Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Good afternoon. Today is April 30. That's Tuesday. It's Thursday, April 30, and it is 02:00, and this is the waste bin committee, we are picking up S-three 25 and ideally voting on it as well. Floor is yours, Ellen. Us all about it. I imagine everyone has some context for this, yes? Okay, great. Great. Not giving the context. I'm here on S-three 25 as voted out of a house environment a little while ago. I have given you today a section by section summary, as well as the document. I have been made aware that there are some typos in the section by section. I apologize for that. Drafted it between committees.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: And I'll make sure the editors see it, and we'll fix those. I thought more important than having better the mistakes there than from the actual bill. Well, then I thought maybe you'd want to see the summary in case the document It's a 30 page bill, so not that long for an Act two fifty rule. Section by section is great. Yeah. So I have the language Or would you like me to walk through the section by section? Which would you prefer? Think we should just do the section by section. So S-three 25 is an act related to regional planning and Act two fifty tier jurisdiction. And so this bill covers Act two fifty as well as some regional planning and the community investment program, all of which were topics in Act 181. So this is kind of a follow-up to Act 181 of twenty twenty four. And you will notice that the first five sections actually repeal some of the language from Act 181. So, first, Section one is repealing Section 19 of Act 181. The road jurisdictional trigger that was added in Act 181 for Act two fifty, also called the road rule. So that is being repealed so that it will not take effect. It has not yet taken effect, and it will not take effect. Section two repeals Section 21, which created the definitions for Tier two and Tier three, and also had some of the definition language for tier three. That is also being repealed that they had also not yet taken effect, and they will not take effect under this language. Section three amends the effective date section of Act 181 to line up with the fact that multiple sections are being repealed. So it's striking those effective dates so that repealed language will not take effect. The other thing that it's doing is that it is pushing out the effective date for Criterion 8c. So that is one of the new That is the new criterion that was added in Act 181 for Act two fifty, and it's on forest lots and habitat connectors. And currently in Act 181, that statute was to take effect on 12/31/2026. It is being pushed back to 01/01/2028, which will facilitate the Land Use Review Board to do additional work on the rules that will go with 8C and additional public outreach and work on developing those rules. Section four repealed the tier three rulemaking process that was already underway. And since tier three is getting repealed, so is the rulemaking. Section five repealed the tier two area report, which was going to ask the land use review board next year to report back on additional changes that may be needed to address other things in tier two. Tier two is going away, so that is also going away. Section six starts amending the statutory text of Act two fifty, and it still relates to Act 181. It is extending the interim housing exemptions that were created in Act 181. In Act 181, there were a couple different dates. The interim housing exemptions were either going to expire on 01/01/2027 or July 2027. Now all three of these exemptions will sunset on 01/01/2028. And to remind you, they are up to 75 units of housing in new town centers, growth centers or neighborhood development areas, 50 units of housing within a quarter mile around village centers with zoning subdivision bylaws sewer, water, proper soils or 50 units of housing in an urbanized census block along a transit route and then all housing development within downtowns with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws. So all three of those exemption categories are being extended to 01/01/2028. Section seven has some clarifying language to the municipal permit process related to what is currently tier 1A. It's just clarifying that conditions will be moved from an active 50 permit to a municipal permit so that it can be enforced by the municipality. Section eight is amending the Act 181 related to the Criterion eight rulemaking. The rule is being delayed to give them additional to work on it, and so it is now due to LCAR next year, 06/15/2027, because it is currently due 06/15/2026. There are so many dates in this bill. Section nine is a session law provision on a public engagement plan. So it is directing the State Natural Resources Conservation Council to work with the Vermont Council on Rural Development and the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts to develop a public engagement plan for how to reach out to Vermonters related to issues on working lands and critical natural resources. This is somewhat in response to the language related to Act 181. So how to develop a public engagement plan so that more voices can be heard as policies are developed in the future. There's a $30,000 appropriation for the development of that plan. Section 10 creates an oversight committee, the Joint Legislative Environmental Oversight Committee, that would have five members, three from the House, two from the Senate, being able to meet up to six times per year outside of session. And they would be having oversight of the permitting process of the Land Use Review Board and Agency of Natural Resources. Primarily just meeting with those agencies to see how it's going. No kind of additional stronger verbs other than meeting with and reviewing how their processes are going. Authority. No veto authority or implementation authority. Just engagement. So joint pension oversight or joint health oversight? Yes. There's quite a few. Do the members need to be chairs of money committees? Section 11 is a second law provision adapting some of the other language that was in Act 181 for the Land Use Review Board to continue to report back on a couple of issues. There's a report asking them to look at commercial activity on farms and whether the active issue jurisdiction over those activities need to be adjusted. That's due later this year. There's also a report looking at mitigation of primary agricultural soils for F-two 50. That will be due next year. And then also the effectiveness of jurisdictional triggers and criteria 9L on addressing sprawl and strip development. Then there's an amendment to 24 BSA four thousand three forty eight. This is in the regional planning statutes and it has a couple of updated Did I find your typo? Yes. There's another one where I wrote allow instead of allowing. So there's a It's fine. I just wanted to So the regional planning statute here is being updated. This is the statute that establishes the process for how regional planning commissions get their regional plans approved at the Land Use Review Board. That process was created in Act 181. It's being updated here to create a