Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: We'll send it. Please come to order. Are there any announcements? We are going to oh, yeah. Let's start with that resolution. We have a senate resolution to take up at this time. SR 24, senate resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan on the twenty seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations and Taiwan's participation in international organizations. Listen to the reading by title only.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: S r 24, senate resolution reaffirming the abiding friendship between the state of Vermont and The Republic Of China, Taiwan, on the twenty fifth seventh anniversary of the Vermont Taiwan sister state relationship and supporting enhanced Vermont Taiwan bilateral relations in Taiwan's participation in international organizations.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the reading of the resolution. The chair in its discretion will treat the resolution in a bill as a bill and refer it to the committee on economic development. Now we have house bills for reference. H two ninety four, an act relating to telecommunications services and wages for correctional facilities introduced by representative Hedrick. It passed the house on 03/21/2026. Listen to the reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H two ninety four, an act relating to telecommunications services and wages in correctional facilities.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on institutions. H four ten, an act relating to the calculation of recidivism and other related criminology measures introduced by representative Lalonde. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H four ten, an act relating to the calculation of recidivism and other terminology measure measures.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on judiciary. H five thirty seven, an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens introduced by representative Lalonde. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H five thirty seven, an act relating to the right to grow vegetable gardens.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on economic development. H five eighty three, an act relating to clinical decision making introduced by representative Black. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: Page five eighty three, an act relating to clinical decision making.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on health and welfare. H six forty two, an act relating to youthful offender proceedings introduced by representative Lalonde. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H six forty two, an act relating to youthful offender proceedings.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on judiciary. H six sixty, an act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty seven opioid abatement special fund appropriations introduced by representative McGuire. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H six sixty, an act relating to fiscal year twenty twenty seven opioid opioid abatement special fund appropriation.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, and it's referred to the committee on health and welfare. H seven thirty nine, an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of herbicide paraquat. Introduced by representative Cole and others, it passed the house on March 20 to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H seven thirty nine, an act relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide paraquat.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on agriculture. H nine thirty, an act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism introduced by the committee on education. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H nine thirty, an act relating to addressing and preventing chronic absenteeism.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill. It's referred to the committee on economic development. That should be Ed. That's why I took a minute. That was a scribner's error that should be referred to the committee on education. H nine forty, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects introduced by the committee on energy and digital infrastructure. It passed the house on 03/20/2026. Listen to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H nine forty, an act relating to miscellaneous public utility subjects.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on finance. H nine forty two, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects introduced by the committee on agriculture, food resiliency, and forestry. It passed the house on March 20 to the first reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H nine forty two, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the first reading of the bill, it's referred to the committee on agriculture. Orders of the day. We will go to third reading. First, we have s one ninety seven, an act relating to establishing a primary care payment reform program. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: S one ninety seven, an act relating to establishing a primary care payment reform program.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the third reading of the bill and the question is shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we passed s one ninety seven. S two thirty two, an act relating to public libraries and the Department of Libraries. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H two thirty two, an act relating to public libraries and the Department of Libraries.

[Speaker 0]: Now you've heard the third reading. The question is, shall the bill pass? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have passed s two thirty two. Looking for more enthusiasm in the next round of voting. S three twenty seven, an act relating to economic development. Are there any amendments prior to third reading? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. And there might be a lot of support for this one. So the bill is being passed out. It's very short. And what it is, it's in regard to the study that was included in this bill. And it adds employee owned businesses to it to the study to make sure that employee owned businesses are included. And now there wasn't the challenge to this amendment is that there isn't a list of all types of businesses. This is the only one that is called out. The language of stakeholders, including representatives of employee owned businesses, if if this bill had been had included this in the beginning, reporting would likely have been different. But the committee did approve it. The reason for this is that, in my experience, we often don't look at employee owned businesses when we look at businesses in general, and they're a really important component of our economy. They, generally, pay better or higher than than others. What's really important is that the revenue that goes to the employee owned businesses stays in Vermont. So if if if we wanna promote Vermont businesses businesses who stay in Vermont and benefit Vermonters should be part of the mix. Is my pitch. Thank you Mr. President.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate economic development housing and general affairs committee, listened to the senator from Windham and on a straw poll of five zero agreed to incorporate this amendment into our now more modest bill. And, thank you very much. So we encourage you all to support this amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall s three twenty seven be amended as offered by the senator from Windham? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and we have amended s three twenty seven as offered by the senator from Windham. The question now is we should listen to third reading.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: S three twenty seven, an act relating to economic development.

[Speaker 0]: And the question now is, shall the bill pass as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have passed s three twenty seven as amended. We're going back to the top of the calendar, which brings us to s three twenty eight introduced on 01/30/2026, and and it was referred to the committee on economic development. As you can tell, I didn't have time to fill my script all out, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that the bill ought to pass when amended by the committee on economic development and when further amended as set forth in today's calendar. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: S three twenty eight, an act relating to housing in common interest communities.

[Speaker 0]: I recognize the senator from Windham for

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: the No. No?

[Speaker 0]: Three twenty eight. It's Windsor.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Sorry.

