Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to our very snowy launch of the week of January 27. It is Tuesday, January 27. You're in Southern Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs in the Vermont Steakhouse. And we have a packed agenda this week. We're today is Tuesday, so we're gonna be taking up housing. That's our schedule. We will be to meet our committee housing deadline of this Thursday. The sponsor of S305 and I have talked this weekend and we've agreed to continue work on our committee housing bill. It includes a large number of additional pieces from both the administration and from her bill. We have worked really hard to avoid jurisdictional overlaps. There are some obviously, but we've worked hard to avoid them. And so we're gonna move forward in agreement. We're gonna move forward on our committee housing bill that we reviewed briefly last week. The objective this week, today actually, is to walk through that, see what elements we are agreeable to, we, you know, we're going to have to hear a lot more about all of them. The plan is that we will agree to the basic elements, that we will then introduce it on we'll vote probably on Thursday. It will be introduced on the floor of the senate and sent back to us here to work on for the next bit until crossover. So that is the plan. But we thought we'd start today to frame up for us as we go into this discussion of housing and our housing prices here in Vermont. We thought we would begin reviewing what is embedded in the governor's budget so that we have a notion of the housing the housing that's been taken care of. Well, that has not been taken care of, but that has been addressed and included in the governor's budget. So for that, I'd like to welcome Ted Barnett, who is going to be from our joint fiscal office, who's going to be our housing major diploma in the joint fiscal office. Yes. So this is now gonna be your family.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly. It makes sense. So Temperin joint fiscal office, after talking with Pat a bit about that Oh. Oh, sorry, David.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Can you back up just a sec? Absolutely. What did you say happens on Friday on the floor and then comes back to the committee?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I don't know if it will be Friday, but our What we're called to do and required to do for committee bills, as I told you, Kesha and I talked, we're gonna move forward with a committee housing bill. It has to be introduced and voted out of here at the kind of in Friday. On Thursday. I don't know if it will come back to us Friday or Tuesday, but one of the other people come back to us to work on. And Just housing? Right. Oh, it'll be oh, and tomorrow, we're gonna do the same thing with senate economic development with an economic development. Thank you. Mind you. Ted. So we're gonna begin, Kesha Funny. With Ted giving us a notion of what is in the governor's budget as it relates to housing.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure. So, yes, reflective of I know I'm sure you all have heard, kind of floating around in the ether, the discussion that the this budget cycle was a tight one. And I think reflective of that, the the amount of housing investments. And to be clear, when I'm talking about housing investments, I'm not referring to emergency housing or related supports. There are only three items that I'm going to discuss with you all that were in the gov rec. So the first piece is making funding for the Vermont Housing Improvement Program, BPIP, putting that as base funding. So there's $4,000,000 in the gov rec for that. That reflects what was in the gov rec last year, but that funding was transitioned to one time funding for VHIP. So at the time, was enacted in act 27.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Is it all general fund?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It would be all yes. It would all be funded by the because we,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: two years ago, we created the additional property transfer tax. Mhmm. So did did that did the governor make any comment on that? So I will allocated?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I will get to that when I talk about the property transfer tax. Mhmm. Yes. So, yeah, that'll be in

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The item after that is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But then it's fair to say that one of the challenges with the defense, it doesn't go through VHCb, which is the property

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, it's it's challenged or not, but I just I just didn't

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: know if it's just in this budget before. Yeah.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So the second piece is Sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's 4,000,000.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 4,000,000 for EGRIDA. Correct. The second piece is for the M H I R. Murr. Murr. Thank you very much. So that is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I just thought yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. Yeah. I should have thought about the. Yeah. The infrastructure program. Mhmm.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. That is correct. So that there's a Infrastructure and repair. Right. Sorry. The r. $800,000 one time appropriation. I will note that that is in addition to 2,000,000 in base funding. That was an act 27 last year for fiscal year twenty six. And then Sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That just to to note for people who don't fully take that on board, that's a major retreat. Well It it from

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: base funding to one No. No. It's in the base. 2,000,000 in the base. Oh, it's still in the base.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. I wasn't. It was p

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If he took it out of his base,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I could be So I I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I apologize. My the way you presented it, I thought it's never that we were

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: It's going back with one step. What was the amount? $4,000,000. 4. Mhmm.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the 2,000,000 in base money continues?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Continue. It would be

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: as much. Thank you. That's a good clarification.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Do they give you a sense or, I imagine, maybe separately track their the the amount of their cube on VHIP or you don't have that?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't have that. I would get testimony from

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: BHED of that. So the final piece is the property transfer tax, one of my favorite pieces in the budget. Yeah. So this so for fiscal year twenty seventh, there's $82,000,000 in overall property transfer tax revenue.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Pretty good. Yeah. The piece that

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: is allocated to the Housing and Conservation Trust Fund is $37,600,000. We'll note that there's the housing conservation trust fund has their dual purpose. It's generally recognized that 60% of that overall funding would go to housing, so we're looking at about 22 and a half, $22,600,000 from that amount that's allocated to the trust fund in section b 100. This reflects the essentially, the statutory calculation. Right? As you take overall APT revenue, you subtract off Department of Tax admin costs and the 2 and a half million dollar housing bond. And so the amount that's in the Gulf Rec

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And no land use review board?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No land use review board. Correct. So this is it reflects 50% of that remaining revenue, which is what is outlined in statute for the allocation of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the PTT. This is Mhmm.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: What was made possible for the additional revenue put towards PTT. And I'd like to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: know if it's above forecast again like it was the year before.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So it was downgraded in fiscal year twenty six. So in the BAA, there was a slight reduction in allocations Okay. Because it was downgraded just a bit.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But it is in line, broadly speaking, with the estimates that were done for act one eighty one. Great. Yep.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well and it was above forecast the first year.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It went into effect.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So Yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You upgraded the forecast and then down rates.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So now it's sort of level.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I do wanna make sure you're gonna tell everyone that we very often not withstand the existing allocation framework and could give more to how, like, example, could change the amounts to go to various places in concert with the appropriation.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That would be a policy choice for y'all to decide. It is not withstood in budget. I would also note that there is also a piece that is, this is important for I think you have an appropriation for municipal planning, that you're considering in your committee bill.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So the piece, there's an allocation, that goes to municipal and regional planning, and that part is not withstood.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: In the GUPREC, and it's reflective the explanatory language in the GUPREC notes that ACCD requested this not withstand reflect demand for planning grant for regional planning commission versus at the municipal level. Oh. So this is reflective of it doesn't line up with what is in statute, but it reflects need on the ground, which

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think there's municipal need

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: on the ground too. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So 50. So just for everybody else Yep. Else who got quite as clear on the PPT Yep. Property transfer tax, 50%. But so if immediately unclear how much goes to tax for administration and to pay all the housing. That takes up x percent. How much?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's a that part is not understood because tax doesn't use their full amount. So tax is about 600,000, and then the housing bond is 2 and 1,000,000.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's 2 and half. So it's like 2.6, something

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: like that. Is everyone on this committee clear about how we raised the additional revenue on the property transfer tax two years ago? Because I'm about to have an op ed out about it. So don't you remind everybody? Okay. So two years ago Right. Based on a proposal from the administration, from Craig Folio, a tax commissioner at the time, he wanted to find a way to offer a tax benefit for blighted or underutilized properties, but not give that benefit to second homes or short term rentals. So how would tax do that? They would look for a landlord certificate declaration. So I used that concept to I think it's two is it two and a half times or is it three times? The property transfer tax increase for a non primary residence.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The rate goes from 1.25 to 3.4%.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: 3.4. So a little under three three times. So we almost tripled the rate for the property transfer tax if you are articulating that you will not be using it as a rental for longer than a month or that you will be using it as your primary residence. If you do indeed do that and you can produce those documents at the end of the year, you can get your additional payment back. We have heard very minor kind of marginal case studies about how it might need to be tailored to work better, but it it was above forecast. It's first year. I if someone wants to say that they heard from somebody that this was, you know, poorly administered or a hardship, please let me know, but it is the basis of the tax department's report for how they would go about an annual second home property tax.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Right. Which is already in place and went into place

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: in August, and we saw a huge flurry of sales. So property transfer tax is in place. And annual property tax.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So for those who are interested in more substantial tax for second homeowners, it has been in effect since August of of twenty three.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: '24. '23 or '24.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So it would have gone '24.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep. '24. Yep. And we saw a flurry of, obviously, sales leading up through to July 31. And then it sort of has leveled off, I think. And now

