and should include something concrete now, and summarize, okay. And Leonora felt strongly that we need the words adaptability and accessibility, so here, I was about to make a proposal. My proposal is that the committee allow me to communicate with our council, probably right before lunch or something or by email, and ask him to draft up something that would sound like this, is everybody ready? It would be an H, okay, and it would say incorporation of elements of universal design, adaptability and visitability.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: That's more specific than

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And that I I I communicate with them. How do people feel about

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: And what is that list for again?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is the what the pilot has to consider. They just have to consider it. Don't have to do it. That's right.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Do you want four or do you want the band? They'd have to include both, right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I think and because they're different. They're not the same. They they they're not the same. Yes, Elizabeth.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I would request that it say how to and not just consideration of. How to include, not consideration of how to include.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, then we can't put it in the list. We'd have to have a separate section.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I have a question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Leonora? The list starts, the pilot will consider the following elements, bulk purchasing, streamlining regulatory process, creating a loan loss reserve, utilization of off-site construction, establishment of a statewide procurement consortium, aligning state and permitting, and creating and adapting off-site building codes, then we would add h incorporating the elements of universal design, blah blah blah.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: What about what about putting it in the off-site building codes putting it off-site building codes including the incorporation of of visibility and adaptability.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. That's where it would fall.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It would fall. Yeah. We could do that.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: My concern is that with everything about disability, there is always a way to opt out of it. That's the problem. Towns get a pass on it, the state gets a pass on it, everybody takes advantage of getting a pass on it. And I feel strongly that it be a requirement and not something that's an opt in.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We can put it in at creating and adapting off-site meeting. So it's comma, including.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Sense of the committee? I'm just curious what a point that Leonora raised about manufactured housing being exempt from those fire codes requirements of them?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Manufactured housing is built to HUD codes. There's nothing we're gonna do that will change that. It's the what Facto testified to is that there are things you can add, but they're options.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And they have to be specific to the HUD codes. They have all the codes for that particular type of housing already. That's stronger than any other codes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Refresh my memory. Wait, wait. I got a but. Okay. Did facto testify or one of the two of them? Remember, there's two different kinds of well, there's double whites and single whites that are to hide codes and Duplex. But then there are these all these other poems in the catalog of these companies that are some of them are two story, some of them are one story, they look like ranch homes, etcetera. Those are those built to HUD code?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I don't believe so.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think they're built to local building code standard. Right. So, to get back to Leonora's point, and you and to, I think, answer your question, if we were to put this in g, creating, adapting, outside building codes, it would apply to those manufactured homes.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I don't think it would apply to them. I think it would just be something they consider

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: when they're Yeah. I coming up with

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the plan. I think it would still be governed by there's still between the BSA. There's with the exemption of out of state manufactured homes. It doesn't exempt them from any code, it just means that they are under HUD. So I think that would still apply, and if they're considering how to do these codes, they're gonna have to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: figure that out anyways.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Just for clarity.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Can I ask a question?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Manufactured group. Please, go ahead.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Sorry, Tom. I did that was me. I didn't mean to interrupt Tom. It's you wanna finish, Tom.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, and actually, Joe was doing Joe, I finished. Yeah. Joe Joe was sort of Are we referencing?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I could also build those maybe back to pass it as well.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is it Leonora who was wanting to speak?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It it was. I I just I just wanted to ask the question the clarifying question.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: It's all good.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Our HUD standards do they do the HUD standards cover the elements of visibility or adaptability?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: No. No.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: No. Right. So that's that's we need something specific

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: To what?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: To that. Right? To visibility

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and Leonora, the only thing I'd say about that is, first of all, we're not gonna change HUD standards. If we wanted to undertake the idea of encouraging or requiring that homes, that HUD regulated homes sold in Vermont include additional elements, I would say that is a major challenge for us.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And a major And

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a major I mean, that that would be we'd be wading into something very controversial.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. I guess my point is simply that if we are going to make up designs or allow for the pilot project to include some sort of modular design, right, that I want to make sure that those are not coming under the exemption to the accessibility code in 20 VSA 29 They zero

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: are not. In other words, the pilot program is all about off-site modular housing as in built by, for example, Huntingtonville. Mhmm. Those are covered by they're not HUD code. They're building notes. So Elizabeth's suggestion of putting this in, g, creating and adopting of off-site building codes would be effective.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So, other words, they by putting that in, we are saying regardless of what 2907 says.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: That's what I wanted to ensure. Okay. Thanks.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Saudia? Thanks.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. I I I like that putting it in G because I think we were kind of getting a little bit in the weeds there between the manufacturer and the modulars and the the because they it it is the that is what we want. We don't want the HUD the HUD changing the HUD code for the manufactured homes. And Huntington Homes already said that they build above HUD code any HUD standards anyway. And the modulars that come out of facto, are built to building code. So I think when you put it in subsection g, that meets the need of what people are trying to accomplish. That makes the most sense, I think.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Just to clarify, I want everybody real clear with the committee. I mean, I agree. I agree with what you guys have said. I think you're on the right path. But to clarify, off-site modular homes, which are the subject of the pilot program, are built to building code. Therefore, if we put this in the building code section, that will apply. Manufactured homes that are not single wide, double wide duplexes, but are larger structures, just because they're made in a factory in Pennsylvania, they are in fact subject to local building codes, such as they are. So, it would apply to them, but single wides and double wides and things like that are built only for that code, okay? So, I am going to talk to counsel, I'm gonna email counsel and we'll bring something back right after the floor. So everybody, we're about to go offline, come back right after the floor. Okay? Here, so we can get a quorum. And I guess, I don't know, Emilie, Saudia, and Elizabeth, whether you wanna use a vote, one of your three votes or not.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Well, we know a Saudia.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I'll be there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Great.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I'll I will also be there in person.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: She's already used Who's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: who's used them all up?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I believe.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, we'll we'll we'll work it out. Okay. And this and and

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: yes. I I think it's really important because I think that I see there's always a snag. Modular homes is where we went with what was that?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Huntington. Huntington

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Homes. Yeah. Manufactured homes are

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: As ductile.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Ductile or village homes. Right. And then there's the prefab homes that are built off-site also.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But they like panelized, all of that. They're subject to building codes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Right. But manufactured homes, like the Vector or Village Homes, they're not. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Except yeah. Unless my understanding well, it doesn't matter. Okay. So I will please come here. Look. For those of you, Elizabeth, Leonora, and Saudia, watch your email for a signal that the floor is over. Okay? Well, Saudia, you're coming in? Yeah. Okay. Emilie, what's your plan? Who knows? Okay.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'm I'm I'll be in I'll be in for the floor.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Oh, great. Alright. So we're fine. We'll convene right after the floor, and then we'll be done. Okay?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Great.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Many thanks to all of you, and I we are now adjourned.