[Speaker 0]: I did say Windham. Senator from Windsor for the report of the committee.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, Mr. President. We're gonna try again. This is our this is our housing bill. As you all know Vermont, like every other state in the Northeast and most of America is experiencing a real housing crisis. And we're very clear that we need to be building at a minimum 7,500 units of new housing a year to meet that demand. At the moment a banner year has us building and renovating maybe 3,000 at best and from 2020, from COVID through 2025, this legislature with the help of the incredible generosity of the federal government through COVID and ARPA money were able to invest over $600,000,000 in housing, which we've never ever been able to devote that much money to housing, which was really thrilling. So we have been able to funnel a vast amount of money into it. But in addition, and almost more importantly, every year we worked to reduce barriers to housing development, amending our regulations, zoning, ordinances, and land use laws. So working up in on both sides, both the money and the regulatory side, we have been able to reduce barriers and add incentives to housing, which has been great. We hit a pretty tight budgeting year this year, so we some of that work is beginning to grind to a halt on the money investment part. But this year, the senate has two housing bills, which you're going to hear about. One from the senate economic development committee and of course, one from senate natural resources and energy. Both committees worked hard to stay in our jurisdictional lanes and Senate Economic Development has produced a bill which continues the work of reducing barriers to housing development. It blends priorities from the administration to our planners and committee members and includes measures which enable our new housing targets in incorporates our new housing targets developed from act one eighty one into our town plans expands our housing financing options extends our down payment assistance program permits manufactured housing by right and enables more opportunities for housing development 2,000 feet from a road which contains both water and sewer. So let me walk you through the bill. Section one takes the housing targets that we've developed and we've been to many of those meetings developed over the last year for each of our towns with our regional planners and requires that each town in a very organic fashion embed them in embed them going forward into our town plans. It requires that the housing plan include an analysis of the regulatory and physical constraints preventing the town from meeting the targets and description of the actions a town can take to accommodate its projected housing needs and that the town plan document document the progress made towards achieving its housing targets. Section two extends the Vermont Housing Finance Agency's very popular down payment assistance program for another five years through 2031 and increases the tax credits from $250,000 to $350,000 a year. This program has already served over 2,100 Vermonters and has generated, this is what's so gobsmacking, has generated over a $137,000,000 in wealth for them, thanks to the modest 5,000 to $10,000 interest free loans that they receive when they buy their first home. It's designed to enable first, households of one to two people with an average income of about of of a $140,000 or less. For every dollar of borrowed, state funding, which is fully repaid to the state, remember, homeowners have earned $15 of equity in their home. That's pretty impressive. With the cost of a median home increasing by 96% since 2014, the need for an increase in the maximum loan amount up to $10,000 is critically important. And so that is why we are taking the amount of 2 and 50 to three fifty which enables us to keep it at that rate which enables them to actually have a substantive down payment in this inflated housing market. Section three, more than a decade ago, the legislature granted the treasurer's office the authority to invest up to 10% of the state average cash balance in loans to support economic development across Vermont. This bill would expand that authority to 12.5%. Over the last three years, this program has been primarily focused on financing housing development, Although in future, once we've built all the housing we need, it is certainly available for all sorts of economic development investments. In 2023, the treasurer's office in consultation with the local investment advisory committee, that's the committee that makes the decisions about where these loans are given, identified a growing need for low cost capital to make housing projects viable. Across the state, developers increasingly face a simple challenge. They cannot build housing that is affordable to renters or homeowners using market rate financing alone. Sad but true. Today the program has supported the development of more than 1,700 housing units and the creation of over a 140 permanent jobs. Without these loans, these programs would not have moved forward. And we heard a number of witnesses testify to that. Importantly, the treasurer's office has operated this program within its existing budget and staff and expects to continue to do so. S three twenty eight proposes to expand the treasurer's authority from 10% to 12.5% of the state's average cash balance. This modest increase will unlock 30,000,000 more in additional low cost financing for housing. Now this isn't my dream, my dream would have that that 30,000,000 in grants, particularly when you look at a more challenging housing development, but this is an astonishing addition for us to have and be able to access. Oh, and they finance all types of housing, affordable housing, mixed income, and market rate housing are enabled by this program. That's one of the beauties of this. It's not just dedicated to affordable housing because remember, we need all types of housing except maybe more seasonal residents, but we love them too occasionally. It is also important to emphasize that this expansion does not pose a financial risk to the state for several reasons. First, the treasurer's office takes a conservative approach to lending because the state's cash balance is projected to decline. Lending decisions are based on forward looking estimates of the of the state's cash. In other words, loans are sized based on where the state expects its cash position to be, not where it stands today. That's a key piece. Second, and there are just three of these. Second, the treasurer's office does not lend directly to developers. Instead funds are deployed through financial intermediaries such as Vermont Housing Finance Agency, local banks, and credit unions, which guarantee repayment to the state. These intermediaries then extend the financing to developers at a very modest markup. This structure ensures that the state is repaid even if an individual project can't move forward. Today, no loans issued under this program have resulted in a loss, which is great. Third, even with this expansion, the state will maintain a minimum of 85 liquidity in its cash holdings. This is a strong liquidity position that ensures the state can continue to meet its financial obligations without disruption. The impact of this program is best illustrated by the Vermonters using it to build housing in our communities. And as one developer wrote regarding a senior housing project in Virgin's, the 10% in Vermont in Vermont program in the Vermont program arrived at a pivotal moment in the financing journey of Virgin's grand senior living. One that ultimately determined whether this project could move forward. In twenty twenty two-twenty three as rising interest rates and construction costs made development increasingly difficult, the low interest loan we received were instrumental in battling back runaway project costs. And we've heard that from several people. And another developer put it more plainly, it is fair to state that without help from the treasurer's LIAC 10 program for GEMS North would still be just a concept, likely likely with no viable path forward. Fortunately, with the treasurer's assistant assistance, we expect to break ground later this year. These projects are exactly the type of work this program is designed to support and exactly the types of projects Vermont needs more of. Vermont needs more housing, all types of housing, affordable mixed income market rate, housing are all enabled by this program. And the this authorization enables this objective without expending any state resources. Section four.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Oh my word. Section four.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Section four, originally our committee had hoped to and you'll note in the title of the bill as it was read, originally our committee had hoped to require a number of things of our common interest communities. Home ownership associations, condos, etcetera, even mobile home parks, anything that is a common interest community. We we had hoped to make real inroads in in in advancing some of our housing objectives. But it became clear as we dove into their legal structures that we didn't have the ability to address the complex challenges inherent in them in the time that we had available. So, actually, our legislative council volunteered to take this on. We are asking, and they volunteered, the office of legislative council to report back to us in November on the legal issues of requiring common interest communities to to authorize certain activities such as renting units, which is an issue with affordable housing that's been financed in certain ways, constructing accessory dwelling units, conducting commercial activities like a home based childcare center a childcare even just a home based version of that without a residential unit and within a residential unit and installing electric vehicle chargers this has been a big issue particularly with condominiums Section five. So we look forward to that and we look forward next year to really addressing these common interest communities and how we can advance some of our housing objectives with them. Section five. This section amends the definition of an eligible project or eligible facility to authorize Vermont Economic Development Authority, VITA, to provide funding for multiunit housing developments of five units or more when requested by and jointly financed with a financing lender. VITA must defer to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and shall not provide funding if the project is utilizing funding for from the HSA. But this is exciting. This expands VITA's ability to lend into the housing world where and we need as many financial vehicles as possible to help us to help enable this work, especially as the cost continues to rise. Section six, our committee has long supported creating more permanent, affordable and service supported housing for Vermonters with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It's estimated that we have over 600 individuals with IDD who are in need of this kind of supportive housing. The need is increasing increasingly acute as many of these parents and foster families with whom many of these Vermonters live are aging out of the ability to care for their loved ones. So last year, the legislature legislature in act 69 created a task force to address how Vermont deals long term with these challenges. In act one eighty six, we had, supported a pilot with VHCB, the Vermont Housing Conservation Board, which resulted in three pilot projects creating homes for Vermonters with IDD, which led to an additional three housing projects creating 37 units of new housing for people with intellectually intellectual developmental disabilities that are service supported. This is a great start, but we need a lot more. Sadly, in a tight budget year, we were unable to identify a source for the $3,000,000 we needed to invest further in these units. However, in this bill, we create the service supported housing advisory council within the agency of human services in the department of disabilities aging and independent living for the purpose of identifying opportunities for increased alignment between human services human service programs serving individuals who receive Medicaid funded DD services and developmental disabled services and housing capital and support service programs. The council will meet monthly and report annually to the appropriate legislative committee on activities taken and and reforms made the development of housing needs assessments for individuals served by the the development of disabled service system of care and asking for real recommendations every year for us to advance this work and build more housing. And I now will yield to, senator Ram Hinsdale for the report of section seven and eight.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Windsor yields to the senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. Section seven and eight continue work that largely began with the home act of 2023. And so I would posit to my colleagues that this is essentially our effort at cleanup work to make sure that municipalities have clarity about what we have intended in these sections by modifying the language. I would also add Mr. President, I think this is an iterative process. We have seen municipalities have pre litigation debate about our intent in some of these areas and that can get expensive. So instead we'd like to try and be as clear as possible in what we mean. Section seven has two components that are important, even though there's relatively few words there. The first part adds manufactured housing to our list of types of housing that cannot face full exclusion in discriminating against where they could be placed. One thing that's important to note is that many mobile homes are manufactured. Many manufactured homes are mobile homes, but those are different types of homes, mobile homes specifically not being permanently secured to the ground, usually having wheels or a tethering system and being on concrete slabs per some of our previous housing legislation of the last few years, but you can regulate where mobile home parks exist and where a mobile home can exist based on public health, safety, etcetera. What we are trying to say in the first part of this is that manufactured housing, which is a form of housing that has simply greatly come down in price, or, you know, even if it's traditionally been like a Sears robot catalog house that was, you know, cheaper for someone to purchase and put together themselves, that type of housing is not discriminated against in our municipal code, simply because it is manufactured and was not stick built. Pew Charitable Trust and others have, amassed a body of research that, manufactured housing can cost far, far less to produce than putting bringing labor on-site to build a home from scratch. And that also matters in terms of reducing discriminatory zoning, because those often get someone the most affordability if it's on a lot size that is not so large as to prohibit them from achieving that full value of a small lot size and a small manufactured home. Is quite honestly, you know, what is right in the middle of the affordable range for the household income of Vermont. And the more discrimination that manufactured housing faces in terms of lot size or other zoning, the more costly it becomes and further out of reach for average Vermonters. The second part of Section seven is one word change that we hope will make a big difference. And that is, we essentially in the Home Act sought to end the discrimination of municipalities against any multifamily housing. So duplexes in everywhere in the state and quadplexes along areas with water and sewer capacity. And we called them in allowed use. And you heard the Senator from Windsor further articulate that our intention here is to have by right development of multifamily housing written into the law. The challenge in discussions with our environmental court and other stakeholders in this process is that you can still bring legal challenges or lengthy processes, to that determination of allowing multifamily housing if it's allowed instead of permitted. I am trying to say that with some confidence, but what I hope this section does and its intention is to reduce the number of appeals and lengthy permitting processes specifically for multifamily housing that we have said should be a permitted use in certain areas of the state where we otherwise had only allowed for single family housing. Happy to answer questions if that was unclear. Section eight of this bill is something that we are likely to hear more about from your Senate Natural Resources Committee. The goal here was to further define what we meant in the Home Act by allowing quadplexes or a four unit building where you regulate its size and setbacks, etcetera, but you cannot regulate it out of existence, wherever they are along municipal water and sewer. Along municipal water and sewer has been the subject of much debate in our municipality since we passed that, and so the intention here is to come up with a certain distance from a road or otherwise a connection, to water and sewer capacity given the, that the municipality is allowed to regulate based on their perceived water and sewer capacity should they feel that this would exceed that, but that we are trying to figure out how to articulate a distance from that water and sewer capacity that is by right. So we are likely to have more discussion with your Senate Natural Resources Committee about what distance or how to make that flexible for municipalities and align it with other provisions in Act 181 so that a landowner is not facing one set of regulations from Act one hundred eighty one and one set of regulations from, the Home Act that are telling them incongruent things about, where they can connect to water and sewer capacity, near to them. And with that, I yield back to the senator from Windsor.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Chittenden yields the senator from Windsor who's not here.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: There she is.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you, mister president. Lots going on. So sec thank you, senator. Section nine. This section amends the process for designating downtown and village centers as part of the state community investment program housed in the Department of Housing and Community Development. This the existing requirements of the program, as you may recall, require that part of the area be eligible for listing on the National Historic Regis on the on the National Register of Historic Places. I always get that wrong. Section nine adds an exception for the new town centers because these areas are more than likely not old enough to qualify. So that enables that. And then we move to appropriations, which I'm sure we're gonna hear about more later. Sections ten and eleven are the appropriation sections. The Department of Housing and Community Development is losing seven positions. I know they're limited service positions, but nonetheless, they're people who are working on our housing agenda. They're losing seven of these people. In order to deal with the volume of work generated by our housing agenda, our pro housing agenda, they need more help. So to respond to that need, 10 creates three new full time positions. Two full time classified grant management specialists and one full time exempt position. And I'm sure you'll hear more about that from appropriations. Section 11 has two additional appropriations. The first is for $250,000 to the municipal and regional planning and resilience fund for municipal planning for me for our municipalities seeking to meet their housing targets. So either through CHIP or through whatever mechanism, many of our towns, as you know, are contemplating fairly substantial housing projects. They need help, and we have enabled this through this fund, and this provides more technical assistance for all our towns to be able to take advantage of. The second is a $5,000,000 grant to us further support v hip Vermont housing in improvement program up a program near and dear to senate economic development housing and general affairs part. We helped with the administration to create it. It's an incredibly successful housing repurposing and renovation program which takes vacant, blinded, and non code compliant properties and brings them back to life and brings them back online as for housing. Vermont gets one of the biggest bangs for the buck in this program with the hip. On average, the state is spending $39,000 to bring one unit of housing back online. That's incredible when you're looking at the cost of some of our affordable housing, new housing, which is coming online from anywhere from 450 to $600,000 a unit. So $39,000 a unit is incredible, extraordinary in this inflated mark housing market. This is a program which has already created over a thousand units of new housing and if one of our senators from Rutland was able to cheerlead, he would cheerlead right now on the floor for this program. It enables both those existing homelessness to have a safe secure home and those simply need a good place to live to live. The bill's effective date is July 1. Our committee heard from over 30 witnesses and if you're curious about who any of them might be I'm happy to share needless to say we were very careful and balanced all who came and testified. And we are our committee vote was five zero, and we ask for the support of this body. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 0]: I recognize the senator from Franklin, senator Brock for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thanks, mister president. I I would like

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: to advise the body that I carefully listened to all the statistics quoted by the senator from Windsor, and they agree with those in the fiscal note, I'm happy to say. This is a program that a series of programs really that we've

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: had for quite a while, and they have produced results for us.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Results that we can measure over time, well, as of course, some results that we can't measure. But among the things to note, is just looking forward to what we expect to happen, and those expectations are estimates, and many of the estimates come from the administration and the numbers that they have provided us as well as what we have seen from the treasurer's office in particular. One of the things about the fiscal impact, the fiscal note indicate estimates a maximum annual impact of $600,000 based on $30,000,000 worth of spending that's in terms of the cash investments and the loans from them. But there's some expectation the fiscal impact will be somewhat different and somewhat lower and that the funds remain in cash investments until the funds remain in cash investments until the loans are actually awarded and drawn down and that process takes time. As a result, we do not anticipate issuing those loans in FY twenty seven and therefore do not expect a fiscal impact in that year. Second, interest rates on cash investments have been trending downward, which reduces the spread between the cash earnings that we get on funds that are simply loaned out for cash and in in in the market as opposed to the money that is lent out to buyers of homes under our various programs which pay a substantially lower rate. And then finally, the full lending capacity is typically not deployed at any given time and therefore there's no expectation for full 30,000,000 outstanding is going to be outstanding simultaneously, meaning a portion of the funds will remain in cash investments. One thing to note is that the fiscal note also did not address the indirect economic benefits generated by the program, and that's what we're really focused on is what are those those those effects. To date, the program has supported the construction or rehabilitation of more than 1,700 housing units and the creation of over a 140 permanent jobs. These results have had a positive impact on granular values as well as payroll income and sales tax revenues as well. And the review by the senate finance committee, of this bill was favorable, and the vote of the committee was, seven zero zero. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Now recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. The appropriations committee did review this bill, we have four instances of amendment, all of which are striking, aspects of the bill that would, affect the the budget of the state. And so just to go through them, the first instance of amendments removes the $350,000 to go towards the down payment assistance program. The second is about the advisory council on Service Supported Housing. This is an ongoing council, and so would not just have an impact on this year's, budget but, future budgets as well. The third instance of amendment is about positions at DHCD. So again, we will consider those together as a part of the budget. And then fourth, strikes out an appropriations, section, that includes $250,000 for municipal and regional planning and resilience fund as well as $5,000,000 for VHIP. And it replaces them all with just the phrase deleted so that people know that there was something there and they could go back and look it up if they wanted to. And so, these all seem very worthy causes and so we're removing them without malice to be considered together with the rest of the budget. We voted this out as on a as I believe a seven zero zero basis. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs be amended as recommended by the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Are you

[Speaker 0]: ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you have amended the report as recommended by the committee on appropriations. I now recognize the senator from Washington for an amendment.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. I will be passing over the amendment for now. It is printed, I believe, in the, calendar for today, but, would love the I've been in touch with the chair of, senate economic development about presenting, the amendment, which is, by the way, coming from all of the members of the senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee. So we'll be talking about that with the committee tomorrow. So, I'll be, speaking more about that, tomorrow. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs be further nope. Sorry. Skip over that question and move on to the next because that amendment was not offered. I believe the question is, shall the bill be amended as offered by the committee on economic development as amended? Is that the right question? If so, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Ayes have it. Now the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Okay. Point

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: of order? I was thinking I'm wondering if you wanted to also ask for nays.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: For what?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Nays. Nays. Oh.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Well, that's what happens when you're trying to do three things at once and hurry in. Alright. We'll try that again. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. See, I just figured there were no nays. The ayes have it. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Mister president, did we vote on the finance amendment?

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: No. Finance,

[Speaker 0]: I believe, was a report. No amendment.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Confused enough. I don't need help, senator from Essex.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Too. Mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker 0]: The reporter is interrogated. Thank

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: you, mister president. I have a

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: question on section four on page ten forty eight. I had a a bill that addressed a concern I had from constituents about not being able to install electric chargers in their condo. The presentation talked about legal issues for the I four items that are gonna be in this report. I wondered if the reporter could let us know what legal issues they heard that would be around charging stations.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Thank you Mr. President. Well we had initially incorporated all of the Senator's bill on EV charging in condominium associations, incorporated it and hoped that we would be able to finally pass that because it's been an issue in front of this body for a long time. Well, for several years. And, actually, all of these common interest communities have different laws and agree legal agreements that they live live by and have signed. And we found out that most condominiums, people do not own their parking places. They actually are assigned parking places, but they don't own them. And therefore, the cost of running the electricity and the cost of installing charging stations is was complex and challenging if they still have to figure this out and this is what we are giving our legislative counsel the opportunity to figure this out. We had a terrific we finally found a lawyer in whose specialty was common interest communities and the issues that she raised with particularly actually with this issue were significant enough for us to not be able to actually land a solution in the time available. And so we are sadly having to defer them to the work of our legislative council this summer and fall.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Thanks, the reporter. When in in doing the research for the bill, I introduced, I felt like those issues were already known and addressed in the bill. So I will try to speak with the committee before third reading on a possible amendment to take this section out of the report.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s three twenty eight. We will now be moving to s three twenty three. Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: I haven't had time to send a note to Senator Ram Hinsdale, but we are simply reversing the order up so that some of us can get materials to be prepared for S-two 78 which we're taking up next I believe.