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, the the because the original forecast, I think, was anticipating there would be more hiccups or just wasn't clear how many people would report second home use or short term rental use, the forecast came in higher or the amount came in higher than forecast.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We always like to be conservative in the amount of revenue to forecast for you all.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I I I think that's important because people worry people worried then that folks would just try to game the system. And my takeaway is that people who know they have kind of something that's considered a luxury good, a home that's vacant for much of the year or used as a short term rental, you know, generally did not try to gain the system. We saw about as many property transfers as we would anticipate that were long long term vacant properties. And we it was above forecast. The forecast got raised to reflect that most people are just paying this tax and happy to contribute to their community and more housing in the state.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I remember this conversation and there were concerns that it might discourage flipping for atrophied properties, but you opened up by saying that we somehow consider whether or not it's occupiable and so they can, if they buy a house that is not currently inhabitable, they can also

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Not fit for year end habitation. So that has been a really that's been a lot of interesting side side cases that I just think are fascinating. It doesn't have potable water. It was it is intended to capture the deer camps, which we had that conversation in finance. And that's about 10% of vacant properties in the state. So it you are not past that extra amount if it is not fit for your own habitability. Right. That was the key.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But if you would be kind of just to finish on where all the little pieces of property transfer tax after the taking off the top for the bond and for tax, and then 50% of what's left over goes to the HCB with a sixty forty split. The other percent goes to technical assistance, municipal and regional planning help. Mhmm. And what else?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So for the remaining portion, I will to help you all visualize this, I know it's hard to talk about numbers in in the abstract. I will we have a a table that summarizes property transfer tax allocations in the gov rack, a little spreadsheet, but I'll send that to so she can put it up on the committee page. Right. But So you have the portion that is allocated to the trust fund, which is 50% after you take the housing bond and the Department of Taxes costs off the top. The housing trust fund. The housing trust fund. Correct. And then of that remaining amount, 17 13%, sorry, it used to be 17, goes to the municipal and regional municipal and regional planning and resilient fund. And within that fund, are three separate uses, grants to regional planning commissions, grants to municipalities for planning purposes, and an amount that goes to BCGI or since they assist municipal and regional planning commission lay out the land. So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that is that adds up to a 100%.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So and then the remainder goes to the general fund. So the amount that's roughly what at the moment? That is. They are banking hold on one second. It is roughly $31,000,000 of property transfer tax revenue. If you include a million dollars of the clean water surcharge, it's $32,000,000 in general fund from that So by end of general fund. Yep. And 10 nearly $10,200,000 due to municipal and regional planning.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Okay. That's so and in the governor's budget, he supported all those allocations this year. We didn't he didn't try and take any more for the stadium. Right. It's all. This is all.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is reflective of the percentages that are in statute with the caveat that tax didn't need their full percentage allocation. They're one and a half percent, and there's the housing bond involved. Right. Yep. Thank you. Mhmm. And so

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the significant difference here, there are two really significant differences. One is the movement of most of the v h v h Vermont v h programming to the base, which is exciting. It may not be enough money. We may wanna consider more than that. But that's a great start. And as you may remember, last year, it also began on the base and was pulled, and it ended up being one time money again. So I think one of the pieces I would encourage as we go through our committee housing bill is underscoring the fact that we wanna keep that in the base and, not have it yanked again. And then, of course, the other piece which is very encouraging is the additional $800,000 for the manufacturing of health infrastructure and repair program. So that's great. Anything else and that's it on housing?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. That is as far as I was able to see and and reviewing. Correct.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Yep. Terrific. Which constitutes an end to some programs that we funded in past years or the language accompanying them later on?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm sure the language was you're talking about things that were funded in January? Well, options. Yeah. And other housing bills. Yeah. I would have to review and see those programs are funded, whether funding has continued, but the the many cases, if the the language isn't enshrined in statute right, they could live on

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Even without funding.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. Well, it's important to know that, obviously, so we think that folks coming to us at last minute. Sure.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I will take a look and see. We have spreadsheets that take a wider look at housing investments over time, and I will take a look at those and see.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Terrific. Mhmm. Well, the addition of a property transfer tax, it is terrific. And it's great that it's level a little bit more level this year than. A big battery. So that thank you. That's great. Any any other questions for Ted? Any other thoughts going forward?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Not at the moment. I don't have thoughts going forward.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Our total on housing at the moment in the governor's budget is

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I could do if you're

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: including the two. So 6.8 and 30

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I don't know.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Anyway, look. Whenever you get it. K. That's great. Sure. Sure thing. Thank you very much. And Kim and Ellen are coming. Are they? Okay.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So, mister chair, would you like me to stick around for committee discussion? Or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think we are probably in good shape. Okay. Thank you very much. We really appreciate your join us. Thomas, what do you think?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Since we have a minute.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We have a minute because and Caminella from.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: If you recall a time when we did not withstand the statutorial obligation for the VHCV, it seems like we just every year since we had it in place, I mean, are we notwithstanding the entire allocation to VHCV, or do we fortunately adjusting that?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, man. We haven't we have, for most of my years, not funded the 100%.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: If you notwithstanding all, it's the entire.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: yeah. It's a good question. As far as time in memorial, as far as I understand, property tax allocations have been not withstood. I think part of in the budget this year now, even though the the ending percentages reflect what is statute, since tax doesn't need their full allocation, since there's there are changes in the municipal and regional planning resilience funds, since those are the allocations in there that reflect statutory percentages, it's just not withstand the whole thing and then put those allocations in even though the underlying allocations at a broad level between the housing conservation trust fund, the general fund, and the municipal and regional planning funds are reflective of statute, if that makes sense. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Does that help? Yeah. We should just keep notwithstanding and then doing whatever we want, but that's okay because we can do that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I was gonna do whatever we want.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think that's a a bit much, but we it is encouraging that for the last couple of years, we have a 100% funded BHCO. We have not done in my life. I mean, that That's right. Kesha and I, we have been we have fought almost every year to try and get BHCD funded a 100% Right. Of of what they are what's due to them. And it has really literally, the last three years, they've gotten a 100% of what they it's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I don't wanna speak for senator Kitchell, who will probably be denied this next week. But she usually did not like people coming with an appropriation request that also had an accompanying tax proposal, if you recall. But she saw she saw a lot of value in connecting second home ownership and vacancy to adding more money for affordable housing.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I guess I have a question not for now, but how you determine the amount that you to BHCV.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So you said a 100% what they're that's the question.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, there's a statute charges construct for them.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. The in statute, there

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can you close

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the door, please, whoever last came in?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep. In statute, there are specific allocations of property transfer tax revenue, and that is 50% of the remainder after taxes admin costs and after the housing bond. 50% of that revenue from the property transfer tax should go to the housing and conservation trust fund, and the amount in the governor's recommended budget is at that 50%. So that And that Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You know, relatively new because for many years, it was less, and we'd have to fight to take it back up. Okay. Thank you. Mhmm. Great. Great. Thank you so much. This is terrific and more follow. And I think we are going to move. How would you two like you were going to, as you've heard, move forward with our committee housing bill, which has a number of elements in it. I think today, what it would be very helpful for us to do is go just walk through because we're gonna have to sign off on it and vote it out as a draft, basically, on Thursday. So what would be helpful, I think, is for us to review the pieces of it and okay them, not okay them. Obviously, only for the conversation because this is just the beginning of this work. But this is just to remind you, this includes the housing pieces from Kesha's bill, the housing pieces from the administration's bill, a few requests we have gotten directly. We can entertain more pieces being added. One piece that is missing, which is my bad, is commissioner Farrell's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: design Municipal by right. Municipal Which we try to do. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Design by right. Ellen and Ellen's gonna speak to us about how we use by right. I'm not sure that's the right term for us to use, but, anyway, that whole proposal Yeah. Is one that is missing, and that's apologies to Alex. And we may there may be some pieces from from the let's build homes that we could include that are housing and not don't tread on the towage SNRE. I've k. We have lived through the challenges of the jurisdictional battle, and I think we've really tried to really tread it thoughtfully in in in incorporating elements in this bill, and we'll go through them and to discuss further. The one piece that I think leadership in both the house and senate, we're hoping that the chip the chip proposals will wait any changes to chip will wait until next year just because it is just being watched. And I think it's I think many of us just as we held off on the x two fifty last year, I think everybody we feel that Chittenden needs a a year to get to stand up on another 15 before we do too much interviewing. We'll see what happens but that's the hope. So with that Ellen and Kim do you want to come and do this together?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Regarding Chitt, wasn't there some language that needs to be modified to clarify, you know, across the street? There's something about infrastructure being not

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's home act. That's the home act. I I do I I had blame it, John. So I as I, you know, support the chair's good work to try and pull something together and be, you know, diplomatic about