process where they can do amendments to the plan without going through the full procedural steps of doing a plan readoption. So largely just means there will be one less public hearing on a plan amendment as opposed to a full plan. And they're probably those non minor amendments as opposed to there is a process already for minor amendments. It also has the language related to enhanced energy planning and that process, merging that with the regional plan update process. That language already passed an H-nine 40, so it's identical here so that there's no conflict. Section 11 makes a few This is section 13, actually. This is the typo. Section 13 amends 24 BSA 4,348. This is the statute that establishes the land use categories that are used in the regional plans. There's a few sort of small technical changes that are being added to a couple of the categories. There are references being added to requiring the Smart Growth Principles. There is a change that now says state centers can be the traditional or historic areas of a town, recognizing that some towns are transitioning to different areas that weren't historic for them. Towns can have more than one center. That's a sort of a clarifying amendment. The striking of some of the references is the designated areas because those are being adapted into the community investment program areas. Having a consistency change from referencing municipal water and sewer to public water and sewer. And then striking references in the rural category to not have references to the conservation goals or have references to tier three. Section 14 is adding the language regarding Smart Growth Principles, which is currently in chapter 76A. It's being moved into Chapter 117, the Planning and Zoning Chapter. Section 15 is Session Law. It's extending any regional or municipal plan that is expiring this year or next year to 12/31/2027. This is in case the Land Use Review Board review process is delayed at all, making sure that there's no gap when the plans expire. Section 17. So this starts a couple of changes to the Community Investment Program. This is a successor program to the state designation program, one of the main features of which is the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit program. So in this change, we're changing some of the definitions, mostly to streamline them and make sure that they are aligned with the definitions in 04/1948, which is what they are based on. So yeah, making sure that they cross reference to that. Section 18 is still in the Community Investment Programs section. So this is the language that establishes the new Downtown Center and Village Center designation that's part of the program. So it's striking some language that as they're starting to use this program, it's just about to be rolled out, there's some language that's striking, identifying how they're mapped. And then also making sure that both the Department of Housing and Community Development and the Community Investment Board are providing comments on the areas eligible for this designation during the Land Use Review Board process, and then striking language that's redundant with 4348. Section 19 is adding some clarifying language. I think the intent is for it to be clarifying language to the Downtown and Village Center Tax Credit Program. So Currently, that program has an eligibility requirement that it is only for buildings that are at least 30 years old. Because of the new Community Investment Program requirements, under the original state designated area program, it was only historic buildings that would qualify, but there are now newer emerging centers that are allowed to qualify for this program as a whole. So language is being added to the tax credit program to clarify that the tax credits still will only go to those buildings that are eligible with the age. So even though more towns and centers will be technically eligible because of their participation in the program, only those buildings that meet the age qualification will be eligible to apply for the tax credits. You might wanna look at that language.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: It's like Newtown Center.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: That's largely what we're talking about here. Yeah, because the Newtown Centers will be incorporated into this. It is clarifying that those buildings will not qualify for tax credits to be eligible to apply for tax credits. Alright. Let's see.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Here.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, good. It's over two pages. So, section 19 amending 32 VSA 5,930 BB eligibility. So, applications shall be made in accordance with the guidelines set by the state board. The guidelines shall clearly indicate that only applications located in Step two and Step three state designated centers, which require the historic eligibility to be on the National Historic Register, or Step one centers where a portion of the designated center is listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places shall be considered. Okay. That was section 19. Section 20. Section 20 is adding to the Community Investment Program an annual report that wasn't previously required, but it will have a summary of the board's activities, including any of the incentives that are awarded through that program. Section 21 is also a session law provision. This is a report from the Department of Housing and Community Development on a number of topics related to housing construction and discretionary review, which is a form of zoning review. It's the way most of the towns currently do zoning, as opposed to form based code, which is more objective as opposed to subjective. So, there's a few different things that they're asking the department to look at, including a status update on eight zero two Homes program and data on housing built under the interim housing exemptions. And then finally, Section 22 updates the environmental justice chapter. The Agency of Natural Resources has been working on this for the last few years and then asked for a couple of the deadlines to be pushed out. And so the annual spending report is being delayed by one year to start on 01/15/2029. The ANR's environmental justice rules are delayed until 01/01/2029. The other agencies who will need to adopt environmental justice rules based on ANRs are also being pushed back to 07/01/2030. And then the publishing of the environmental justice mapping tool is being pushed to 01/01/2028. Can you remind me when we passed the environmental justice? Oh, yes. It was 2022. That sounds right to me. It's prior to the HOME Act. 2020 It's not that important. It's okay. But I can get it to you quickly. Thank you. Yeah. Whenever you do. It's fine. The effective date? Effective date is 07/01/2026. Questions for Ellen. The committee vote was eleven-zero. It was.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: A question on the change in the designated downtown program, community investment program, whatever, is that also just effective on passive on July 1?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Which was there a specific one you think of? I was