[Speaker 0]: That is the plan We have on the calendar for action S-three 23 introduced by the committee on agriculture on 01/29/2026. The bill was then committed to the committee on ag, which has considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page ten seventy six. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the committee on finance, which reports that it is considered the bill and recommends that the amendment recommended by the committee on agriculture be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page 11 o three. And that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that it has considered the bill and recommends that the amendment recommended by the committee on agriculture be amended as set forth in the calendar starting on page 11 o four, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: H three twenty s three twenty three, an act relating to miscellaneous agricultural subjects.

[Speaker 0]: Recognize the senator from Essex, senator Ingalls, the report of the committee on agriculture.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. We've worked really hard on this bill, it just seems like it'd be a long time to get it to the floor. And I'm glad that we hired because longer we heard term yesterday by the senator from Windsor on economic development. So I don't really wanna use a little graphic, but the longer this bill stayed around, it seemed to get $3.27. So we're actually got it. Anyway, my my I failed for humor. Very appreciative of all the work that my committee has done on this. My committee has heard us me say this a million times and they probably get sick of it, but very blessed to have who we have in there. They work really hard. They come early. And and actually, I don't have a lot of reporting to do on this. They stepped up and have said that they have this covered. So I wanna yield to the very capable vice chair from Windsor, senator Major.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Essex yields to the senator from Windsor.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you, senator from Windsor. I will be going through sections one through seven on 03/23. Section one is the findings and intent. This section lays out the legislative findings and intent of this bill. It reaffirms that since 2004 in act 115, Vermont law has intended that municipalities cannot, and I repeat, cannot regulate farming, including farm structures. It responds directly to the eight TAF, excuse me, Street Development Review Board and Notice of Violation Appeals decision, where the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that municipalities may may regulate farming through bylaws. This ruling reversed decades of precedent and could have unintended consequences. Therefore, the intent of this bill is to override the court's decision, clarify that municipalities do not have authority to regulate farming or farm structures under 24 b s a forty four thirteen d. It also clarifies that municipalities may not regulate the growing of plants and small backyard poultry flocks, excluding roosters. Section two, amendment to 24 BSA forty four thirteen d. This section codifies the policy change by amending municipality zoning laws. It explicitly states that municipality bylaws shall not regulate agricultural practices and land use of growing crops, that is to include food, fiber, maple, etcetera. Small backyard poultry flocks, excluding roosters. Farms subject to the required agricultural practices, the construction of farm structures, accepted forestry practices, and forestry operations. It also adds and clarifies the definitions of farming, farm structures, forestry operations, and poultry. Overall effect of this section is to it reinforces state level preemption over local zoning when it comes to agriculture and forestry. Section three, amend to acquire agricultural practice rules. This section updates the agency of agriculture required agricultural practice rule. The key changes include clarifying that farms meet required agricultural practice thresholds. This must comply with state agricultural water quality standards, and are not subject to municipal zoning bylaws. This raises the income threshold triggered by the required agricultural practice application, excuse me, from February to 2 to $5,000 in annual annual excuse me, annual gross agricultural income. It maintains and clarifies thresholds for acreage, livestock numbers, smaller operations that may still be regulated if they are not impacted by water quality. It also expands and clarifies the list of covered farming activities to include crop production, livestock management, maple production, farm infrastructure, on farm energy production, and on farm production storage and sales. The overall effect of this is to strengthen state oversight of water quality and farming practices, while reinforcing exemptions from municipal zoning. Section four, accessory on farm business permits. That is 10 BSA sixty eighty one t. This section modifies act two fifty permitting requiring for on farm businesses. No permit is required for construction related to storage or sale of qualifying farm practices, processing of products, if more than 50% of inputs are from the farm, or non farm product sales are capped at $250,000 annually. And this is adjusted for inflation as well. It also clarifies that donations of farm crops count towards thresholds in the event that posting and farming stays are excluded and still required in the review. The overall effect of this is that it supports value added agriculture and farm businesses while maintaining its limits. Section five. Land use value appraisal or current use definitions. This amends the definitions under Vermont's current use program. Key updates are it clarifies that donation farm crops counted towards income eligibility thresholds. It also maintains that acreage and income requirements for enrollment. And finally, it expands the definition of farm crops to include fiber, cider, wine, and cheese. In essence, it provides greater flexibility for farms, especially those donated farm products. Section six, proof of donation requirements. It adds a compliance requirement that landowner owners qualify for current use through donated crops, and it must keep receipts or proof of donations. It also must maintain records for three years. And finally, it must provide them upon request. The overall effect of this, it will ensure accountability, verification, and for tax program eligibility. And finally, for the milk producers and as a proud member of the milk commission, I if this amends protections for dairy producers, It requires milk handlers to provide at least ninety days of notice before refusing to purchase milk due to oversupply or other reasons, allowing producers to request a hearing with the agency of agriculture. It also clarifies procedural language and rights during disputes. The overall effect of this will be to strengthen due process and protections for dairy farmers in contract disputes. Mister president, I would now like to yield to the senior senator from Rutland.

[Speaker 0]: The senator from Windsor yields to the senior senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you, senator. I'm gonna walk through sections eight through 16 beginning on page ten eighty three in today's calendar. Section eight amends, title six, which has to do with local food grant program, also known as farm to schools. This section would permit the agency of ag to provide local contracts in addition to grants for purposes of helping Vermont schools develop a farm to school program. Section nine repeals the pest control chapter. We are, compact rather. We're repealing it because it's been defunct since 2014. The compact coordinated efforts among the states to control the interstate travel of pests, including the creation of an insurance fund, but the compact became defunct due to a change in the compact status with the IRS. Section 10 amends the limit for the number of times an individual could retake the exam to receive a pesticide dealer or applicator certification. Limit is currently three retakes. This section would remove that and also removes a $30 license fee from state government, municipal, and public education institution applicators. Sections 11 through 16 have to do with seeds. Section 11, defines flower seed, which includes now seed plants grown for their blooms, ornamental foliage, or other ornamental parts commonly known and sold under the name of flower or wild flower seed in the state. The section also includes a new definition of labeling. It means tags or other devices attached to or written, stamped, or printed on any container or accompanying any lot of bulk seeds that are used to provide the seed label information required by this chapter. The section adds the following definitions. Distribute means to import, manufacture, produce, mix, blend, offer for sale, sell, barter, or supply seed for the purpose of sowing in the state through any means including sales outlets, catalog, the telephone, the Internet, or any electronic means. Also, a new different definition of distributor means any person who distributes seeds in or into the state and affixes the labeling or any relate related requirement in section six forty four. Treated means seed that's received an application of a substance or process designed to reduce, control, or repel certain disease organisms, insects, or other pests from attaching to the seed or seedlings or designed to enhance the availability or uptake of plant nutrients through root systems. Many of these now are basically in conformance with the Association of American Seed. Section 12 amends title six and amends the secretary of agriculture's authority to sample, inspect, analyze, and test seeds distributed in or into the state. Section 13 amends labeling requirements for treated seeds to include the chemical name or a description of the process used to treat the seed. It also requires that if the substance and the amount present with the seed is harmful to human or other vertebrate animals, an appropriate caution statement like do not use for food, feed, or oil purposes be included. Section also requires bulk displaces of displacement of seed to be labeled with that same information. Section 14 amends exemption language to replace sold or sale with distribute since we've now redefined that term. Section 15 amends language to replace sold or distribute, and the section adds a penalty for failure to report the quantity of genetically engineered treated and untreated seeds sold in the state during the previous calendar year. Finally, section 16 requires anyone distributing seed into the state to register annually. Each distributor must pay an $85 fee. Registration is on a calendar year and expires on December 31 of each year. This section exempts from that registration requirement the interpersonal sharing of seed for home educational charitable or personal noncommercial use. Section also requires reports including, Lamoille, regardless of container size, the manufacturer, processor, or distributor distributing the seed has to report annually honorable for February 15 to the secretary on a form supplied by the secretary. I would now like to yield to the senator from Bennington, senator Plunkett.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Rutland yields to the senator from Bennington.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: And thank you, mister president. Thank you,

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: senator from Rutland. I'll be taking us through sections, 17 through 23. They appear on pages ten ninety through ten ninety six of today's calendar. And these sections came to us from, the Vermont, Economic Development Authority, commonly known as VIDA. I'll be referring to it as the authority. The essential action of all of these sections are to take the Vermont Agricultural Credit program and put it into the powers of the or the authority as I promised. So right now the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program which is essentially what it says, It's a credit program for agriculture as well as forest products and businesses. It is administered by the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation. This is a corporation, it's a nonprofit, it was created in 1999 by statute ordering VIDA to create this corporation. The corporation has the same board of directors as VIDA, has the same CEO as VIDA and that is by statute. So what VITA had asked is that instead of having this separate entity where they have a board meeting and then they switch hats and go back and forth to have it all under under VITA. And so in section 17, that is the cut of this cut and paste amendment. It will repeal chapter six a of title 10. Section 18 and this is the bulk of the text for. These sections is the paste portion. Where it creates a subchapter 16 of chapter 12 of title 10, and this is the chapter where other programs that that VITA had been administering in some way or another have gone under after they've been similarly changed as we're doing here. So it does create a section two eighty h h which is the definition section. This is just a paste from from the old statute except for the addition of the definition of authority being the Vermont Economic Development Authority. And throughout the sections the change from the old statute to the amendment that we're suggesting is replacing the word corporation with authority throughout. So section 18 also creates another section just redesignates one of the old sections 374A to a new section without any substantive changes. It gives another section where the VITA will have the powers of Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation but also gives VITA the power to dissolve the nonprofit corporation in accordance with law. Lastly there's another section that's created loan eligibility standards for the program all of that's the same with no substantive changes. Section 19 these are more conforming changes without any substance change. Section 20 again it's essentially unchanged except that it clarifies that the definitions under the chapter do not apply to this subchapter. So that's the two definition sections so that the definitions if there's any conflict you'll know which which section which definitions apply. Section 21 again this gives the powers to to VIDA to under the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program without any substantive changes. Section 22 this is something of a substantive change.

[Speaker 0]: It

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: removes title 10 secondtion 222A sub B regarding a line of credit that the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program was allowed to do. This is no longer used so it's simply being struck. Section 23 again this is just more conforming changes regarding, the eligible projects and financing without any real change. So this is the quickest I will probably ever have a report where it's essentially a cut and paste, of statute that exists right now.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: Mister president, I will

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: now yield to the junior senator from Addison.

[Speaker 0]: The senator from Bennington yields to the senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. Thank you to senator from We're now on page ten ninety six of today's journal and I will be covering sections 24 through 30. Twenty four and twenty five are set up to eliminate the operation fees for large farmers and medium farmers and to hope some relief, but a cliffhanger to the end of this bill maybe our friends from appropriation will not make us so happy. '26 to '29, y'all can just chill out, relax a little bit dudes because we're entering into the hemp round. Alright, what is this going to do? So 26 is hemp oversight transition. What we're going to do is transition, we're going to repeal the existing hemp statue of SBSA Chapter 34 and initiate transfer of regulation and authority from the agency of agriculture to the cannabis control board. Reflects evolving federal laws affecting THC thresholds and interstate legalities of hemp products. That's what section 26 does. Section 27 is the new framework. The new hemp framework will be seven VSA chapter 31 subsection three establishes a comprehensive hemp regulation under the cannabis control board. It does a few things here. It defines and updates, it helps at hemp hemp affirming as an agricultural product and that's why it came to agriculture we're concerned about it from the time we put it in the ground to take it out of the ground then it's no longer our concern. Then they're going to cover licensing and registration, they're going to be the regulatory authority and they're also going to be the enforcement as well as penalties and fees. Some of the fee structures have changed and we'll have that is from what I understand is going to change a little more before we get to next session. 28 through 30 basically just update the statute refers and reflects that that we're going from title six to Title seven and that pretty much concludes the thing. Changes are aimed to align hemp derived cannabis regulation with Vermont cannabis framework and addresses the involving federal laws. I now, mister president, return to the senator from Essex.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Addison Yields to the senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, Mr. President. We are now at the end of our presentation. Again, I wanna thank the committee on how hard they've worked on this bill. We are pretty proud of what we've accomplished and we've got some effective dates here. I just want to see where the effective date is to make sure that I'm on the right one. This act shall take a place on 07/01/2026 and the committee vote was five zero zero. We have a very expansive list of who we had for witnesses and I must admit that that list is in the committee room, but I will provide that before third reading should anybody want to see that list. And thank you, mister president. I hope the senate body concurs.