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: our

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: jurisdiction, even if something doesn't land in this bill, I think there are, probably by next week, there are things that would be worth understanding what we're foregoing if it comes back up. And because I have a different feeling about the about letting this program work.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Shit we're talking about.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. About that I think we will spend the next year hearing from people about projects that get hung up. And I just wanna make sure we take an affirmative stance to ignore or listen to those concerns and evidence.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. I I think that's fair. I We'll have Jessica, and I will discuss those fully. And I see Corey's in the room too. So how would you two like to proceed? Because I think what we wanna do, given that we have an hour and a half or roughly, is really go through it, at least understand what's in it at the moment. I mean, and then if if we wanna add anything to it, add things. But I think what we wanna do is at least to have a good understanding of what the is in this draft so that we can sign off on it. It'll get voted out on Thursday, go to the floor, and then get sent back to us for work.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna start with page one?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just walk through it that way.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's the simplest way to do it.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So balance check out. So we did

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: this on Friday. Yes. I know. We did it.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But So you're are we gonna do markup?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that is Is that what thought? Well, you know, a very high level markup because we're going to dive into it beginning next week. So

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want start with the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: paper one then? Yeah. Okay. So Cam, why don't you start us? And if you're seeing something that's missing, we've included the request, which more you know, we that's in pretty good shape at the moment. I think there was something else. And the only thing that I know of that's missing at

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the moment is Alex Gerdl's proposal. So Yeah. They dropping request 260748.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: At the moment. That's right. Okay. Thank And so the public who are listening along, it's on our website, and

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it's on our website. We're using 1.1. Yes. So We're at

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on 1.1, and what I assume will be introduced will be 1.2 or three. Brilliant.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep. And I think we don't have think the objective here is to improve what we wanna have further discussion on. We may not end up in agreement on all of these pieces, but at least what's worthy of further discussion is I think where we is that okay? It's a broad I I apologize. This is not the way we're going to do business. But, hey, we're being asked to do it this way, and I hear do the best we can do. So thank you all for your indulgence in this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Good morning. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Council. So as you can see, we have draft request 20Six-seven48. We believe you all have it. We went through this relatively quickly this past Friday morning. It has a draft request number because it obviously has not been introduced at this point, chair. I think you're working to try to get something introduced and referred back to you so you continue to work on it as you just mentioned briefly a minute ago. So you will see it doesn't have a subject, doesn't have a purpose statement, doesn't have a title yet because trying to figure out exactly what will be in the bill before it gets introduced, that way we can ensure that those pieces of information accurately reflect what's in the bill. So that will obviously be filled out by our office before it gets introduced. As I mentioned last Friday, a lot of these sections have been, you know, pulled out from other bills that were introduced and incorporated. So, whereas it's probably in a a near final state from an editing perspective, it needs to go back to our editors one more time. So that's why it

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: has a watermark of unedited draft No. On No. Very helpful. Good.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And just to remind everybody, this has the administration's pieces. This has the act 69 report and recommendations. This has recommendations. This has Kesha Ram Hinsdale's three zero five housing pieces. So in all cases, we have tried to include things that were strictly pretty much housed. Okay.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, I'm not jumping on this first section. I had a question about a municipal plan. Is that appropriate now?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jump in.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Alright. So I'm used

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: to the term comprehensive plan. Is that effectively the same thing in your terminology? How would a municipal plan be different than what I understand towns, certain areas develop every five or ten years in comprehensive? This area is new to me. Okay. So I may not be able

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to answer that question directly. Ellen may be able to answer it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think as we go through, we wanna also identify the witnesses for this. I believe this is from the Department of Housing and Community Development. This is an administration proposal, and so we wanna hear more from them on it.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Relatedly, before you speak, Owen,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I just wanna make that I'm getting I think this is

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: the case, but before the VLCT reaches out, I wanna know that this doesn't force them to update in real time, and this would just be part

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: of the next standard cycle that they would be when they

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: came this off, they would just stop incorporating their this in their lens.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll check out the obsolete council. I've never heard the report because comprehensive plans, but perhaps South Relic does does have a lot going on, so it could incorporate other things. But yes, this is part of the municipal planning statute, so probably. The cycle is every eight years for them to expire and then readopt. They are they can adopt them more frequently than that if they seek to make changes update if they seek to make changes. I think don't know if the language in here requires them to update it more frequently, but usually when you're updating the requirements for the municipal plan, would be as part of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the next update cycle. Yeah.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This language to you tracks with that. This is the putting

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could make it clear if you would like it to be.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We could clarify that.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Hate to have to drop everything.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: You'd have to address this, but trust your language with that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I I think this is meant for long term, what additional to include. Sure. So but we will get clarity from the administration, from Alex and whoever in the administration proposes. And just to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: jump in there, I mean, it's not required now. So it doesn't have a retroactive effect. So we'll double check section, but I would interpret this to be anytime there is a new plan, because not all municipalities have one, or there's an update to one, it would then be required to conduct a section at that point in time. Now if there's a plan that needs to be amended or readopted soon in the next year, this may be a lot of work or municipality may say we may not have the capacity to gather and incorporate all of this information by the time our next plan update is required to be adopted, so you may wanna contemplate that for future effective date signaling for municipalities this may go into effect two years from now, so you at least have two years, etcetera. That may be something you wanna consider.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. Okay. So witnesses on this administration and whoever administration would like them to quote us.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Because this is going to The plan. Just to jump into the language. You know, this would be for municipalities that are adopting municipal plans would be required to, and just in the survey there, include an analysis of regulatory and fiscal constraints preventing the municipality from developing sanctioned housing to meet the regional housing targets that are developed. And when you get into the subdivisions here, one, on the bottom of this page, and moving into pages two and three, there's quite a lot of information and analysis that a municipality would be required to do. The level of burden on them defer to other witnesses to kind of speak to that. I would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just off the cuff. DHDD, VLCT, and the RPCs in, and then we can figure out more to go from there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. I think I mean, I've just started raising this concern, but the there are towns even in Chittenden County that have very small targets. And and some level, I wanna make sure affordability is part of the construct because if they can build seven luxury housing units to meet their target, which Yep. Not acceptable. They're even bulking at that and some 100% shipping out. Yeah. Then that is still a concern for me. I just don't want them to when they have very low targets, they could get away with Right. Things that really don't help us truly meet our goal.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that meshes with the mapping work that is expected at the end of this year. I mean, that also kind of interplays with the housing targets that are being set by the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Charlie Baker could speak to this. But, you know

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think this is slightly separate from that. Well And yeah. Because I think this is ongoing more information. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, would only say he can speak to it because he because there are communities bulking at between seven and fifteen unit, and they've given them a range. I I don't know if every I mean RPC has given them a range, each community. Yeah. But if they can stick with the very low end of the range and do seven large acre single family homes. That's not necessarily our intention, and I'd like

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to take a better look at that. Okay. So I think we have a good sense of section one and who we can begin to ask and go forward with. Everybody okay with including it for further discussion? Okay, great. Section two.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I would just say on page two paragraphs, line five and six, I would just after potential redevelopment sites just make a period and strike available to meet jurisdictions needed housing types because what's available and what's not available is kind of subjective. We just want them to categorize what's available, period.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So just to jump in here, as part of that analysis, the municipality is required, I just pulled it up on the screen to that specific section, to list an inventory of sites including zone, unzoned vacant, underutilized, and potential redevelopment sites available to meet the jurisdiction's needed housing types that they've identified. So, Senator, you're proposing

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: But appear to have them as tight as And strike the Yeah. To meet the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But to go to case it's concerned, we're hoping that

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Pat. It's a little subjective. Is a vacant, underutilized, is it really available? I mean, it just gets into the nuance of what's in that category or do they falsely exclude units because they know that they can't reach them, they can't affect them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I've got this note to consider striking it and just before we do ask the administration what they meant by it and how because we could also clarify. Okay. Section two tax credits.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section two which is going to begin on the bottom of page three. These are tax credits for the Vermont Finance Agency, excuse me, the Monopoly Finance Agency. The real change in the language is gonna be all the way down, so you can go to top of page five. So the language on four is just clarifying for you all, so you have the language in front of you what the housing tax credits that we're talking about, the down payment assistance program, and then when you get to the top of page five, currently, the FHFA has the authority to issue these credits through fiscal year 2026, and this language would extend that

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: through 2031.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we heard more on this, and I assume that there'll be more conversation on this, but I certainly would wanna keep this in your home. And Okay. Is also just to remind you when when we get to it, when we have a few left out of the back, there is a request to release it to March. On line two, there's there's a a request to release that to March, which we'll discuss when they come back. Okay. The off-site construction accelerator section three.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this language came from a separate bill that has been introduced. It is slightly different language, but this would have the agency of commerce and communities of developments to develop a pilot demonstration project working with a municipality that would look at things like bulk purchasing, streamlining regulatory processes, etcetera, using off-site construction. My understanding is I believe the agency was asking for $6,000,000 in order to do this That money is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: not here. Million. I don't think it made it into the budget.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there may be something you wanna discuss with them. Currently, it's listed as they shall do this, and there's no money attached to it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. The the shall and the and the budget final piece seem to have lost their way. So we will are people okay with including us to go forward? The off-site construction piece. It's a pilot that they're proposing. I'm happy to hear why they wanna do this and Yeah. How they're gonna do it with no money at the moment or