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: reading through it, I thought, I wonder when these are effective. So, yeah, the effect that they kind of answered that question. If it's not that, then what? I was at a cold moment.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Representative Higley.

[Rep. Mark Higley]: Thank you. Were you asking in particular about the road rule? No, not at all. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Go forth answer this really quickly.

[Rep. Mark Higley]: Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Just in case it helps for context, so the Community Investment Program is only gonna start when the Land Use Review Board is doing the review of the regional plans. So this will take effect hopefully, and they haven't finalized any of those yet, so it should just roll into what is about to start happening. And

[Rep. Mark Higley]: then, again, my question is, Alan, there might have been more than just a section that was supposed to take effect July 1. I'm just concerned that if that section doesn't have upon passage wording, you know, I already know that a lot of people are trying to jump the gun before July 1 and getting in the road. Okay. And I'm just wondering why the road rule section couldn't be upon passage.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sure. There is a legal reason. So because of the way Act one was drafted, this bill is proposing to repeal something that hasn't taken effect yet. And so you have to move the date up in So it is being repealed in Act 181 on 07/01/2026. So then this will also repeal it on 07/01/2026. It has to be on the same date so that it doesn't actually take effect. So it's a little legally complicated. I had to get assistance to draft this because, yes, the intention is that it shall not ever take effect. And by having this be on the same date, it will just essentially delete it so that it will never take effect.

[Rep. Mark Higley]: Okay, again, I just think it's important for people to know

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: that it's never going take effect.

[Rep. Mark Higley]: Right, that it's going to happen, so that they don't have to continue to push between now and July 1, which they're doing, to get in a road that's over 800 feet.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you for clarifying that. I appreciate it. Any other questions, Thanks, Ellen. Helen, you're welcome to sit over here with all of Ted's candy if you'd like.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm not wearing them, I promise. Here we go. Thinking through, it's maybe helpful to review the structure and fee revenue that was put in place with App 181, which under that structure, there was a group of interim housing exemptions that would exempt projects from Act

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: two fifty

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: jurisdiction until the tier 1A and 1B areas were mapped. And it is designed that those interim exemptions would take place in roughly the same area that were going to be in the tier 1A and 1B areas, which tier 1A fully exempt from Act two fifty and tier 1B projects that were under 50 units would be exempt from Act two fifty jurisdiction. And then concurrent with that, you would have increased Act two fifty permit revenue from the road rule jurisdictional trigger and the creation of that Tier three areas. So, that was the structure in Act 181. When we're looking at fiscal impact, we're comparing against that as current law in that structure, so thinking about how things might look in the future. All of the changes proposed in this bill would mean that the amount of permit revenue would be less compared to that structure, if you're repealing the full route and tier three areas. The extension of the interim exemptions means that the current amount, the current volume of projects that would fall under Act two fifty review is paying the same through until those interim exemptions end, at which point the tier 1A and 1B area would be mapped. So on net, this bill would reduce Act two fifty permit revenue compared to that current law structure that was envisioned in 2020 And that's largely because you're not getting the additional fee revenue from the Tier three areas and approval.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Can you Sorry, don't have questions. I have questions about the tax credits. Don't think too far ahead. I can wait.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Okay, yes. And this fiscal note's not because that was seen as more of a clarifying change. We didn't really book anything in the fiscal note around it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's actually very helpful to me. Did you not name that in the fiscal note, though?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Not name that in

[Rep. Mark Higley]: the Did

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: you name that in the fiscal note for whatever next version? Yep. Okay.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Absolutely. Yep. Chatted with Ellen a bit about it and just understanding that the various changes to the community investment program were seen as more clarifying, aligning definition with pieces and statutes. So I didn't see a huge scope change. You didn't see a scope change? Did not see