[Speaker 0]: I recognize the senator from Caledonia, senator Beck, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: Thank you, mister president. Your senate finance committee took a look at this bill, and we appreciate the work. We have three recommendations, three instances of amendment. The first in section three is to remove the word enrolled. This section should refer to all layer, not just current use land. In the second instance of amendment, the, same rationale for moving removing enrolled from the language. The third instance of amendment is a bit more substantive. In the underlying bill, there is a an ability for somebody to enroll their property into current use if they donate up to $2,000 worth of food for a parcel under 25 acres and $75 per acre of the parcels over 25 acres. And we decided to incentive finance to strike those two sections, section five and section six. And the rationale was, we did not think that this was the time to increase the use of current use in the state of Vermont as the I think most senators know. Current use affects the revenues to the education fund, and it also affects the the general fund in the sense that they have to do the municipal offset. So we decided to strike sections five and section six and to remove that donation. We took testimony from general counsel at the agency of agriculture, food and markets division, and the chair of the cannabis control board. And the vote out of our committee was five zero two, and we'd appreciate the senate's support of our amendment. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: I now recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank mister president. So the appropriations committee also removed a couple of sections, specifically sections twenty four and twenty five, which those are sections that struck fees for large and medium CAFOs or concentrated animal feeding operations and it would seem perhaps odd that the Appropriations Committee might strike or might have objections to a fee section as that is normally the domain of the Finance Committee. However, as is indicated by the fiscal note for this bill, if you strike the fees, it puts the department at some of the loss and there is a corresponding increase to make up for those lost revenues from the general fund. And so again without malice struck those amendments that we could consider striking those fees and the corresponding increase from the general fund together as a part of the budget process. So it's on our list and we'll consider it but that is the logic for why we struck sections twenty four and twenty five, and that came out of appropriations on a five zero two basis and as per the body support.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as proposed by the committee on finance? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Mister president, we were, our committee feels kind of strongly about five and six. And at first, we were gonna kind of let it pass by, but we thought we'd just take a shot and try to explain what we're trying to do here. We get that it might be perceived as trying to expand current use, but all we're trying to do is to help some of these farms with donated crops to put more of these crops into the marketplace and supply more food into a what we would say places that need it. And we spent a lot of time on five and six and I think that the senator from Addison, might want to, say some more about it. So I'll yield to the senator from Addison.

[Speaker 0]: So senator from Essex yields to the senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: Point of order, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: What is your point

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: of order?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I believe we're on the

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: appropriations amendment that doesn't deal with sections five and six.

[Speaker 0]: We are on the appropriations.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: No. You said finance.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, no. We are calling finance. No. This okay. Alright. My mistake, it actually says finance on no. Actually, on yep. Here I am. Okay. It says finance, and I said appropriation. So my mistake. Thank you. The senator's in the right place. I misspoke on appropriations. I'll repeat the question. The question is, shall a recommendation of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as proposed by the committee on finance? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, Mr. President.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Basically what we're trying to, that the impacts on the state are not going to be that large, that the small farmers that are asking for this may not even want to come in to the current use program it just gives the opportunity also it gives the opportunity that if there's flood damage as we've seen that the food that they lost and comes what they call secondhand fruit or vegetables that they can use that and donate it and use that money to go toward their overall spending cap at the end of the year to become more eligible for the funding or for the eligibility. So I'm not explaining this very well unfortunately but we feel in the committee that we made the right decision here and we're asking for the support to not, go with finances amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. As it was explained to us, I'm remembering correctly. Last session, we allowed donated food, the value of donated food to count towards farm income if for your designation as a farmer in current use. This bill, as I am remembering it, and I stand to be corrected, said that you could donate all your food and go into current use. You don't have to make any money as a farmer. We felt that was a little wide open. Current use would value that land, and it might be land on Lake Champlain or a nice lake or a river, a valuable piece of land. It would be then taxed as a farm. Everyone else in the Ed Fund, the property tax, would have to make up that loss of revenue. And the town and the general fund would have to pay the difference to the town. And we felt that as we're struggling trying to pay our bills in the Ed Fund, and we're struggling to cover our costs in appropriations, that there weren't that many farmers that could do that, and that just just wasn't the appropriate time as much as we'd like to help farmers out.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windham Windsor.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Mister president, I think the,

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: chair of finance said it in herself. There wasn't that many. It's fairly de minimis. There are just a few farmers that would take advantage of this, and we haven't heard of many towns or any that would have to make up that money for the Ed Fund. Thus,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: we

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: would like that to stay in. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Senator for Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: I inquire of the chair of agriculture.

[Speaker 0]: The chair is interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Mister president, if I understood the order of the section for Madison correctly that the committee is recommending a no vote on the finance amendment. I just wanna make sure I understood that correctly. And if so, if the committee took a vote, then what's that vote?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: We did take a vote with the president. It was five zero zero to support keeping in our sections five and six.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: You ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: I believe if if the Agriculture's Committee's motion is to remove five and six and they probably should divide the amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Senator, you're you are okay in making a motion to divide if you would like and you think that is appropriate. There is no motion offered by the Ag Committee. They have just requested a no vote. And so if you would like to make that motion, it is in order.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: It's not a motion. It's just a request.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, it's just a request to divide.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: So I'll make a request to divide, divide out the first and second instance of amendment as one, division, and then the third instance of amendment as the other division.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Mister president, we, the agriculture committee, would be fine with, allowing the first and second section to, to fall under to what the finance committee has recommended. We are our main interest is to keep sections five and six. So therefore the third instance of amendment with that is the amendment that we wish not to be struck out.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Okay.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So the question is, shall the recommendation of the amendment of the committee on ag be amended as proposed by the committee on finance in the first and second instance only. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have approved the amendment in the first and second instance only. Now the question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on agriculture be amended as proposed by the committee on finance in the third instance only? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: No. Nay. O.

[Speaker 0]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and we have accepted the amendment in the third instance. The question now, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on ag be amended as amended be further amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Mr. President, we have talked about this as a committee and we understand where appropriations is coming from. We do expect that they is talking with the chair offline and then hearing from Senator Watson. We do appreciate that they'll continue that conversation further and we will accept that amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Speaker 0]: So the question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on agriculture as amended be further amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it, and we have further amended the bill as offered by the committee on appropriations. The question now is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture as amended? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire the junior outsider from Windsor County?

[Speaker 0]: The junior senator from Windsor is, interrogated.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. The question I have is, I believe it was section three when you spoke about the municipalities not being able to regulate agricultural practices. My question is, do can they have an ordinance for what do you do with the manure from a flock of chickens? If if there's a smell happens to be in a designated downtown, is there any consideration given to that?

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: At this point, no.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: So my second part of the question is, and I'm going I'm a farmer, so I understand when you move next to a farm or have

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: you move you

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: build buy a house next to somebody's got a flock of animals, you're gonna who are gonna sell manure. But I was also on the town of Select Board, and we had a a hemp farmer. And I understand that they can't regulate fiber, so hemp is fiber. And he was having a problem drying his hemp. So what he did was he went on and bought tobacco trailers with fans. But the only place that he had three phase power to dry them was in the village center, and the smell was terrible. So can can a municipality regulate where hemp is dried?

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: At at this point, in this bill, no. And I I am familiar with that situation. And it is a long going court battle currently. Within this particular bill, no, that that is that is not feasible.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: I thank you, sir. Mister President, thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator Perchlik.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to, inquire of the reporter for section three, which I think is fundamental to understanding the bill.

[Speaker 0]: The reporter is interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: So section three on page ten seventy nine. Mister president, can you tell me what a rat height is?

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: I'm sorry.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: What page, senator?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: A rat type. Mister president, can you tell me what rat type is on page ten seventy nine?

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Number 12 on the list, so you can

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: have four rat types on four contiguous acres.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: And I apologize one. Ten seventy nine.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Thank you.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Mister president. I ask for a recess while we put that definition.

[Speaker 0]: I take a brief recess.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Now I fully understand the bill.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you, senator. I think it also includes ostriches, but I'd have to say that I think the poultry section of this bill is sexist because it excludes roosters. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: I was gonna say

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. May I, inquire of the presenter of section three?

[Speaker 0]: Section three the senator is again interrogated.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Yes. Could this senator walk me through the process of how $5,000 was chosen as the annual gross income from the sale of agricultural products?

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: It was our intention.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Okay. I appreciate that, and I wonder I know previously it was 2,000 and I do appreciate that it has been updated. My concern is with the rising cost of food that might be fairly easily met and I have a very specific concern. I wonder too if any if the committee considered any ways of supporting existing farms because I certainly understand that we don't want someone to move next to a farm and then complain that it's a farm, but I think that's a different experience than when someone moves into a neighborhood and converts an existing property into a farm, and I'm wondering if any testimony was taken about that.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: No and specifically to to your previous question, the reason it was raised from the 2,000 to the 5,000 was exactly that because we we revamped it. Wanted to add more to it because we understood that it was more than just inflation each time we go through. And no, we had not taken testimony.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: My other question is if any testimony was taken around perhaps having different regulations based on population density.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: No Mr. President.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank the presenter. Have many of these questions come from an instance in my community that is fairly dense on a fairly small parcel of land where we have someone that has converted a neighborhood property into a duck and cannabis farm And there are a lot of challenges to that. And I think it's a different construct to be in the midst of Downtown Essex Junction. Converting a property is a different experience than if one moves to the country to live next to a farm. And I'd love to have some deeper conversation with the committee about if there's any way to meet the needs of both our more urban areas and our more rural areas when it comes to agriculture. So thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Mister president, if

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: I could add a little

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: bit more clarity to the senator from Chittenden Central's first question. The $5,000 limit was achieved by a compromise between the Vermont League of Cities and Towns and the Agency of Agriculture. So it went from 2,500. VLCT actually asked for $10,000 to be the threshold, and there was a compromise reached, and that's where the 5,000 came from. So the senator from Windsor is correct. It was arbitrary in one sense, but it was also a a product of some compromise.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? The question is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on agriculture as amended? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Nay. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. You've amended the bill as recommended by the committee on agriculture as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and you've ordered third reading of s three twenty three. Three twenty five. We have on the calendar for action s three twenty five introduced on 01/30/2026. It was referred to the committee on natural resources by yeah. Booth Booth. Yeah. Was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the bill be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page 11 o four, and that when so amended, the bill ought to pass. Affecting the revenues of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that the bill ought to pass. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was then referred to the committee on appropriations, which reports that it has considered the bill and recommends that the recommendation of amendment by the committee on natural resources and energy be amended as set forth in today's calendar starting on page eleven nineteen. And that when amended, the bill ought to pass. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: S three twenty five, an act relating to studying the creation of model bylaws.