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: they're asking us to. Great. That's, I guess, my concern is, are we taking money away from elsewhere? Because I will just say, my my biggest concern is that we we tend to know how to make manufactured housing affordable. It's the siding and the acreage that ends up costing a prohibitive amount for someone to then find it an affordable solution. So it's it's not it's not the modular housing, it's the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, yeah. Exactly. The land requirements. To go back to David's piece about Woodstock. Yes. I think so. But I am happy to have the administration come in and chat further about this and whoever else they're proposing this pilot with. And maybe the treasurer the treasurer has an idea for the funding.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But again, I still wonder about, next Yep. Best

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: yep, okay. David?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Is the concept of bulk purchasing and statewide procurement, is the idea that the program pays for itself and that the state buys and then the municipalities or they'll never pay back that price? Is it a zero sum game or is it Good question.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think we need to ask a a proposal of this of of That's

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: a good that's a good question.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And how long is the pilot? It's it's not clear to me. Twenty eight, that's two years. That's not maybe quite enough time. But, anyway, but more to there's a lot in here to discuss.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: You may wanna hear from the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: treasurer's office. Yep. I've got the treasurer and DHCb listed anybody else, and and obviously, because a pilot required them to step forward.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. This similar language is included in a bill on the house side and then also includes some changes to language that the treasurer's office administers, and that's why I

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: feel like it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So before we move to section four, would this be an appropriate place to add the administration proposal about the home designs?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would potentially put that later in the bill. Okay. Right. Closer to where we would probably fit better in the municipal zoning pieces towards the end of

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the bill that Ellen can do. Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay, great.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, these next few sections are all related to common interest communities, and so if you recall our conversation from last week when you're looking at section five, which begins on the bottom of page seven, You have two

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: These are from Caucasusville, and I will add, hopefully, we will have a piece from Megan Sullivan about HOAs. We're working on slimming that down. Assume you and she have been in touch.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have not spoken with her yet, but we'll be in touch.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let's and Megan, I'm sure, is listening. So we're hoping to include that, Megan.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So is when you're looking at section five starting on page seven, the first piece is leasing units and if you all recall our conversation this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would prohibit a common interest community from restricting Just remind us what common interest communities are. They're condos. They're h o homeownership association. They're mobile home parks. Could be.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: They Not all of them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Not all of them. They are they do they have to be owned? Does there have to be an aspect of ownership, or or they could could they be rental apartment buildings?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. It wouldn't be a rental. There there would be an aspect of home ownership here. So it's But it's it's when when you all typically think of or hear about a homeowners association, it's a common interest community. That's the legal term. So title 27 a is the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, and it governs the establishment of all common interest communities. And there, as you described, madam chair, when you think about condos, condo associations, when you think about homeownership associations, those types

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of entities. And mobile home parks if they're owned. It could be a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mobile Yeah. But a mobile home park that is owned by one individual as landlord No. Would not be a common That's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: not a common. But we now have so many that okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so this prohibits them from? So it would those entities would not be able to prohibit or unreasonably this is the top of page eight one one and two. They wouldn't be able to prohibit or unreasonably restrict a unit owner from leasing the individual unit owner's unit for residential purposes. So individual rentals could not be a short term rentals. Further down the page, it specifically says in subsections three and four that it does not limit the prohibition on transient occupancies like hotels, hotels, or short term rentals. So a homeowners association could still prohibit short term rentals. They wouldn't be able to restrict a unit owner from subleasing their unit to to someone on a more longer term basis.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So a legislator, let's say, who if there was a home ownership association here in Montpelier and they went to Florida for the winter for three months, they could still rent their unit to a legislator for three months.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is a good question. I don't see anything in this language that would prohibit that, but I will clarify it doesn't specify any timeframes. It just says you can't prohibit them from leasing it for residential purposes, and it can't be a transient occupancy like a hotel, and it can't be a short term rental. Outside of that, it's not defined. It doesn't say it must be for a period of time like four months, seven months, six months, etcetera.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. So is anyone available to explain the problem we're solving here? It's just in a nutshell. Is this

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is Kesha's bill. So why don't we put a question mark at that when she comes back, and then we'll ask her. But I think what it I thought it was getting at was not a it was trying to get rid of the limits that that community common interest communities have often on childcare. Ah, here she comes. That's the second half. That's the second half. So the second half of patient built piece here, is not limited in childcare centers, but here we're just on the residential units. Can you explain why David asked again? I'm talking about tracing, so

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: it doesn't So section five, the first part, problem are we trying to solve?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I was at a housing groundbreaking or something. And I often rely on people who are in HOAs to tell me, you know, what barriers to to housing they face. There are HOAs that will essentially say only x percent of units in the HOA can be rented out at a time to long term renters. We don't have any other similar area of law that restricts long term renters from accessing housing. So this follows our current definition of long term housing. It's not saying you can have a bunch of short term rentals, but I don't think in a time when renters particularly are cost burdened to above 50% of their income, we should allow restrictions on long term renters accessing housing. We have a lot of HOAs in our district, so we tend to hear more about about this. I heard from someone in Addison County, but they commute from Chittenden County because we have a lot of housing. But the more HOAs are allowed to restrict it going forward, I think the more of a problem we're gonna see.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So this because I could see how an HOA would and and we'll discuss this obviously in greater depth. But I assume that an HOA would not want investors just buying up units and then leasing them to people to rent all the time. Are you trying to enable that, or are you trying to say, if they're around sabbatical Mhmm. They could rent their unit for a year. I because it's I think it's slightly different with an invest I could see how an HOA would not wanna have an absentee landlord Okay. Renting it for income.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, they have they have lots of other mechanisms. I mean, they would that that has to be a consideration right now. Right? And it may or may not be. I mean, there are places that might have investors, like ski ski condos, So I wouldn't I I think that could end up all of a sudden changing the commercial code, which I'm not trying to do. What I'm trying to do is say any long term renter should not be restricted from living somewhere in the state.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I I I think we just need to discuss with I mean, I think this section could keep including Mhmm. To keep included and to have that conversation with we have we're not separate from HOAs. But I I think if the committee's okay with it, I would keep this in, and I think it needs some discussion because there are certainly a number of common interest communities that where how they manage the use of their units is important for us to both more fully understand and hopefully enable for for use if it's if it's appropriate.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Here is if if we want, we may also hear from the Human Rights Commission or others because there are huge disparities in the state between who's a homeowner and who's a renter, and saying you can't be a renter and live here has a discriminatory

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: impact. Right. But let's you know, I I I don't think let's you know. Anyway, it's okay. The the time.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So the question I have on this, and I I'm not judging the validity or not of other limits that an HOA might have, but I'd be curious if this language would override occupancy limits if the HOA has that or age restricted communities. I hear about those down in Florida where you have to be 55. I don't know. We have other than Vermont and I'm not saying that. I'm just curious if this language would basically negate any of the other restrictions that there might be besides the point of leasing or otherwise.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We do have a restricted housing in Vermont. I don't know that this by itself would negate age restricted housing. I don't believe so. I'll do some thinking, some analysis on it, and and come back to the committee if we can continue the conversation on this piece moving forward. What was the

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: first? Like, of people. No.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't there if I remember, we had something in here about it doesn't necessarily negate any other zoning or land use requirement, etcetera. So I don't see any any health code

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: related to occupancy. Just, you may remember, Tom, but three years ago in the Home Act, struck down the no more than four unrelated rule that places like Burlington had as discriminatory. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm giving our time. Okay. I think this requires, obviously, So

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we'll work

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on witness list for this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section b in page eight and page nine is the second half of this section where it would similar, adding a similar requirement that these entities would not be able to prohibit operating a family child care home within the unit owner's unit.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But there are good zoning rules that still apply, if there's parking or access.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, so it says that in the sub two there on page nine, sorry, let me get there, a family child care home operating within a common interest community shall apply with applicable federal and state laws relating to regulation of family child care homes. So if there are specific other regulations that a family child care home is required to comply with, this individual who wants to operate a unit would have to be able to temperature after an HOA commercial. Correct.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. What do mean the HOA could restrict it?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This would prevent the HOA from just a blank and. Which

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: has happened evidently in your district day.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. So having some experience living near day care centers and friends living near day care centers, this is a bit of a task for for owners of communities. Community, you know, HOA and such, which bought knowing there's a certain environment, the expectation that environment would continue. Daycare centers, they'd be different at.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, a daycare center is different than an in home childcare. I think in home childcare's are limited to like six kids maximum, so this is not a daycare center.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. This is in home care.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And we can talk about it in a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we'll find out all the rules around in home care versus a daycare center.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I will say the situation that, where the person had to end their in home childcare was people did not know because of traffic or other noise or disturbances. When they found out that's what was happening, they said our HOA prohibits that, and they had to find other placements for these children.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. So more to follow on this, and we'll get a witness list in this particular