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: a scope change yet.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Narrowing though?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I think it's a narrowing of

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: eligible projects for eligible projects. For the tax credits? Yeah. The tax credits, I don't think we're ever intended to go to projects that weren't historically valuable. And so this is just clarifying that even though in a Newtown Center, they would theoretically be eligible for the tax credit, theoretically, I don't think that was ever in tent. So I guess if you're narrowly looking at current law, theoretically you're narrowing it. But I think this is more seen as a clarification that no one was intending to distribute those tax credits to buildings that weren't historically on the historic register. It's also the fact there's more demand than amount of tax credits available. And you don't have to be on

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the historic register, you just have to be Worthy. Worthy of the historic register, right? Because that's a process to get on the historic register. Yeah, it's actually two pronged because the tax credit program itself lists the eligibility specifically, is different than the state register, and it's thirty years in the tax credit program and it's fifty years for the national register. But the designated therapy program requires that the center have buildings eligible for the National Register.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Do you have a figure on Act

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: two fifty piece you were talking about?

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No, not specific. The only piece we can comment on is we talked with Land Use Review Board, and back when we were all looking at this bill under Act 181, their estimate was that the interim exemptions would reduce Act two fifty revenue by about $900,000 and that seems to have borne out. And so as long as those interim exemptions are in effect, that's about the scope of decreased Active 50 revenue. And I wouldn't put myself on the record to say it would continue, however, but would note that the interim exemption areas, I've seen some testimony that those are not a perfect match, but they're similar in scope to the newly created Tier 1A and 1B areas or what their potential scope might be, I should say. Yes. So moving on to two additional more appropriations focused issues. Oh no, there are two appropriations focused issues and then one very small tiny fee addition that I won't go into. So section nine would create the, would task the State Natural Resources Council with hiring contractor to create a plan for public engagement. The bill includes an appropriation for $30,000 from the general fund to the council to hire that contractor. The section 10 would create the oversight committee. I will note that I forgot to update this fiscal note as reflective of a slightly earlier version of the bill that mentioned peak meetings. It's really six meetings. Totally fine. It was a last minute thing. I just missed it. And instead of $11,000 per year, I did the math on the chair on the side. It's a little bit more than $8,000 if they meet those six meetings for the budget of the general assembly. And then finally, in section 12, the non minor land use map amendments that can be filed as part of regional plan amendment, statute references a $295 fee that was created in F-one hundred eighty one that these would pay. So, people who are filing the regional plan, so regional planning commissions, they would file the plan to the Review Board as a part of for them to review when the Land Use Review Board is reviewing that regional plan or that amendment.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: We put that in 01/1981. We

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: don't know how many non minor land use map amendments will be filed, so there's no way to put an estimate on the amount of revenue that could be generated, but one of flag goes to be. In the bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Folks, anybody have any questions for Ted? Thank you.

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. And I will send an update correcting the number of meetings and adding context around the tax credit.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Anyone need anything else?

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Madam Chair, I move that we find favorable S-two 35 as presented.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Canfield moves we find S-three 25 favorable? I knew what you

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: meant. And

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: any discussion? Yes.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, in general terms.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I can't hear you at all,

[Ted (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: I'm so sorry. In general terms,

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: I know why we ended up where we are, April. Past 01/1981, lot of things went sideways. I've talked to a number of people here, there and everywhere, we all have about where we are, and this seems to me the practical result given how we work here. I think that there is, personally, I wish that the process had evolved differently and we could have spent more time working through the things, the meritorious parts of Act 181, and come up with a better solution. But this solves the problem for now, and so that's how we are, and that's okay, I'm happy to support it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think the Natural Resources Committee did some pretty careful work over the last weeks. I just want say I, for one, am happy that the pieces of 181 that are going to really promote housing in downtown and village centers are very important to the Understood. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, courts

[Carol (Committee Assistant)]: please call the roll. Thank you. Representative Branagan? Yes. I'll vote yes as representative Burkhardt.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Polko? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode is not here.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I assume she's not voting today remotely. Representative Page?

[Rep. Woodman Page]: Yes.

[Carol (Committee Assistant)]: Representative Wadak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. And Representative Kornheiser?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes. We have voted

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: the bill favorable ten zero one. Thank you, everyone. We are done for the day.

[Carol (Committee Assistant)]: That's that's correct. I'm not voting.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, Carol. Thank you. We're done for the day. The yield bill is passed on the Senate if people wanna read the final versions. We'll schedule more more testimony on that scheduled for tomorrow. Miscellaneous tax is still in between. Thank you, Ellen. Miscellaneous tax is still attracting all the amendments I can at every moment. And I'll see you all tomorrow at nine.