[Speaker 0]: Recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the explanation of the bill.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. S three twenty five is built on two core Vermont values, that we can and must build more housing and we must protect the environment. I don't believe that these two values conflict with each other and act one eighty one which passed two years ago aimed to do both. Like most bills, it was imperfect and the goal of s three twenty five is to both make simple corrections to act one eighty one and provide additional time so that we can get it right. The impetus for this bill was that many of us were hearing from constituents, landowners, municipalities, and rural folks that they had concerns about how various aspects of act 181 were rolling out. S three twenty five makes amendments to act 181, which as you may recall was a major piece of legislation that overhauled act two fifty. Be a little more specific about what Act 181 did, it aimed to build a more, to build more housing by de duplicating the Act two fifty process in places where municipalities were willing and able to step up. And second, it aimed to better protect critical natural resources in a way that Act two fifty was frankly inadequately addressing. So in order for three twenty five to make sense, I've put together a handout which outlines what S three twenty five does with a little bit of logic for our decisions and includes a glossary. I am a teacher. I realized it's coming out a bit now. So sometimes I just can't help myself. So that is being passed around now. Okay. As background, I'll very briefly recap how Act two fifty works in case that's something that you're not familiar with and what Act 181 did to modify it. Act two fifty set up threshold based triggers that only kick in if you develop too fast, too close together, or with too many units. Unfortunately, this did lead to some sprawl as developers just built either fewer units or distanced developments from each other in order to avoid triggering Act two fifty. In contrast, Act 181 set up location based triggers or exemptions from Act two fifty. It set in motion a mapping process to identify three types or tiers of areas. Tier 1A areas are the most dense areas like the downtowns of Montpelier or Brattleboro. These places must be in towns that have robust enough zoning that they can regulate development in a way that sufficiently covers all of the Act two fifty requirements. They get a full exemption from Act two fifty. This is something that Towns have been seeking for years. Tier 1B areas are still centres or areas with some level of density as they must be areas that are served by either water or sewer or they must have sufficient soils to receive wastewater but they are in towns that don't have zoning or subdivision bylaws that are sufficient to cover what Act two fifty regulates so they will receive partial exemption from Act two fifty. Tier one areas are determined by regional planning commissions in coordination with their member towns to ensure bottom up planning and then these maps are ultimately approved by the Land Use Review Board. Then there are tier three areas that contain critical natural resources. These will likely include headwaters, habitat corridors, and sensitive natural communities. More on that later. Then there is tier two, which is anywhere that is not designated as tier one or tier three. So the vast majority of one I'm sorry, of tier two oh, yes, I'm sorry. The vast majority of Vermont is tier two. And tier two basically has the status quo about February though Act 181 did reintroduce something called the road rule in statute to tier two areas, which means that any new road longer than 800 feet or any new combination of roads and driveways 2,000 feet or more must get an Act two fifty permit. Now if you look at the language of the act one eighty one, when it came to the road rule or tier three, there's very little language there and that was on purpose. These ideas were intentionally left open so that they would go through a public stakeholder process and rule making led by the Land Use Surgery Board, which would allow for more feedback than could reasonably heard, than could reasonably be heard by a committee during the session. They could go deeper and incorporate the feedback that they heard. It's probably fair to say that the first iteration of Tier three maps were overly broad and have since been narrowed and we anticipate that they will be narrowed further in the next iteration. Stepping back to the big picture, even when we passed Act 181, we knew that we it would take some time to set up. And so act one eighty one also created interim exemptions for housing projects to tide us over until especially tier one was effectual for municipalities. So that's act one eighty one. But enough review, let's go on to three twenty five. So what does s three twenty five do? In order to not basically explain it twice, I'm going to walk through the bill and explain it as I go. But if you want, you can also reference the handout. Okay. So section one is just intent. Section two is where we start to see the implementation deadlines be pushed back. First is the Road Rule, which is pushed back to 01/01/2030. Then the Priority Housing Project allowance until 01/01/2028. But that language works together with the language about Priority Housing Projects in Section three. Section three makes a change that will be specific to areas that are eligible for tier one B status, but the municipality has not opted in. Normally with tier one B, these areas would enjoy some level of Act two fifty exemption, thus encouraging development. But we are in a housing crisis and we want more housing, so this section says that if a town does not opt into tier 1B, but they could have, then priority housing projects can still happen in these areas. There's no expiration on that provision. Section four is still about extending our interim exemptions, specifically the provisions related to the construction of ADUs, the conversion of commercial property into residential property of 29 or fewer units, the construction of up to 75 units of housing within a town centre, growth centre or neighbourhood, up to 50 units in village centres within a quarter mile of a transit route near big cities, and housing development of any size in a downtown. Section four also expands the interim exemptions to include subdivisions and mixed use development. Section five is about tier three. Part A is about a report on the rules of tier three We have added here that as a part of the report, we want them to review whether and under what circumstances various criteria of Act two fifty ought to apply. We have pushed back the rule making for tier three to 06/30/2028. One of the most interesting parts of the bill, I think, is section six. We heard from the Land Use Review Board that they thought it would be useful for Tier three or the road rule if they could apply only the parts of Act two fifty that they felt were relevant and not all of Act 50. So for example, for a limited amount of construction, you may not need a traffic study or an analysis of the impact on schools. Unfortunately, the Land Use Review Board did not feel that they had the authority to apply less than all of Act two fifty criteria. So section six gives them that authority. This will effectively lighten the load and the cost of the permit that may be required for a project that triggers tier three for the road rule. But we'll be able to see what those rules are and what they look like before they go into effect. Section seven is about pushing back more deadlines, specifically for the implementation of criteria 8C, about force fragmentation, the jurisdictional trigger for Tier three, and the implementation of the road rule. Now I will say that each of these delays that you see here and elsewhere in the bill were built off of the input from multiple groups who testified, but especially the land use review board themselves. They also came to us requesting more time. Every time we pushed back dates in committee, the committee thought about the steps that were needed leading up to the final implementation deadline. These dates were not arbitrary. And particularly for tier three, these unique, fragile, sensitive, natural places of statewide importance, and it's worth mentioning that there are no other state level protections for these kinds of places. The longer that we delay tier three, the longer these sensitive places are in jeopardy because remember, Act two fifty did not sufficiently cover or protect these places. The one exception to how we determined the dates and how we built them was the road rule, which is no secret, was a negotiation within the members of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee and that's fine. Sometimes it's what needs to happen and we settled on 2030 for the road rule. Section eight I would consider a technical correction, even though it looks like a more substantive change. Remember that tier one a areas are places where the municipalities bylaws are supposed to be able to fully cover all of the criteria that would be part of an act two fifty permit. It turns out that act two fifty does cover and has processes for checking in on significant natural communities, that's a term of art, and threatened and endangered species, also a term of art, but that has no, but it has no processes for nor does it cover species. So we are removing the word rare to ensure that tier one A areas don't need to go above and beyond what is covered by what Acts of 50 would have regulated. The intent of section nine was a critical ask that we received from municipalities and regional planning commissions. As it stands, when a municipality is granted a tier one A area by the Land Use Review Board, what that would currently mean is that the municipality would be responsible for enforcing all the Act two fifty permits that already existed in that area. That seems like a wholly daunting task for an end deterrent for municipalities in considering whether or not to apply for tier one a. The process as it is laid out here would mean that municipalities only take over enforcement for an existing permit when it came up for and was granted an amendment. That amendment to the existing permit would actually be the municipality's own permit. It doesn't sit on top of the Act two fifty permit, it replaces it. So the municipality would only ultimately be enforcing its own permits and would only take over Act two fifty permits as they came up for amendment organically, probably just one or two at a time. We did go back and forth on the language on this, but, we believe that the language here, works to accomplish that goal. Section 10 is a report that we are asking from the Department of Housing and Community Development to give us on ways that Vermont could limit the discretionary review processes which open up the possibilities for municipal appeals. Right now, DHCD is doing a great pilot project with three municipalities in Vermont with their eight zero two Homes Project. This is where for a predetermined set of housing designs, which are, by the way, open source, the municipality has done the work so that these designs do not need to go through their normal DRV process because they have been preapproved. We think that program has a lot of merit. We'd like to hear a report on how that goes and other ways that we might make municipal appeals more efficient. Just a heads up that the bulk of the remainder of this bill is about regional planning processes. Why are we talking about this in the context of this bill? Why do these sections matter? Mostly this has to do with places that could be designated as tier one A or tier one B, and the money that those places might be eligible for in terms of tax credits. So before I go on, a quick word about how a place gets to be a Tier one eligible area. Regional Planning Commissions are responsible for developing and adopting future land use maps as a part of their regional plans, using the criteria established in Act 181. In doing so, RPCs work closely with towns to incorporate local plans, zoning and planned growth areas, which includes potential Tier 1B areas. The RPCs engage towns through the process to review and refine to ensure consistency with statewide planning goals and mapping standards. Once adopted by the RPC through a public process, the regional plan and map is submitted to the Land Use Review Board for review and approval, at which point it becomes the official future land use map. Now generally speaking, this map does not determine anything about Tier three maps, which does have an asterisk with it which I can explain if that's useful and of interest and people want ask about that, that's fine. But in general, three is not determined by the future land use map. This process of reviewing and approving regional maps is already underway. In fact, Rutland County went first and since then Chittenden, Franklin, Addison and Windsor have been incorporated into the future land use map. I'd like to highlight here that the work so far has been a mammoth undertaking. This has been a really big deal for our municipalities and regions. I've provided some screenshots of these maps which I'd like to refer to. You can see the image of all of Vermont. You can see how far along in the process these categories of these maps are. You can see on the left in each of these images a legend that has the different types of categories or types of land use areas and their corresponding colors. The ones I wanna focus on here are the downtown centers, planned growth areas, village centers, and the village areas, the top four categories. These are the areas that are up for consideration either for tier one a or tier one b. I think I'm now ready to jump back into the bill with section 11. So section 11 amends the preapproval process for the regional plan to include the community investment board. Currently, they're involved mostly at the end, and we've heard from the Regional Planning Commission it would be useful to have them involved at the front end of the process. We also heard from the Regional Planning Commissions that it's important that we lay out a pathway for municipalities to request to be, a tier one b status anytime so they don't have to wait to request that status along with major revamping of regional plans. Anticipating that we would need a process for regional plans to change over time, subsection N lays out a process for regional plan amendments and says that a municipality can apply to have tier 1B status separate from any regional plan process. Section 12 is where the different types of categories of the future land use maps are defined. So think again village centers, plant growth areas, etcetera. Remember these elements or categories are what build towards Tier one areas. This section does several important things. The first change here is that we've said that all the categories must be consistent with SMART Growth principles, which are being moved to this or added to this chapter. Currently they live elsewhere in statute. I wanna point out, a change that looks very small but may have an important impact. In the downtown and village center section, it currently says the downtown or village centers are the traditional and historic central business and civic centers within planned growth areas, village areas or may stand alone. They must be traditional and historic. We're changing this to traditional or historic. You heard that some downtowns are just not old enough to be technically historic. We wanted these places that are centers to still qualify as downtowns or village centers. We're making it clear that municipalities can have more than one center, which would indicate that towns could have, say, more than one tier b area. We're stating that intent explicitly here that it is the intention of the legislature that most towns in Vermont have at least one village center, which sets them up to have a tier one b area. The intent here is that we are purposefully trying not to leave rural Vermont behind. These tier one b areas are catalysts for growth. We want every town to see growth in housing, not just the towns in Chittenden County. There are what I would consider clarifications that I'm happy to get into if anyone wants to ask about them. I will point out the changes in Romanette IV, where we change from municipal to public water. In some towns, it's not the municipality that owns the water and wastewater system. It might be a fire district or a private company or a co op, and all of these are captured by using the word public instead of municipal. So this should be beneficial again to more rural towns. Section 13 is where the smart growth principles have moved to in this chapter. They look all new, but they're really not. Section 14 repeals a regional plan review process as obsolete and as our legislative council described should have been deleted in act 21 anyway. So that's just cleanup. Section 15 automatically extends municipal and regional plans that were set to expire this summer, extends them automatically to expire by the end of the year. This is important because we don't want to see these municipal and regional plans, expire while the future land use maps are still being put together. And there were some, regions and towns that we heard, that would be the case for. Section sixteen and seventeen have to do with the Community Investment Board. This is the group that grants tax benefits to municipalities for projects in designated areas. This section just cleans up their definitions and where applicable uses a cross reference to the future land use map definitions. And the last paragraph, section 17 is being struck because it's duplicative and, therefore, unnecessary. In order for section 18 to make sense, I need to reference the change we made in the definition of downtown and village centers. We allowed them to not necessarily be historic, but the historic nature of the downtown or village area is an important criteria for the community investment board's process. Their processes involve designating the sit designating cities or towns as having achieved step one, two, or three, where the higher number, the more developed they are. The section this section makes it clear that the historic aspect of these places can still be counted for their step designations. Finally, section 19 is an appropriations section that the appropriations committee removed, which I'll get into in a minute, but I'll, I I wanna make I wanna take a minute to explain what motivated these two appropriations. The first is for money to build out the eight zero two Homes open source plans that a municipality could use for a pre approved process. We wanted to build this out because while it seems that this program is off to a great start, it's clear that they could use more types of homes that are needed across the state to meet different types of styles and needs. The second appropriation really came as a request from the rural caucus. They wanted there to be more engagement between the Land Use Review Board and rural Vermonters, and we agree, especially on tier three. This is one of the reasons why we are slowing everything down. We are purposefully inviting more feedback, more opportunity to iterate, more opportunities for outreach and conversation, so that is what this money is designated for. Before I wrap up, I want to acknowledge that we have heard a lot from our constituents about act one eighty one. I've had emails, that contained both misinformation and that raised legitimate and very interesting concerns. I've had some very thoughtful interchanges with Vermonters who brought legitimate concerns. I will say that some of the concerns brought to me are in process and I'm still chewing on and they're actually inspiring me to potentially bring some legislation forward for next year. And in part, that is the point of this bill, to give us more time to be thoughtful, to hear our constituents, and to respond accordingly. But I have also heard misinformation, so I wanna clear up some of that just now. First of all, farming practices are not regulated by Act two fifty and Act 181. Act 181 just modifies Act two fifty and so Act one eighty one also does not regulate or restrict farming. There is gray space around on farm accessory businesses and there may be more work that we need to do on that, but that's a welcome future conversation. Act 181 did expand exemptions for accessory on farm businesses though, just to note. Second example, someone who wants to subdivide their land so that their child can build a house. Provided you're in a tier two area, which is most of Vermont, and the driveway is less than 2,000 feet, that subdivision of a new home would not likely trigger Act two fifty. And third, if you hear concern about tier three areas, please know that the first draft of those maps were quite sweeping. The second draft, which is the latest draft, has significantly reduced the area and we expect another draft to come out in April. I think that is likely to see even further reductions in the implicated area. Have heard some people say my property is in tier three. That's not necessarily accurate yet because the maps are still shifting. I would say nobody knows for sure where tier three areas are going to be. I worry that some folks may have seen an earlier version of the tier three maps and thought that that was it, when really we are still iterating. Coming out of this full report, I hope, I I have two hopes for you all as listeners. The first is that you will let me know the stories that you are hearing from people in your districts. If because this if they have legitimate problems, I I wanna know about them. The second is that I hope you will gently and humbly, correct misinformation if you hear it. We heard from many witnesses on this bill, and as a part of my due diligence on this issue, the the senator from Chittenden Southeast, senator Ram Hinsdale and I, attended a meeting of the rural caucus to hear their concerns and asks, and then I provided them with an update when I couldn't attend later on. But they were interested in the progress that we had made on s three twenty five. We incorporated some of their asks that have been now built into 03/25. And I want to recognize that we purposely made an effort to hear rural voices on this issue. Specifically, we even invited representative Sevelia, one of the chairs of the rural caucus to come testify and we had Mary White who was the president of the Vermont Farm Bureau. Additionally, we heard from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission, the Agency of Natural Resources, the Northwest Regional Planning Commission, the Department of Housing, Community Development, Vermont Natural Resources Council, the Land Use Review Board. We heard from Let's Build Homes. We heard from the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, and as I mentioned, Vermont the Vermont Farm Bureau. I'm very proud of the work that Natural Resources did on this bill, and it came out of committee with a five zero zero vote. We ask for the support of the senate. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Recognize the senator from Caledonia, senator Beck, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: Thank you, mister president. Your, finance committee took a look a very narrow look at this bill just at any potential fee or revenue implications, and we did not find any. We voted seven zero zero to forward the bill to your appropriations committee. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: I recognize the senator from Washington, senator Watson, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. The senate appropriations committee did take a look at this bill and recommended removing, striking out, I believe it is section 19, which was the amendment I'm sorry, which was the appropriation that had a couple of items to it including the money for further outreach as well as for the development of further plans for the 802 homes And that, I believe, came out of committee, five zero two. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on natural resources and energy be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I and the presenter of the bill?