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want me to No.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We work with family that faces

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We absolutely. Let's get them, but, also, let's get the the fam the in home care person at, AHS, whoever that whoever we'll we'll figure that out. Okay. So we're moving along.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Worrying a little about what we put into law that restricts people's ability to use property to pay home and whether or there's been any litigation that's meaningful here about, in effect, undue restrictiveness of the property against.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think that I noted this last week, there's two other HOA related bills floating out there. I imagine if the HOAs don't already have someone, they're gonna get somebody to talk to us about this, but this comes up in a lot of states as HOAs develop.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And we heard from Megan Sullivan, right, who's been an HOA.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we're asking her to continue to work on her proposal with cash. Yeah. So that, I would think, would be added after these sections. It

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is I will I will make a brief comment before I jump into section seven. It is a question that you all will need to address as you continue the discussion of whether you want these provisions to apply retroactively to homeowners associations that already exist, or whether you're wanting it to apply respectively to just homeowners associations that are created after the effective date or that are amended, they amend their bylaws to them to come into compliance afterwards. There are constitutional concerns. If you want to apply retroactively, it's not to say that you can't in any instance. It's just some things

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: that you all need to do.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Before we get to thank you. For before we get to section seven, we have section six, which is the EV charging. Well, section

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: section six is the retroactive application of this next section. So that's where I'm just putting a plug in. Both of them currently as it's in this draft apply retroactively, and so that's where I'm just saying we'll need to have a conversation about some constitutional concerns there if you want to keep those in. When you move to section seven, that's where you have another provision going into the common interest community section, which would limit them from being able to prohibit individuals from charging or installing these electric vehicle charging supply equipment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it. Sorry. Sorry. I jumped the gun on.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's okay. You were you

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: were you were spot on with where I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: was at. So Great. So the possible inclusion here is the Megan Sullivan piece, which we there. Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: K.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Before we get to the EDX. No.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: May I ask a question,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm sure. Yeah. Thomas, sorry.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So as we get it more into the HOA law,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the question I'll have for you, and I don't know if you have it today, but

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: it seems like we're I've seen reports and so on that HOAs are somehow in when some determination of the leak in their scope of what they can apply. So I've heard arguments for that. In Vermont, do they have by default the rights to restrict anything that we don't tell them they can't? Or is it more that we have some statute out there which says HOAs can regulate on this, this, this, and this, and only that? Does that make sense to my question?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, does. And I think it's going to depend on which aspects you're talking. What I mean by that is Title 27A is pretty extensive on the governance of home ownership associations, common interest communities. So a lot more restrictive on things like organization, organizational structure, voting, etcetera, and you would not be able to be contrary to certain provisions in there. Good. But like as a general point, these types of conversations, very open ended on what an agent would have been restricted and non restricted. These are entities that have been set up to agree essentially via contract that this is how this community is going to operate and the state isn't gonna come in and say, you can't do this or you can't do that in a prescriptive manner as long as it's not discriminatory, Right?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, have to pass that law.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But you have other provisions so they wouldn't be able to come in and say, we're going to restrict based on some sort of protective glass or things like that. But provisions

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: like this

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: It's like a Dillon versus Home Rule in a way that has different context. I'm wondering if other states have taken a different approach where they define the scope that HOAs can focus on and then limit it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: To to Randy's point, there is a whole body of case law around the state of giving my local government law book. I mean, is this gonna apply to, like, cults and, you know, work employer owned housing? There's been a there's been a lot of case law. I would say a lot in Florida.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I was gonna say, if we wanna talk about this drug, we need to know From Florida or Arizona or Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is a just any comment, it is a uniform law. I don't know how many states have adopted it to date. I can get that information for you. But it is not does not take the approach, when we're talking about these types of restrictions, doesn't take the approach to say, Here are the only things that you can restrict. It would be the opposite. It would take, Here are the things that you cannot restrict, or in operation of certain things, here's what you must comply with. Then outside of that, it's kind of a right of individuals to, what's the word I wanna use, congregate with like individuals so they can set the restrictions of what they want to govern their community by, and the state hasn't come in in this instance and said As long as it's nondiscriminatory.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah, that was the what? Okay. Five years ago. And we ended covenants and and did it retroactively. General or I can't remember. General. Discrimination against black and Jewish. Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'd be happy to come in and talk more in detail about title 27.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. What what what this means for the company. Yes. Okay. EV, everybody okay with including the EV for condos? This is the piece that would say if you own a condo and you own your parking space, you could put in at your own cost and you'd be charging.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does some other costly. Yeah. Yeah. I'm at. I just would like

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: to hear an HOA. I'm at Oh, yeah. If they have a counter.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Anybody else we can also add?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Eight, page 14, which just incorporates S34 related to mobile home bought rent increases. As a reminder, this would put a hard cap on the ability to increase lot rents above 1% plus CPF. Currently, if you go above 1% plus CPI, there's a mediation factor that goes into play. This would cap at 1%

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: plus. Right. And the mobile home communities in my neck of the woods, two of them have asked for this, and there may be some middle ground we can find here. They have just all that has happened is it goes to mediation. We can walk through this again. Inevitably, the rent gets hiked, but but considerably more than most of them on on stable incomes can afford, David.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So, madam chair, you said your constituents asked was were they the park owners or the park tenants?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Park tenants. Okay. But, obviously, we get park owners in, we get the person at DHCP who runs this program and to chat with us about But I think we wanted to enable mobile home parks to be a place where people it's affordable for people to continue to live. And if they rent hikes are really not predictable or stable in their increase. I mean, there is an allowable increase at the moment. And the question is how much more than the allowable increase or VA 20? Are are you willing to let it go? How how much more is unsustainable and unaffordable? I guess?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. What I don't see is that it automatically goes to mediation. It does. It's I think. It doesn't. No. I mean, you're you're saying they can't charge that amount of rent.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. But it already I think in current law, it goes to median.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. That's if

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's if it's above the 1%.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You just have to notify the state if it goes above 1%. It doesn't automatically go to the PPO.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, if it's above 1% plus CPI, the Global Home Park tenants can protest that increase, at which point if they do that, then it goes to mediation. Mhmm. And if they can't agree at mediation, they do have the ability to then take it at the court.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the challenge that and the reason I was asked to do something about this is that getting the tenants together, if they don't have an association to actually organize to do this in fear of being, you know, losing their their spot, they that many of them don't do this, David. Yeah. I'm just trying

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: to figure out what what this really does that isn't already happening. And the second question is who's paying for the mediation? Is it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't remember. That's a question for the new Arthur Hamlin. Whoever is the new Arthur Hamlin. Do you remember who this is Arthur Hamlin? I don't know. Guess we met him, and I apologize. But we

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: And so I'll just write shives in those faces. Sure. I I I don't understand about the logic of the investment.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't know. I I don't know who is. We'll we'll find out. I I

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: just have some trouble. Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think we could spend a lot of time on this and not land in a good place. We have not. Yeah. Don't If people don't feel this is worth our I I have some some I would want to hear from economists about the cost displacement that occurs, you know, when you have a rent increase. That means that anyone who tries to move in can end up paying the balance of that. It means that you could be more likely to have addictions or, you know, you can try to keep certain folks out or push them out, it it it leads to a lot of unintended consequences to cap rent this low. And I I think we need to start there. I would yeah. Which isn't like mobile home lot and people I care a lot about who need repairs and support and access to mobile home lots. Right. But it's like a really big it would be a really big issue to all of a sudden drop in the middle of our table that I don't think philosophically we could just rubber stamp. I would appreciate our understanding it more fully because at the moment, it's CPI plus 1% is okay. CPI is very different than the cost of housing increases we've seen, the the cost of improvements we've seen.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree, but it is not nothing. Did you

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: so you wanted CPI in there?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That that's long. They they are allowed to raise

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: it at the moment. CPI plus 1%. Or notify.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then they you know, because we get these emails all the time Right. Mobile home parks. Yeah. Then exceed that 1%. That is what I wanted to have us discuss because we're also displacing people who can no longer afford to stay in their mobile home parks because lot rent is now increasing at, in many cases, above 6% a year, and that's a lot for people on fixed incomes. So that is what this discussion would be about. And then after our discussion, if we decide we do not wanna include it, you know, that's a committee decision. David?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. No. I just reflect on the property tax and the problems we've been having over the past several years, and 6% may be low when we just we need to dig into this. I own hesitation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I hear your hesitations. I would appreciate at least our understanding it fully before we give the Sure.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Like an hour. You know? But this could take days.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, we're not we don't have time. We don't have dates for this. But we have till the February. Okay. Hour. So more to next, we'll have discussion on it. If we decide after that discussion to boot it to to to pull it, we will pull it. How much