[Speaker 0]: The, appropriate questions would be on the appropriations amendment. Is your question on the appropriations amendment or the underlying bill?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: I believe the underlying bill. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: You ready for the question? So all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it, and we have approved the recommendation of amendment of the committee on natural resources be amended as proposed by the committee on appropriations. The question now is shall the bill be amended as recommended by the committee on natural resources as amended? Are you ready for the question? Senator for Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenters?

[Speaker 0]: The presenters interrogated.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Mister president, how much land a private land may be affected percentage wise of tier three?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you Mr. President. It's

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: an

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: interesting question because I don't know that we have a sense of that yet However, my sense is that, my or I should say my hope is that we end up in the somewhere in the two to 3% ballpark.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. So Vermont has roughly 6,100,000 acres of land, 2,000,000 of it is roughly water, 800,000 is roughly state and federal lands that leaves about 5,000,000 acres of private land if we do 3% that is a 150,000 acres that will be affected by private landowners. My concern and the question to the presenter is how are we going to ensure that the owners of this property are notified how this could affect their land through wildlife corridors and the such.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you Mr. President I think that's a great question. We, did discuss this a little bit in committee. There were folks in the rural caucus who were, very interested in having a mailer go out to everyone who might be affected. That would be very expensive and we did talk about that there may be some other possibilities including using front porch forum, etcetera. But the manner in which we engage could be directly related to the appropriation. For example if we wanted to do a mailer, the appropriation would likely need to be significantly more, but that's something that the appropriations committee could take a look at. It's something that the other body could take a look at, if that was, the desire. In the, in the interim, there are processes by which, the Land Review Board has to go through in terms of notification. And if if the senator is interested in what those processes are specifically I could, provide that by third reading if that was of interest.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you. Major concern is for our Vermonters we saw yesterday how many are concerned about it and often what will happen is an older Vermonter or either one that's not paying attention and they end up with a corridor down through their land and they do not know they don't realize until they come to sell it or want to do a project through it. If it's only 3% I would think that Vermont should take the time to make sure the landowners are notified. I hope that's the case. I thank the presenter of the bill. I don't know if it's proper time, but I'd like to do an amendment to this bill. This amendment that they're passing out is to ask to repeal tier

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: three of the section of

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: this bill. Previously under 10 BSA tier three referred to highly sensitive natural resource areas like river quarters, headwaters, important habitats. At the Natural Resource Board we define and protect through rulemaking. The law also requires the board to create and expand expanding explaining how those areas would be defined and protected. What this changes, it deletes tier three out of the bill. Repeals the request that the board to create rules for tier three areas. Leaves only tier one already defined elsewhere. Also, already defined elsewhere. And tier two, everything that is not tier one since tier three no longer will exist. If it's particular terms, the state is abandoning a three tier land classification system and effectively effectively moving it to two categories. No future rulemaking will happen to designated regulating tier three areas. Protection that might be created under tier three will not be implemented through this framework. This amendment eliminates tier three entire both the definition and the rule making. So Vermont land classification system effectively shifts from three tiers to two with no separate category categories for the most sensitive natural areas. Our Vermonters have done a fine job so far of protecting what these areas are, and I don't believe as a senate body that we should continue to, for lack of better words, oppress our landowners with tier three. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to request a brief recess so that the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee could meet because we have not, the opportunity to review this amendment.

[Speaker 0]: We will take a five minute recess. We'll take a brief recess. Senate, please come to order. Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. Would like to, just report out from the conversation that we had with the senate natural resources and energy committee that we did not approve the amendment. Three were opposed and two were for the amendment. And I guess I do have more things to say about that. Yes, so I want to thank the proposer of the amendment for bringing this up and allowing for this conversation. One of the things that we discussed in committee just now was that first of all, this is a process that is ongoing, that we are still looking for the rulemaking to happen on this. And it feels like it may be premature to just stop all the processes for tier three when rulemaking may be able to address some of the concerns that we've heard about tier three. And we also discussed that these are places that are particularly sensitive, they're places that are fragile or unique that our wildlife is dependent on. So it's critical that we are keeping these unique fragile ecosystems that are of statewide importance stay, are protected through a tier three type process. And so we hope that the body agrees with the straw vote of the committee. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I think, I don't know where you'd have to be from to understand how much I I'm against one eighty one. I mean, when you hold a rally that says repeal, act one eighty one, it would pretty much tell you that, it's not something that I'm for. But, you know, we're trying to find common ground. I like that the conversation keeps on going that we're trying to keep on trying to find our way through on this. That's pretty much how this bill has been passed right from day one. The goalposts keep on moving and all that we just don't know yet. We just don't know yet. We just don't know yet. But here's what people do know. The public's starting to figure it out. As you can saw the little event that we had yesterday and then the thousands and thousands of emails that we're getting, the public starting to figure this out. I live in tier three, all of my district is in tier three. I get the sensitive area. And of all people that know are my constituents is that they're not looking at all to wreck their area of where they're at. They understand of all people, the beauty of what Vermont has. I mean, I tell people all the time that if you are standing in Downtown Newport and you wanna go boating, I would name off 15 bodies of water within twenty minutes and forget 15. The mountains, the trail biking, the snow machining, the the natural trails, everything, the skiing, everything that we have is beautiful. But also, we should be able to live like the rest of Vermont does and not be restricted. I represent the poorest of the poor. We're poor only in money. We're not poor in how we live our lives. Yes. We all seem to have two cars. We have a place to live. We, we, send our kids to school. We send them on class trips. We go on vacations ourselves. You know, we we do live, but we live, more frugal. And I do think that anybody who understands anything about Vermont should be made to come up into our areas. Don't stay too long, but come up into our areas and, and live like we do. Live live how we do. Live live live how we do well within our means. We're not up there polluting our lands. We're not up there doing bad things. We certainly don't need, if we wanna put a home in, to have act two fifty, which was designed to be commercial development. We just wanna live, man. That's all we wanna do. We wanna build a house where we wanna do it. We wanna buy a piece of land. We don't wanna build it by the road. We wanna put it up where that, where that house is going to bring the greatest pleasure to us. Up off the road, little peace and quiet, maybe have a view, bring more value to the house. I just I get some parts of 181. I get the way that you wanna develop downtown centers, the one a's, the one b's, and all of that stuff. And I'm and I'm glad that you're willing to forgive the act two fifties process to go there, but we're gonna fight tooth and nail on this act on this tier three stuff. We really, really are. Again, 66% of Vermonters live in tier threes. Their voices are gonna be heard, and it might not be the way that you want. And I can I can promise you that? I support this amendment wholeheartedly. I think that we're gonna have a fairly good vote. I ask that when we do it, that we do it by roll call, but I'm also gonna ask for just a five minute recess just to meet with our caucus right over here and and I promise it will be five minutes or less.

[Speaker 0]: We'll take a five minute recess. Will senate please come to order? The question is, shall the recommendation of amendment of the committee on natural resources and energy as amended be further amended as recommended by the senator from Addison, senator Heffernan. Senator Heffernan, set senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to extend a thank you to the senator from Washington for her words. And tier three will just help regular Vermonters keep doing what they're doing. She spoke of sensitive areas. If we know where these sensitive areas are, which I believe they do, then those are the areas that we should maintain or put our attention to, not the entire state. So I'm asking this body to please.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Bennington.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: Mister president, a few few things to say about this. One is that tier three, and in some ways, this entire effort came out of work done by the Fish and Wildlife Department when they created the Vermont Conservation Design. And the Vermont Conservation Design is a truly brilliant piece of work that looks statewide and identifies some of the areas that are the most critical for habitat, for, rare species, for plant and animal migration, etcetera. And that's where in particular tier three comes from. Because even though it may be true that people do a good job with their land, I certainly believe that because I like like to think I'm one of them. It's also true that much of Vermont's ecosystems are hanging by a thread. And those threads are the little areas that connect blocks of land. And that's really what Tier three is about. Tier three is actually very small bits of land where actually in most cases nobody lives. So hearing I'm I'm sure there was a misunderstanding about this. There's no way in the world 66% of people live in Tier three. It's possible a little tiny something less than 1% might live in Tier three because Tier three are going to be very small blocks of pieces of land here and there that are playing a critical role for holding the ecosystem together. And that's the point of this. That's the point of Tier three. And I also want you know there's no district in Tier three because it's just not possible. And the notion about the goalpost moving is an instance kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. Because this bill from the start has more process built into it than any piece of legislation that I've ever even been aware of, let alone been a part of. There is this process this this whole undertaking has been laced with process from the start. Public and real effort for public involvement. And the board has been working diligently I think to bring the public into the process. They've done the best that they can. There's always, you know, then after the fact that people weren't aware then they say, what about the process? Well, but it's continuing. And that's part of the reason why the board came to us in the first instance to the committee and started this process by saying let's give a little more time because we want to get this right we want to do it well and we want and we welcome more input and so the board came to us and asked for some of the dates to be pushed back so that they were they had the time to really get it right and that involves public input. So it's so it's really tier three from the start has been a critical part of this it was part of what brought the whole universe of the business community and the environmental community and kind of everybody that could came into the process together to agree on this concept of releasing Act two fifty jurisdiction in parts of the state where we've already made the decision that it makes sense to have housing and economic development and then identifying very small parts here and there that are truly critical to holding the ecosystem of Vermont. It's natural resources community together and that's what tier three is about. So I really hope people think carefully and especially in view of the fact that nobody can say where tier three is because it hasn't been set and the board is made up of Vermonters. By the way one of the little provisions I really like in this bill and in Act 181 is that no two board members can be from the same county and that was very purposeful. It was to make sure that there was a diversity of opinion across Vermont And in fact, we've got one from Bennington County and one from, I forget if it's Northeast Kingdom or let's say the Northwest Kingdom, it's way up there, one of them and a couple in between. So the Board asked for and to clarification we I think the sense was last year that the board had the authority to not apply all of Act two fifty to, either the road rule or tier three. They then thought it wasn't done clearly enough, so they came back and said, well, if you want us to do it, you gotta give us very very clear authority to, do rules accordingly, and we gave it to them. So we don't yet know where tier three is. We have a sense. The board put out an initial draft in order to get some feedback and move it in or out or up or around depending on that feedback, and they're still in the middle of that process. So if you talk about making a premature decision, this is the this would be the epitome of premature decision because we don't even know where tier three is or what the implications are when tier three does come into being. It may be that a single house for instance depending where it is doesn't even matter. It won't be counted. So, we don't know what we're talking about yet because it hasn't been set. This would be a huge mistake and would really you know, Vermont has been a leader in trying to do the right thing with the environment and hold it together. All the reasons that we've heard about, you know, recreation. We've heard we've hear constantly about how important Vermont's environment is to the people who live here, to our visitors, to the billions of dollars that actually generates for Vermont and that's what this is about and so, I I urge my colleagues here today to think very careful carefully before doing the kind of damage that this amendment would do.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm a native of modern. I lived here all my life. My great grandson is an eleventh generation of Monarch. And we bought property as an investment, but also to be able to extend our our next generation a place to live. Right? I'm on the Natural Resources and Energy Committee, and I've tried to work with within that committee to to get at s three twenty five right. Most people in Vermont don't know that there is an conservation design, and they certainly don't know that their land is in there. And what what I'm hearing from my constituents is that they want they don't want an unelected board telling them what they can do with their own property. And that's exactly what this tier three is doing. Yeah. We don't know where it is. And this process has been kind of unveiled in the in the in the dark to most Vermonters. So I'm saying maybe we just need to slow it down and let Vermonters know what's what's happening with their own property. And then once they know, maybe they'll buy into it. I believe that what the senator from Bennington said is true because I'm a conservationist. I I know there's sensitive areas and there are, you know, natural communities that we need to protect. But the people need to understand what's happening with their land. They've been losing their own personal property rights, and I

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: don't support that anymore. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I'd like to speak. I would like to use his words of the senator from Bennington. I agree what I said is we don't know. That's why we should get right here now until we do know and then we can do a better job protecting those spots and protecting the rights of our Vermont landowners. So again, we vote yes on this amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden Central. I have

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: maybe it's a point of inquiry. I have a question that is related to the amendment but is without the underlying bill. Can I ask a question?

[Speaker 0]: You can interrogate the presenter of the bill if you would like. The senator of Washington is interrogated as the reporter of the bill.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I'm just, I've gotten a little bit confused because my understanding is that three twenty five does delay the process and bring in more public input. Could the senator tell me if that's correct?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. That is correct. And in fact, for the tier three rulemaking, we actually ended up putting in a date that is six months after what the Land Use Review Board had recommended.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Oh, I thank the senator. Are

[Speaker 0]: you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. I believe all of this down to the couple 100 folks who who stood in front of the State House yesterday is all critical process. I celebrate that people are wanting to engage on what land use and what land protection should look like on their land, in their own communities. That is the nature of what this is about. And that is going to be messy work. I think all of us are living under a land use law that for decades we said we could not touch because we were afraid of having this conversation. And what that has led to is such fear of Act two fifty that essentially the great concern everyone's raising right now is that Act 181 might bring Act two fifty to their doorstep and they'd rather keep their head down and and not have to, worry about being impacted by Act two fifty. So I'd like to remind folks that that was the impetus for crafting Act 181 is that people are extremely afraid of the unknown. And I believe they have legitimate reasons to be afraid of the unknown. I have showed, I think almost every colleague in this chamber, you know, the four layers of permits that many landowners have to go through to get onto the other side of what is municipal jurisdiction in some cases, ANR jurisdiction in other cases, Act two fifty jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. There are a lot of surprises for people when they go to sell land or develop land or change their use of their particular land. And that happens all over the state. And I really, what I really appreciate about the spirit of debate and people who've written to many of us or came out yesterday who are angry and I understand and appreciate their anger is that it feels like the system will always be rigged against them. And if you have enough money, you'll always be able to get through the process. That's something that keeps me up at night. When I hear people say that second homeowner or that big corporation, they're gonna be able to get through the process. I won't. Because Mr. President, I worry that all of the little bells and whistles and new pathways we've added in Act two fifty ultimately spits out a Dollar General over 20 units of housing or over, you know, a working farm. The status quo is not working for people. And I know, mister president, this amendment is narrowly tailored, in theory to tier three, but the tiers need each other, mister president. Just like our committees need each other. I mean, I'm extremely grateful for is we had to originate Act 181 in the Economic Development Committee two years ago because we didn't have natural resources committees that were willing to talk about housing. Now we have a natural resources committee that is proposing a bill on housing and development and land use, and that is all we could have asked for. And in that context, Mr. President, I want us to look at the amendment and look at the definition of tier two because I think it spells out really clearly the concern that I would have in getting rid of tier three. I worry that tier two is largely undefined. Right now it is in statute defined as an area that's not tier one or tier three. And you expand tier two to mean everything, and you're right back to square one arguing, is this a critical natural resource area? Is this a floodplain? Is this too close to this habitat corridor? If we don't have these conversations on our front porch in the light of day, which was Act two fifty's original intention, these battles are fought in courts, in veiled threats about taking someone to court for Act two fifty, and in very expensive processes that most people would rather avoid. But if that all goes back into tier two, that starts the uncertainty all over again. The silence that we've had around where Act two fifty applies or does not apply is what has led to sprawl. And the undefined nature of where Act two fifty applies is what has led to the unknown. So Mr. President, I think having a natural resources committee come forward in many contexts unanimously saying, we are going to limit where tier three is to two or 3% of the state, were going to talk about what that is and make sure people agree on what that is, that's a lot better than what we have now. Because right now, pretty much almost anybody can get a land use study, hire an expert, say they've seen some wildlife trails, and bring someone into a lengthy process through all of those different layers of permits in an entirely unknown way. Many of us approached Act 181 hearing from people, if someone brings me into Act two fifty, how long could it go on? And and we had to say, we don't know. We don't know. We can't have that for Vermonters. And this bill is about significantly limiting the unknowns. If we take what would have been 3% and truly, I don't know if my colleagues realize what they're saying is they would put it back into a majority of what the state is currently categorized as, which is tier two, which is a category that we can do a lot more work to define where development can happen and how we release more of tier two from ACTU-fifty. But if we mix tier two and tier three back together, you're back at looking at huge percentages of land that people want to claim is something that it may not be. So, Mr. President, with that, I just want to remind people we have this debate in Act 181. We said clearly, and it's it's in the calendar in existing language, that every community needs the opportunity to be able to have tiers one, two, and three in their community. Where people are saying they're all tier three or they, you know, 66% of the state lives in tier three. We need people to engage in this process. We need people to say in my community, we all agree, we want this small parcel to be protected. It's important to all of us. You know, we want most of our community to be left alone and we want some areas to experience growth. In the absence of doing that formally and making that known and defined, which it's extremely becoming extremely defined as per these maps, we push people back into the unknown. And Mr. President, I don't want to go back into the unknown where it's much more about whether or not you have the money to continue appealing in the process. And it becomes much more about using the science, the data, and a good public process to define tiers that give people a deep sense of what they can and cannot do in their own community. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. It's what I find comical about all of this is that this whole bill is I don't know. Where's one A? I don't know. Where's one B? I don't know. First tier two. I don't know. First tier three. I don't know. Yet we're asking to vote on something that we don't know. Over and over and over again. We don't know anything. But we know that we wanna pass this bill. It's just it's unbelievable to me that when we are in a housing crisis right now, that we are trying to set up all these tiers that are gonna make housing harder to build, more expensive to build. But we don't know nothing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Point of order.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: We don't know anything.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: Point of order.

[Speaker 0]: Senator, what's your point of order?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Point of

[Senator Becca White (Windsor)]: order, I believe the speaker is not within our rules to have language that is used by members during debate that is temperate, decorous, or respectful.

[Speaker 0]: Senator, I find your point of order not well taking taken the senator as well within his rights so far.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: That's what I was saying, mister president. We don't know. We don't know anything. But we're willing to go to great lengths to pass this bill that harms Vermonters in a way that we have never done before. And I guess I look disappointed in what we're trying to do here. So it would be very nice if we knew what we're doing. We could do that. We could just stop all this right now. We could go back to work as some of the centers have said, going to the committees and figure it out. We could bring a plan forward and we could show people. We could show people. Okay. Okay. Here's where you are. Here's one a. Here's one b. Here's two. Here's three. Here's wildlife corridors. Here's the wetlands. Here's the road rules, and all of that. Because that's the way it looks right now. Everybody is correct that have said this. The public does feel like it is stacked against them. Because if they don't get you in tier one a, they don't get you in one b, they don't get you in two, if they don't get you in three, if they don't get you with the

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: road rule, all of all

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: of a sudden this miraculous wildlife quarter is gonna pop up and they'll get you there. It is just unbelievable that we are voting on something impacting people's lives that we can't say to them. This is how this bill is going to affect you. This is what your life is gonna be based on. Never not even to even say anything about, well, okay, you know what? You're in three, you can't do anything with your land. We haven't talked about how we're going to compensate them for changing their use of their land. So now their land isn't as valuable as it once was. So now, maybe we ought to think about reducing your taxes because you can't do with what you wanted to do. There's so much to think about and talk about and figure out, but we're in such a hurry to pass this, and we don't know. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Mister president, I promise I'll be brief, but I want I wanna address some things I just heard from the senator from Chittenden. The, you know, the fear of the unknown. We we know act two fifty. Act two fifty has been around for fifty six years. And there are parts of it that do inhibit building, and I think that's the one a and one b part of it. So s three twenty five addresses that. I think about twenty years ago, at two fifty, they took out the road group. But yet and now it's going back in to to one eighty one. And let me tell you what happens from my understanding of of wildlife. You build an 800 foot road in the woods, it's gonna become a wildlife corridor because the animals

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: are gonna use it. Thank you, miss Bergman.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. I just wanna, address some of the, comments that were just made. I wanna clarify, I've provided in your handout maps of the future land use maps, and the top four categories are the areas that are eligible for tier one a or tier one b, and that not all of the counties in Vermont have gone through that process, but we anticipate that it may take until next February until all of the regions go through the future land use mapping process. And, when we say that that there is some, uncertainty about, what what some of this means. What this bill does is allow rulemaking to move forward, so that we can, get that more information. And there'll be plenty of time, for us to, learn more through, through the rulemaking, get that feedback, and then make adjustments accordingly. And that's one of the points of this bill. Thank you very much.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I know it's late, Mr. President. I was wondering if I could ask some questions of the underlying reporter of the bill.