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: time would you allocate the testimony for something like this?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You know, let's we now have forty five minutes to get try and get through this. It will we'll judge it. You know, we only have three hours a day until we start at 08:30. We have three hours a day. So I'm I am we'll do it as quickly as we're able. Shot saying. I'm happy to start early. Can I answer one question

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that was asked? Senator Weeks, the department does pay for the TV.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, thank you. Does now? It does.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The HCV pays for the mediation.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And it is actually it's on

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page 15, the bottom of subsection a department. The department shall pay the readable fees for professional mediation services based on a schedule established by

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: the Department of Nursing. Thanks for that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My understanding is email. If I recall some testimony last year from the department, I do not believe that it happens frequently. Okay. Bring us back. Section nine, which is on page 16, Vermont Economic Development Authority. So what this section will do is it will amend the definition of an eligible facility or an eligible project, which can be funded by the Vermont Economic Development Authority. And then when you get to page 17, lines eight through 12, the proposal would be adding that ineligible facility or an eligible project and include, after consultation with and with deference to the Vermont Housing Finance Agency on applications that are eligible for financing from both the authority and the agency. The Vermont Economic Development Authority could fund multiunit housing developments of five or more units when requested by a financing lender. So that's giving BETA specific authority to use their funds to help finance the development of multi unit housing developments by real quick. And those

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: are state funds that VITA has?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: State funds have been provided to VITA in the past. My understanding now is they use them to invest in projects that if they get a return on those investments, and then they use that, I mean,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: to make further Revolving. From there.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's not the state giving them money every year to finance these things. At this point, they have Thank you, Val. Fairly substantial pockets.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Patients. Think our

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sorry. What? Nothing. Joan did email at least some of us who had questions about Wi Fi units, etcetera. And she want she wanted to start in a particular lane that's more on the commercial side. So, I mean, I have no I have no problem with that. I just was wondering.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And more and she and more have discussed this, and I think everyone is supportive board lending for more housing is a good thing, particularly when the PHA is they've got the parameters they have on this. So I would encourage us to keep this section in. Okay, Servant Supported Housing.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is new language that is based off the report that was done since the last session regarding creating a state plan for service supported housing development. There was a task force or a working group that met. They issued a report. This is a continuation of that task force to what this would do is, right here on lines nineteen and twenty, from the bottom of page 17, it would create this task force to monitor and report annually on the development of housing for individuals who receive Medicaid funded developmental disability services. So you had a task force, they met, issued a report, this would essentially be a continuation of that task force. I had to keep it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: alive, basically, within AHS. And I commented last

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Friday that you may want to consider that currently the task force has an executive director, excuse me, the chair is the executive director of the Vermont Development Disabilities Council, but it exists under the Vermont Housing Conservation Board, but it's staffed by the Department of Aging and Independent Living. And so you may want to consider trying to align those and

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: definitely gonna have to align it, and I think there's been some discussion with poly and councils with It hasn't been

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It hasn't been Okay. I just

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think there's work that needs to be done on this aligning of this very need, but this need is big ongoing and needs to be kept in the front of our all our service supported housing actually needs to be kept.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I do not disagree, but you know I pay duplicative groups, and I just don't know if we like, I remember last year having a concern that there is a disabilities council, and maybe I was overridden. I don't know how long this council it it wasn't a council when we empowered them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, it's it's not. There is the council that exists within the the Kirsten Kristen Murphy runs it in the IHS.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: In the IHS. Okay. So this that was the original thing that we said. Don't duplicate that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I don't think we wanna duplicate. I think we wanna align. I think we wanna keep this work going, and I'd love to hear from them about how we can better do that. But are

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we creating a new task for you?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be a new task

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for This would be a new sort of like our oversight. Maybe a better word would be an oversight committee. We have plenty of oversight committees in this in this This is the Sorry. Legislature.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is the discussion we had last year, but just again?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mhmm. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. It it might be. We empowered the task force to go forward to create recommendations on how we address the the huge need for service supported housing for our intellectually developmentally disabled, where we're hitting a huge number of aging parents who can no longer care for these kids that for they're no longer kids. They're grown ups.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I will no. I know. I just for the record. So No. No. I know. Everyone listening. I don't disagree with the need for this. I just don't know what their deliverables are. And if we're just asking more people to do work when I mean, you know, senator Kesha and I tried to just put in the budget a few years ago more money, and you could have a group empowered to direct how it's spended or hear grant proposals, but I just don't like the idea of another group that's gonna say to us, we need money and we need help and we need coordination on top of all the other groups that are telling that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I would suggest that we have Kristen Murphy come in along with Poly Major and have this discussion with VHCb and the council and the the disability council. So I would encourage us to at least figure out how we can align this, how we

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: can simplify it. I'm all about how to align it without a new task force.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Or right. I think task force is the wrong word. So the task force implies time limit, and I I think this is and I'm not sure why this isn't already in their purview to keep this concern and oversight going within that within the developmental disabilities council. I I don't understand why we can't do that at the moment, but we won't hear from the advocate. That's why.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the end of bisections.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's switch. Thank you. And then the question the addition of the if people are okay with it for introduction, adding if we can find it in February, the the piece on the housing designs. I think Ellen maybe Alex Alex is big ass. So it

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: he Align those align that with the prefabricated homes. Yeah. I just have to find it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That would be good. Yeah. Well, no. I think I think that makes the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: most Wheel tag would love to have a word. I mean, right? That this is exactly what they do. You just also can't get the money that a non family member does if you house a family member with disability, which I would like to change for ADUs and other types of supportive housing where they have some independence. And that's been a frustration for me is that we actually bar families from receiving compensation when we would give that compensation to a non family member. And it's really hard to find a non family member.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Sure. Choices for care should we should should be all over it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And that's why we designed choices for care to help finance family members to support family.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, to help work for We should have an EHS. Yeah. And to talk about that, we should face the Choices for care

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is a program and has really helped so many people in my neck of the woods help family members care for family members and and be able to drop their jobs or their part time job to in order to do that because it's not a lot of income,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: but it's some income. It's not the same amount of income that No. People that we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: but it is designed to do exactly that, to keep people out of nursing homes, to keep people cared for at home by family members. Your preference doesn't work. I believe it's working. What is the difference in

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: pricing that that we're talking about? We will hear. That's a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: good that's a good question. We'll get try the person who runs choices for care. I think that section is this. That's Section seven in the h six zero two. Okay. Ellen.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ellen J. Kesha, the legislative council. Cameron, did you have section at the end of the bill to?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Positions are appropriate. Okay.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, language that I drafted starts on the page 19, section 11, but the first change in language is on page 20. So, this is municipal zoning. The first piece of language is on page 20 in Subdivision B. It was related to mobile homes modular housing, fee fabricated housing. Under zoning, no bylaw shall have the effect of excluding mobile homes, modular homes, or prefabricated housing from any district that allows year round residential development in the municipality except upon the same terms and conditions as conventional housing is excluded. So, I included this language. You may wanna hear what the issue is at the time frame to be addressed, but currently under law before this change, municipalities cannot exclude mobile homes from the municipality entirely. Usually they would just designate a district where they would be, or multiple districts. This is saying any district development shall allow these types of housing. And mobile homes

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: and manufacturers are different in this case. Mean, they don't have to allow a non tethered home anywhere. A manufactured house is is still a house that is attached to it. Right. It's attached to the ground. So there's a there are lots for better or worse, a lot of different laws come into place that exclude a mobile home. Hence, they are so much cheaper than a I don't I don't know what we would call them. Ground connected Anchor. Change the ground. You could throw a phone. I mean, because mobile homes are still anchored to a cement platform, they can technically be mobile. So a non mobile home faces all the same restrictions that a conventional

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: what you're home trying to do is clarify that a manufactured home is able to be built anywhere where a single family home is or anything Exactly. But not necessarily a mobile home.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They are two different things. They a mobile home may almost always be a manufactured home. I would say

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You know, maybe someone's doing their own thing, but a manufactured home is not always a mobile but

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Interesting what those definitions really are.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think Pew Charitable Trust would love to give us some thoughts For on

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: example, you have a 1799 home, you can move a mile down the road. Is that a mobile home then?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. At a mobile home then. Right.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: It's Well, I mean, that's why I'm just interested. What's the definition? Is it what you're talking about?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Because that would face different regulations on even how it's moved. If it's a non mobile home, then it has to follow different it has to get different permits to be moved.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But it is not a mobile home. It it is Right. So but it's not It's but it's not It's it's mobile. Right. So That's