[Speaker 0]: The reporter of the bills interrogated.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: So, mister president, just because of the Florida debate is what is inspiring me to stand. If this amendment had been before us back in January or February, I'd be voting yes. What I was hearing from the field, VLCT, from a lot of people about the trajectory of the LER was really make alarming me. It was making me concerned that I had voted terribly wrong in the on this bill back some time ago. Since then, and what I really like in the underlying bill and why I'm leaning to not support this amendment are just some things I'd like to just, understand better from the reporter of the bill, if I may, mister president. Could you tell me a little bit more about what currently triggers tier three, what it was at the beginning in interpretations of rulemaking, and what currently the trajectory is? And is that getting narrowed at all with either this underlying bill or through the rulemaking process, mister president?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you, mister president. I really appreciate that question. The opportunity to talk about that. Probably should have, mentioned this before now. So when the, tier three rule making, process started, they were considering eight to 12 categories of types of places that could fall into tier three. And then that has been narrowed down to three categories. Those three categories include headwaters, sense of natural communities, and habitat corridors. Now the habitat corridors are, well actually let me back up, the headwaters are places that tend to be very sensitive to erosion. And so that's one of the reasons why we've included those or that those have been included. The habitat corridors are perhaps less familiar to folks, but it has to do with populations of wildlife that tend to be scared off by human activity and so have a tendency to not go across roads in those circumstances. And then, sense of natural communities, these are places of, again, of statewide importance, that are unique or fragile or, you know, are unusual in some way for the state of Vermont. And so are important that we are intentionally protecting. I'm not sure if I fully answered your question.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: You did very much. Thank you, mister president. I have two more questions,

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: and I

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: know it's late. I really appreciate hearing the two to 3% is anticipated likely because I I don't know if you if the reporter, mister president, would reflect on what some of the earlier maps were, but those were where I was alarmed. And knowing that it's now getting narrowed down to that two to 3% and just to tag on to make it a really complicated question, so it'll be harder for you to answer.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: That's not unintentional.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Could you reflect on what percentage of the state is currently in tier 1a, 1b as far as you know and current estimations of the mapping process?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Well, that's a good question. Again, the Tier one and 1A process is still rolling out, you obviously can see the maps as they currently exist. But again, anticipating that we will end up with somewhere in the ballpark of between 2% to 3% of the state being in Tier one.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: In about two to 3% in tier three.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Exactly.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, mister president. That is what also has given me the great amount of peace. I don't know what the original maps were, but I just remember hearing from people that were really informed in this process were really concerned. I guess my last question is just, from my years, and I talk a lot on this floor, but my years as a South Burlington City Councilor in land use and development, there was always concerns when natural resources were identified on a part of a parcel, which could then all of a sudden affect the entire parcel, which would constrain housing. How do you anticipate tier three to roll out if there's a part of a 100 acre parcel that has one of these sensitive areas or a headwater? Do you expect the entire parcel to be, then implicated as tier three, or is there going to be some, adjudication or clarification where parcel parts of the land would still be just tier two?

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Thank you for mister president for that question. I've been thinking about that as well, particularly, you know, for, for rural Vermonters that have, may have larger parcels. This exact situation may come up may come up. And this is, again, this is exactly the kind of situation that I think could be clarified through rule making and it is my hope and my anticipation that an entire parcel would not be implicated if there was just a portion of the parcel that had say a tier three spot on it. And so as long as, you know, whatever the project is was happening, on a different part of the property, that that would not trigger, tier three.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I I thank the senator. Thank you. Mister president, I'm not saying just because just because, Calvin Cutler's here with WCAX.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Alright? But I'm gonna say I really don't. Alright?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: But what I'm gonna say is I'm gonna vote against this amendment, and I'm gonna vote for this bill. Even

[Speaker 0]: though

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I still have major reservations about the trajectory of Act 181, I do see hope. I'm seeing better conversations to my colleague from Chittenden Southeast in this biennium. I think we are moving this conversation in a better direction. It's why I'm doing this, why I serve, is I wanna make it easier for people to build houses in this state. And that's why what I originally saw in Act 181, and I'm seeing a correction in the trajectory. So I really thank the committee and I'm hopeful that the second half of this session in that chamber we can't control makes this bill even better. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Senator, none of us ever thought you were grandstanding. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Caledonia.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: Thank you, mister president. This bill has caused me a lot of discomfort for

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: a long time.

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: Going back to my time in the house and now my time in the senate. A member citizen from Orange County, I think clarified it for me yesterday out at the rally when he spoke. And he basically said, I'll try to quote him but I might be paraphrasing him. He said no more negotiations about rural Vermont without rural Vermonters at the table. And I think that's the issue here. I think rural Vermonters and landowners don't feel like they're at the table. They feel like they're on the table.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: And that

[Senator Scott Beck (Caledonia) – Chair, Finance]: I think is the process the problem with the process right now. And that's why I'll be voting yes for this amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: This is exactly what this bill is doing, is bringing everyone to the table. Mean, I find it interesting that this we're making sausage in here, and I know why our constituents are becoming vegetarians all of

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: a sudden.

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: This bill is bringing everyone to the table. It's extending people's voices. This is what this bill is doing. I I I I'm incredulous to hear what's going on. We're asking people to come to us, to tell us. I've been getting emails on both sides. I am not in favor of kicking the can down the road, but this is what we're doing so we can include our rural Vermonters. So we can include include our urban Vermonters. This is what this bill does, and the rest of this is politics. Let's listen to our constituents. Whatever way it goes, in the end, and do that and do that. That's what we should be doing. So to say no to this bill is saying no to your constituents and saying no, we're not bringing them to the table. So stop all the politics. I enjoy when 200 plus people show up and say, this is what I feel. That's democracy. Even if I don't agree with them, I wanna hear from them. But to say no to this bill is to say, you know what? I know that. This is what the limit is. We're extending the amount of time that our constituents can tell us what they want. So that is why I'm voting for this bill and not voting for this amendment. Thank you,

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the recommendation of the amendment of the committee on natural resources and energy as amended be further amended as offered by the senator from Addison, senator Heffernan? If so

[Senator Dave Weeks (Rutland)]: Roll call.

[Speaker 0]: The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Baruth? No. Senator Beck? Yes. Senator Bongartz? No. Senator Brennan? Yes. Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden? No. Senator Clarkson?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: No. Senator

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Caledonia? Yes. Senator Cummings? No. Senator Gulick? No. Senator Harry? No. Senator Harrison? No. Senator Hashim? No. Senator Heffernan? Yes. Ingalls? Yes. Senator Lyons? No. Senator Major? No. Senator Matos? Yes. Senator Morley? Yes. Senator Norris?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Pershing? No. Senator Plunkett? No. Senator Ron Hinsdale?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: No.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Bahoski?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: No.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Watson? No. Senator Weeks? Yes. Senator Westman? Yes. Senator White?

[Reading Clerk of the Vermont Senate]: No.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Williams? Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Those voting yes, 13. Those voting no, 17, the amendment has failed. The question is, shall the bill be amended as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources and Energy as amended. Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Roll call.

[Speaker 0]: Roll call has been requested. Are you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Baruth? Yes. Senator Beck? No. Senator Bongart? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden? Yes.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: Senator White? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: No.

[Speaker 0]: Those voting yes, 18. Those voting no, 12. And the bill has been amended as recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources as amended.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Bennington)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Shall the bill be read a third time? Are you ready for the question? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president, I I think up until now, people, you know, have have used their potential roll call votes to make statements about, what they wish would have changed, in in various detailed pieces of the bill. But I hope at this point, Mr. President, my colleagues will remember that this is now a vote on whether or not to extend deadlines, whether or not to extend housing exemptions, where we are seeing great success in many of our village centers, rural population centers, as well as our downtowns and growth centers in getting housing built, because we still are in a housing crisis, and we still do need to build housing, where we have water and sewer capacity, where we already have the infrastructure. And frankly, just in walkable village centers, where we know seniors can live much closer to their family and where they're from, than having to move to a much larger facility elsewhere in the state. So I would ask for a roll call vote, Mr. President, and I certainly can't control anybody's vote, but I do hope we remember, that this is an incredibly careful compromise that was unanimous coming out of Senate Natural Resources, and it gives us a lot of strength with forces we can't control to show that we do care about listening to our constituents' voices, extending the timeline of the information gathering process, and extending housing exemption so we can get much needed housing built.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: I think, again, that's what the folks in Chittenden County like and they ought to have that. They ought to go to their city council and they ought to say, yeah, this is what we want. But my people in rural Vermont don't want all what was just talked about. They don't want to have to live in a 1,200 foot apartment, two bedroom, one bath home, and walk to Hannaford's or whatever. They wanna live where they wanna live. They wanna have their choices. We don't wanna live, where you look out your window and then the only other thing you see is a window with somebody looking back at you. They want the flexibility and the freedom to do with what they want. So yes, we will gladly take as many roll call votes as what we need to take to show the 66% that are gonna be affected by this bill and who are going to get louder and louder and louder. We will gladly take roll call votes over and over and over again to show Vermonters who's standing up for them. Thank you, mister president.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Mister president, what I

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: hear from my constituents over and over and over again is why don't they leave us alone? Why do they have to micromanage everything that we do? Why don't they have to decide through a board or commission or group or group of employees that they hired to manage a process that affects my life day in and day out.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Why? And

[Speaker 0]: they're sick of it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: They're sick of it.

[Speaker 0]: Are you ready for the question? If so, secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Beck? No. Senator Benson? No. Senator Palmer? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Clarkson? Yes. Senator Caledonia? No. Senator Cummings? Yes. Senator Gulick?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Yes. Senator Harry?

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Yes. Senator Harrison?

[Senator Joe Major (Windsor) – Vice Chair, Agriculture]: Yes. Senator

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Hashim? Yes. Senator Heffernan? No. Senator Ingalls? Who? Senator Lyons? Yes. Senator Major? Yes. Senator Matos? No. Senator Morley? No. Senator Norris? No. Senator Pershing? Yes. Senator Warren Hinsdale.

[Senator Anne Watson (Washington) – Chair, Appropriations; Reporter for S.325]: Yes.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Watson. Yes. Senator Weeks. Yes. Senator Westman.

[Senator Wendy Harrison (Windham)]: No. Senator White. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer, Jr. (Secretary of the Senate)]: Senator Williams? No.

[Speaker 0]: Those voting yes, 18. Those voting no, 12. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of s three twenty five. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. I have the foresight to send staff home who are waiting for other bills because this would be the last one. Didn't quite realize how long it would take, but I am glad that we had a robust debate and we will I'm sure discuss that further tomorrow. With that said Mr. President pending announcements I move that the Senate stand in the adjournment until one p. M. Thursday 03/26/2026. And just a final word, you may have noticed that there is in the calendar today nothing on notes. Everything is up for action. So what that means is we will have another long debate tomorrow, but there is sunshine at the end of the tunnels. After two more days of this, we will have

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: an empty calendar and we'll

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central) – President Pro Tempore]: have just a trickle of house bills coming forward. So do prepare for long sessions tomorrow and the next day and then next week and the weeks after for a few will be like.

[Speaker 0]: Are there any announcements? Senator for Madison.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Addison)]: Just a quick statement. I appreciate the respect and knowledge and everything being my first time in this position. I really enjoyed watching the debate, respect we have for each other, and I hope that continues. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windsor. The junior senator from Windsor stood up first, senior senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: She's younger. Yeah. Quicker life.

[Senator Becca White (Windsor)]: Quicker knees. Okay. So tomorrow, the Climate Solutions Caucus is meeting from noon to one. We will be joined by Sue Minter who will be discussing the resiliency implementation strategies plan. So if

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: you care about rural Vermont, I'd love to

[Senator Becca White (Windsor)]: see you there. Twelve to one, free pizza, many options, Room 10.

[Speaker 0]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: And pepperoni. Not well, tonight's Farmers Night is a wonderful new mariachi band. The mariachi alpizar de Vermont led by Johanna Velasquez alpizar, and they are sharing the depth and beauty of traditional Mexican music. This should be terrific. I don't know whether we're gonna be in the house chamber or maybe if John lets us in this chamber or maybe in the cafeteria. But it it will be somewhere and you will hear it and it's going to be joyous and just magical after today. So I encourage you to come back and enjoy this gorgeous mariachi music. Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Senator Rutland.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Thank you, president. Point of personal preference if I may.

[Speaker 0]: Privilege.

[Senator Terry Williams (Rutland)]: Yes. I do. Thank you. So today is national Remember. Memo of honor. And I want I want everybody to understand that, you know, those people that sacrificed their lives when they raised their right hand and they signed up, they didn't exactly know what they're getting into, but they did what their duty called for. And I wanna take the opportunity to express my appreciation for the people in uniform today that are serving all of this the wolf in on our behalf. Thank you, mister Perchlik.

[Speaker 0]: Are there further announcements? Seeing none, the senator seeing one. The senator from Washington.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Senator appropriations will be meeting

[Unidentified Senator (likely committee member)]: in approximately twenty two hours.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Oh, the joy.

[Speaker 0]: Are there any further announcements? He does stand up comedy, you know.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor) – Chair, Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs]: That's April 23.

[Speaker 0]: Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand in adjournment until 1PM, Thursday, 03/26/2026. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 1PM, Thursday, 03/26/2026.