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: why I mentioned

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: what the temperature

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, we have a whole task force on the definitions. So we we can call Wendy Harrison in or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Already, we allow all these to be built in in communities. They just this is actually the major change occurs not only on lines eight and nine, but also on lines 21. We didn't get

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: there yet. Oh. That's completely different. Don't talk. This is requiring municipality to allow these types of homes where they allow other residential development. I did not find a definition for mobile home in this chapter. If you would like to add to the list of things here or define these terms, you could do that.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: The

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: next topic. Well, much discussion.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Based on what you said, I'm resistant to this section.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know, you have a hard copy of this section.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So at the bottom of page 20 is the next topic, still in this section. This is about duplexes. So this is language you did add a couple of years ago, just making a change to that. So line 20, in any district that allows year round residential development, duplexes shall be a permitted use with dimensional standards that are not more restrictive than what is required for single family homes. So, as you passed initially, it said an allowed use, which does allow the means the municipality can apply conditional use review to duplexes. Changing it here means that it needs to go through the same type of review that single family helps do, which is not a conditional needs review.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This is a clarification of something we've tried to do since the whole night.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This makes it fibrite. Is that correct? So you said. So would you like to is this a good moment for you to talk a bit about what we understand as fibrite and what is actually fibrite? Sure. So That was my understanding of that that this moves it from from allowable to Permitted. Permitted. Yes. Which is basically. Which has been referred to as buy right.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does not mean, that means it needs to go through the same type of review that single family units go through. Right. It is a lower level, a more streamlined level of review than a conditional use review involves. It is generally just the application is submitted to the zoning administrator, and they review that it conforms to the other required, largely dimensional requirement. All

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the other requirements that have Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But we've said, I mean, every time I've gone out to talk about the HOME Act, like local electeds or appointed officials, I've said the the intent of the legislature was to ensure you were thinking about this as if you would allow a single family home and what what process that would go through, you would allow for this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's not that this doesn't go through any process. This still goes through the reviews that any other house

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: or But they housing cannot discriminate based on it being multi man. Right. Correct.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's a more streamlined review. It is largely a quicker turnaround because it is, it goes to the zoning administrator as opposed to the development review board, or however they have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: called their And board of

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it can be issued fairly quickly. It does not mean, however, that the zoning administrator may not deny the application because they still have to conform to what the standards are applicable to the the single family homes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it still must conform to the town Requirements. Yeah. So it's Housing requirements. Setbacks,

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's co block cover block size or coverage percentage, making sure there's road frontage. So that's mostly what is included in there. Mhmm.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I will give you an example from when Cory and I first started working on it. Burlington would not allow duplexing for anything that was on a lot that was less than 10,000 square feet. It was entirely discriminatory. There's no reason to say that if you can't fit a single family home on that size lot, you can't fit a duplex.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the distinction here is that this is permitted. It it allows the town to still review it, and see if it conforms to all the town's needs and requirements. It is not what you would call And if you can then to differentiate what Byright is legally and how we're using it as a term.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well I think you did just explain. I just wanted to be clear that it doesn't mean they don't have to make their application They can just

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: block something there. Yes. They still have

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to submit their application to the zoning administrator. It doesn't mean they have an absolute right with no permit.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They have to have a fire safety inspection. Like, they have to meet all of our standards of habitability. So, David, does this go a little

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: bit to allay some of your Duplexes. Duplexes.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what we're talking about.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. I'm okay

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: with it. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: More dense.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. What? Being more big down

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: than Oh, and you are good

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: with death. Thought you were saying, okay, we live to fight another day. No, no, I think you're aligned on this one.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, on the top of page 21 is a related but separate topic. So still in the same subdivision, which was also part of the language you passed a couple years ago. This is about the multiunit up to four units. So, you add to this language starting on page 21, line two into three. In any district served by municipal sewer and water infrastructure, remember that phrase, that allows residential development. Multi unit dwellings with four or fewer units shall be a permitted use on the same size lot as a single family dwelling. Again, by right, as in multi family up to four units if they're in a water and sewer area, goes to the zoning administrator. But there's also this caveat which has been struck. So the caveat was added that unless the district specifically requires multi unit structures that have more than four dwelling units. So, in some towns, they have sewer and water, they have specifically required that in order to build a multi unit structure, it needs to have 10 or more units, or 12 or more units, not the small four or fewer units. That has allowed towns to deny four or fewer units. This was a proposal that was not in Senator Rutland's bill or the administration bill. Did it come from you? Yes. The chair and I had discussed issues related that had come up. But it's still

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: so one of the things we have have go have turned over and over since the HOME Act is well, we've turned a couple things over. Yes. I should turn over. You know, that some communities wanted to say if it was point two five acres this, or if it was point seven five acres this. And, you know, you can do a lot on less than half an acre. So we have not wanted to further limit the four unit allowance anywhere a single fit because the same would apply to a single family home. They don't want it to sort of be crowding out the lot or crowding out other people, but you can still get a number of units out of that, out of a a traditional single family home in a lot of places. That happens. Every major study that has historic homes that have quarters for other people, etcetera and better. So I don't think we want to say there's some amount less than four units. We want to make sure that four units is the floor.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is the floor and not above it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I I I haven't had a chance to look at this to see if it somehow lets them say where they had allowed more units, no, you can only have four or five or six. Sites.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, I think it's still No, it would

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this, I think had had the opposite effect, which is in an area where normally up to four units would be allowed, the town is allowed to say, no, not the smaller development, we only want to put in buildings here that have 10 or more units. And so

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It stops development in some cases. Potentially. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: What I've been trying to do is, like, more development.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: As long as it has that effect. I want to make sure your counters don't get hold.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's weird.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. Okay. And I will say we have tried our best to separate this in people's minds from green space. You have a certain number of acres and we're saying you you cannot mandate less than five units per acre. Right. That has always been inflated. I think we are fully pulled it apart last year. But what we're trying to accomplish with this section is infill development where there are, you know, not existing cleanly cleanly divided up parcels. Right. That may be less than anything.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's keep going.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page 21, section 12, so this is amending the definition of served by municipal sewer and water in this documentation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep. Just depends what we all remember And where things are

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so as we just saw in the last section, there are a few references in the zoning section where you are requiring the municipality to allow denser development if the area is served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure. And so you came up with this definition, which is long. It's a quite long definition, and it gives the municipality some authority to determine where these areas are. But this is adding language here to, I guess, provide additional specificity. So, it means an area within one quarter mile of a road with water and sewer lines where there is capacity, or capacity is being added imminently to accommodate housing, or And then there are two other options. The first is an area where residential connections and expansions are available and not prohibited by some state or federal requirements, or an area where the municipality has defined in their bylaws that are served by sewer and water, and there's some things that they can carve out from those categories. So that is all explained on the next two pages. That is an existing definition. Right. But this is seeking to add specificity about a size, and I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: don't know. Kesha, do you want me to speak to this? Because we initially passed this, basically saying good help on any road that had water and sewer.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Mhmm. But That's you're trying

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to We weren't clearer than that. And so would you like

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to just speak to this why we're doing this? Why you're proposing? Sure. I mean so one could I believe that when we were discussing this, we were thinking about the very limited 40 square miles of the state that already are served by water and sewer. And those byways, those roads, one would argue that approximately a quarter mile from the road, you know, are are prime areas to develop housing. And so that was our intent was where you have, like, people if people wanna disagree about our original intent, I'd be happy to hear that. What what I what was debated in some of our communities then is if you build there, does that allow people to, like, build behind you now that there's water and sewer there? And so, you know, we've I've tried to make sure that we're not saying now this isn't like every development begets another development. But if the road has water and sewer, you're supposed to be allowed to develop along that road.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Absolutely. And so question for you, which is as I read this Yeah. I thought a quarter of a mile, That's actually fairly substantial. Is it a quarter of a mile from the center line of the road that has water and sewer running? So it's really an eighth of a mile on either side? I love

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that you're asking me this because that is not what I meant. I did I missed a quarter mile On each side.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The road. Not all. But it's that's just it. It's like, is it from either side of the road? So it's really half a mile from the center

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: of the road.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is that do you understand what I'm saying?

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

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: with the road or incidental.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. So, I mean, if you're looking at a quarter of a I

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: would do a quarter mile

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Corey, for Probably road we get to do that, though.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. I mean, we do a lot of things by, like, the side of the road. Like, a 100 feet from the road, definitely 50 feet from each I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just would say, as we have this discussion, because

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think this That was one of the question of entire road rule. If you wanted to have that Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Nope. We don't. I I just we will have I think this does further clarify what we meant two years ago, and I think just we need some discussion in VLCT in task.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: As for the general direction of why

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: we're having this discussion Yeah. One question that I have, maybe people in the room might be able to answer is, I don't think all sewer lines are the same. It's just like pressurized lines, then there's lines that Ah. Gravity feet. So I don't know if there's a qualifier on the type of sewer line that would be applicable to this. But that's where I would ask smarter people than I to shift light on this. There's no one inspiring.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We did go all the way around twice. We can do it again this year on what capacity mean. So the community question. Already have the ability to say this line doesn't have that capacity, and there's a definition for what that means or that they are not developing the additional capacity needed. If it's the kind of line that cannot take another sewer hookup even though we have one for a car wash that apparently could include more housing You know, then the this is where the question becomes super subjective if people just wanna deny housing. Generally, it is not the water sewer people saying this doesn't have the capacity. It's people arguing about that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, actually, in Woodstock, we have said we just had to go through what is the capacity of both our water and our sewer. So it's if there are capacity issues.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There are capacity issues. That is not the same as arguing that a particular use, not based on the any actual technical information,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have the capacity. Right, and capacity can be changed. So, David.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just a quick question. So the quarter mile, is that congruent with the what's that? One eighty one chip. Was that the chip. Does chip one quarter mile? Does it have I don't think we specified We

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: have a lot of different Tier one.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Tier one. I mean, there's something that are that limits

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Tier one a and b? What's that?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That was, like, a quarter mile around village center.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: It's a quarter

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: inch from the village neighborhood. Yeah. There

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: was some commonality between all these initiatives. Loved ones,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: DHCD has not been as helpful as I wish they could. Not Alex Farrell, but others who were supposed to help us with designated area have not been that helpful, I would say. I don't know if they're coming in to say why they're not being helpful. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We'll identify the witnesses for this. Let's keep Well, being

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanted to raise that this as I just as I just read this section, there's three ors in it. You may wanna consider if those are the proper conjunctions. Is it and or is it or?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry. Good question.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because that which my my question was how do you know which the municipality has chosen to use? So you may want to consider if that should be clarified. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think two or's. Now I don't know.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'd like to hear, like, talk on her.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Exactly. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. Absolutely. Okay. Let's keep moving.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 23, that's section 13. I show you show you saw this language on Friday. This is any any residential project that uses union labor may exceed a density bonus in a zoning by law by an additional 20%. You've raised questions the last time I was here. I don't have answers.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think I I think there are a probably a number of questions on this. There also were proposals elsewhere to do prevailing wage. And these are obviously not single family homes. These are fairly substantial residential housing units. This is not necessarily single family house. Right?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I would just say I just want density. The density bonus doesn't really apply to single I'm talking about the housing policy. So I'm

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just I'm just trying to allay some people's I want density

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: bonuses for for plenty of it. The people wanna throw other things

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: in here. Where did this this section come from? Kesha.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This was a construct that came from me. It's labor. Labor has requested

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: well, I wouldn't say labor has requested this. They would like all housing that receives state funding to be done Prevailing way. With with a a project labor agreement. That is a debate I'm happy to have in here. This felt like a door to go through about making projects workable and affordable and having density bonuses where it's the kind of project and housing that we wanna see developed. So I had outreach from the apprenticeship center about saying if apprenticeships are available on-site, you know, if this project utilizes apprentices, then they could get a density bonus. I just want density bonuses.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Got it, David. So,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: really supportive of union activities, but in this case we're all very sensitive about cost drivers for housing. I'd like a little warm on this until we hear some testimony that cost neutrality

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the That's why it's written

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: as a density bonus. So it's not saying you have to do anything or that you're I'm saying they wanted a

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: They'd like to know the cost, if there's some kind of cost delta between commercial and union. Labor?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think they leave I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think the unions would love to come in and say, just because you use a union doesn't mean it's more expensive. I think what is the limiting factor right now to what they would like is that there's probably not enough if this all of a sudden took off, there's not enough union labor to do all the projects.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To do the project. Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm gonna

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: go through the I think this worthy of a conversation, so let's keep it in, and let's keep moving.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanna point out I think I wrote this wrong. I think on line 12, it shouldn't say exceed. It should say receive. Feels like bad grammar there on my You're absolutely right. So sorry about that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: May receive. Yeah. Mhmm. Okay. So interim exemption. I I was more conservative in in drafting this. As we all know, the the administration has requested this to be a three year till 2030. And for conversation,

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: you know, I think we Thirty six victims.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Four one section 14. Exemption. Exemptive extension. Wait.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Sorry.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Are we in section 14?

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. It's still section 14 is yes. Is what you just explained. So at the moment, we have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have our interim exemption phone of extensions 227. Numbers of us have asked for it to be to 30. I think there are pluses and minuses to extending it for too long. We have asked for this work to be done and finished in twenty sixth, and I'm hoping that we will be able to move forward with the I think

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that we have enabled. I think what is really critical for me to understand is what we said this work to be finished. Because my intention, and I think our community And the administration's ex in contention. Was to show that exemptions from act two fifty have not made the sky fall. And we I do not believe we intended that municipalities had to take on the entire bureaucratic burden of act two fifty and the appeals that go with that. It was that they would be able to demonstrate that they have the municipal permitting process to supplant Act two fifty, period. Otherwise have permanent exemptions to Act two fifty in this area.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Right. So your statement, compounded with the concerns I have about the direction of the LERD in this work, I I fully support extending this to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To 30. On the the other proposals are to 30.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This and I wanna challenge something that sometimes is said that we did this because we had a housing crisis. Even if we build more housing, it increases the cost per unit every time someone appeal, every time someone, know, make someone get a new lawyer, and we're seeing this all over the place. They can already appeal the municipal process. There are housing projects in our districts where they have appealed twice to the Supreme Court. We have said exemptions, not everyone gets to like, we've said non duplication. Right. Period. I want permanent exemption.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I want us to assess

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: permanent exemption. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. If it's gonna get caught up down. We're not doing permanent.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. We're doing Well, then let's have everybody ask about take it to These are exemption.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Happy to take it to July 30 for this draft. So let's do that, and then let's keep moving because we have five minutes.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I need to go up. So that brings us to page 26.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're on page 20. Okay. Right. Well, it's still- July, if we just change it to July 30, that let's I think we're more immunity on that.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the the date change occurred in multiple parts of these pages. On page 26, there's a couple of other changes to the interim exemption. What will be So, as this is striking the requirement, for, they Up to 50 units are exempt. It's striking that they be located on tract of land 10 acres or less. This these are for village centers or areas that are the the urbanized areas of 50,000 residents, and then there's another change. Currently, it's areas of 50,000 residents and within a quarter mile of a transit route. This is a four. So these are two types of areas that would be under this interim exception. I'm on page 26. So that's another change in addition to the date.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And transit routes are public, transit routes that are currently served by public transportation? Yes. I know that people have concerns about that. Okay. Thank you. Go on.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 27, section sixteen, first, this tier one B, this is making tier one B an opt out instead of an opt in. Currently, for the one B process, the Regional Planning Commission discusses with the municipality if they would like to opt in to have any of their areas done in one b. This is changing that to an opt out, and they have to provide a resolution path by the municipality to opt out.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: As I reviewed this with the chair of senate natural resources, she very much wants to review this. I asked her if we could at least take a stab at it even though it's really you know, this is a joint jurisdiction thing. So we'll take a stab at this, and then it will go to SNRE problem as a result. So it I think we just all have to be aware that if we keep this section in, it will go to SNRE.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it's better than on the conversation. I don't disagree, Dick.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just like to in the testimony, you're for the league of the towns Oh, yeah. And the town.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I've already asked them. They're coming in Friday. I also I've also asked for them to so the exemptions are working. Well, where and how? So I think we need examples of how the exemptions are working so that we can really understand what they are. And we also need to understand, I've also had the lead to testify about what are the barriers of fix of take of taking on the act two fifty Mhmm. Permits from the past. They So yeah. Yeah. Oops. So they'll But they they they're they're gonna talk

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. About They're gonna what that should mean to us, I believe, is, like, legacy conditions, I understand. And and then having them enforce Then de duplicating permits and appeals that would otherwise have gone through both. There was no need for them to say, okay, we're now doing the municipal DRP part, and then we're gonna do the Act two fifty permit part. They should be exempt from new conditions under act two fifty.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Different. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So No. No. Okay. So we'll continue this conversation. And then the one and then the we're gonna get Paul Connor in on this as well. I think we have.

[Ellen (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section 17 is tier one a. It's at reference to the types of staff. Section 18 is also part of the interim exemptions. I'm gonna move this section so it's part of Section 15 just to be clear, again striking reference to the construction being on 10 acres or less.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Sorry. K? And the rest, we will pick up what may is it just given our timeline, is it possible to do I'll do a new draft and from what we are adding and also I'd love to. Okay, let's go off lights. Thank you everybody. We're pretty much done for the for the day and we will be back here tomorrow morning at 09:00. Thanks.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: as