Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. Welcome, everybody. It is February Tuesday, February 24, and you are in Southern Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs, where we are going to really begin to make some decisions about the housing bills that we have before us. Some sections are more complicated than others, and I'm hoping that as we walk through it together, we begin to sign off, sort of make some decisions about sections that we're okay with, sections we think we need more information on, and sections that you really have a difficult time supporting altogether. This is Randy's traffic light metaphor a little bit, which is, yes, slow down, more information, and I'm fine. Good to go. And so we're looking, Cam has kindly drafted 1.1, which has been posted for people who are watching online and which we have in our hands. And Kesha has Mira today, so she may be in and out. I don't know. But I have a notion of the things that she may wants us to continue to work on. So, Pam, if you would be kind of just I I sent everybody a summary, sort of a section by section this weekend so that people could at least get an get a notion of so they could mark down what they were good with, what's a challenge and what needed more work. So, if you'd be kind enough to just let's just take it section by section and talk about what we still need to work on or not, and then we'll figure out how to make any time to do that. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel, believe you should all have an amendment to threetwenty eight, so for starters, it may not exactly align section by section, chair with what you've shared, because I have deleted one section and inserted a new section. So just for starters, my apologies there. I was just finished this draft moments before coming into committee, so it also needs to be run through our editing process. Most of the language in here is as was introduced, and some of the language has just been incorporated from some other bills that are in the building. So not too concerned, but there are a few sections that are are brand new and and do need to go through the editing process. Everything in 1.1 that's new should be highlighted as it's not performed, so for ease of of reference. But I will share my screen, and we will begin to walk through. Okay. As mentioned, draft 1.1, it's drafted as a strike all amendment for 03/28. What you have here under section one. The only thing that's changed is this reader assistance setting, and the bill is introduced, it's at housing targets, it's really a section about municipal plans, so I just tweaked it to specify that this is about the municipal planning documents. Right. And so that's the only change. Everything here in section one remains as was introduced, but just to kind of remind and walk back through, this would be new language going into Title 24 in the chapter related to regional and municipal plan development. And what this would do is, as you can see there under lines 10 through 13, municipal plan shall include an analysis of regulatory and physical constraints preventing the municipality from developing sufficient housing to meet the regional housing targets developed pursuant to 4348A. That section is where it references and requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to develop those statewide housing needs assessments, so that's what it's referencing back to, referencing back to those housing targets. I'm not going to go through this line by line unless you all have questions, but there is a lot of information here that municipalities would have to to work through, and it would be a required element of their municipal plan. Organically, though,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I understand it. It's it's required if they go forward in their planning process that they just have passing part. Yes, ma'am.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if they, in my understanding, and I have my colleague Ellen here to help keep me honest, I believe that the municipality has a municipal plan, it's supposed to be updated every eight years. Not every municipality has a plan, so this would be if the municipality has a plan, when they go to update it at the next point of updating, they would need to comply with this section, and then if the municipality chose to create a plan in the future, they would like to go through this.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Some municipalities obviously do not have a plan.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think they all are required to. They aren't all required to, but most do.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Besides you don't set up

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the number or

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: percent. Ellen, I'm sorry.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think you could I don't think

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: you asked council, actually, council. I do think

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think the department has the specific numbers, somewhere around 80%. However, municipalities don't necessarily have super strict requirements in their plans, so the depth and level of detail in the plans does vary. Some towns have pretty just basic plans.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Okay, Randy. Well, the only thing that I'm thinking about is there's nothing in here, it's just that I have to call C, that compels the municipality to have a life. And that's not the intent of this legislation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, if you have a plan, the intent is that you incorporate your housing target. And we have not heard much of the country. I do remember I do think we might just get VLCT in here to or or we'll cut base with Josh and Sam to make sure they're, they've not raised any flags with me. I don't know if they have with other members of the, I do remember that VHFA had a concern, and I cannot remember what it is.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I spoke with Maura, and she wanted to ensure my understanding of her concern was wanting to ensure that the references here, housing targets, it was tied back to that statewide housing needs assessment, and it is, and it's on line 13. I spoke with her, and I believe her concern was

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Alleviated. Okay, right. Would say, if

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you wanna move forward with this section, I think we may wanna just do some minor tweaks to make sure that there's a separate section which identifies everything that needs to be in a Yeah, municipal

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: which is quite a bit.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we may wanna add a cross reference in there if this new section's gonna go in, and then also, my colleague Ellen, I think, really pointed out that we may wanna say the housing element of immune support plan throughout this section. So there's just a few little minor cleanup pieces that if you all want to keep this section in, I may recommend your next version of the So, committee, how are you feeling?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The only thing still in the back of my mind is the question. That if the municipality looks at all the things that we do and say, this is too much, and they abolish their plan. Can they do that? And I think they So

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: what's their recourse if it's a smaller town and they they just they can do they all now will have housing targets. By December 26, they'll obviously all have a housing target because we'll have made our way through that piece of 01/1981. Ellen and Cam, what is there any off ramp for for that or or for I mean, I I think every town will have been handed a housing target and that they will have I don't know if they have to vote to accept the housing targets or not or if the RPC and the towns I I mean, those housing targets will be accepted this December. Well, they don't have

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: a plan. Do they have to accept housing targets? Oh,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: they will already be, they will be being, having housing targets whether they have a plan or not. Every town will have housing targets.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yep. That's my understanding.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is perhaps we should have a chat with VLCT to see because my guess is that the VLCT would provide a resource for towns that were having challenges with it, and certainly the RPCs would help them. I think they have plenty of resource for help. But it's a, I think, a good question, which is, is there a way that they can say this is this is a lot for us and

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: take on the wall, but do nothing about it.

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

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Didn't they say a couple weeks ago that small towns are hesitant for this project due to the level number.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. I I I think Okay. That's I think what VLCT said, but they were okay with this section from what I understand. But should we further clarify that if towns if there are do we need to clarify that we're POWNS, got resources for this health? Because we have put aside money for the RPCs with technical assistance on this, on the whole Act 181 work and with the RPCs. So they have helped with the RPCs and with VLCT. Should we articulate the that I mean, stating the obvious, but put a piece in there for sure.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would say there's a statutory section separate from this, which requires the RPCs to provide support. As you all know, there's a difference between statutory requirement and what is actually capable and practical on the grounds. As the section is drafted, it's a requirement, and so a municipality that doesn't have the resource capacity to do this work, you could make it permissive. I don't know the value of the section you were

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to But I do

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: believe this was coming from the request of the administration, so you would wanna hear from them about what their intention behind the language is.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We heard from the administration. I think the intention is to address the housing crisis.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, I don't want speak for them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, no, no. The

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: intent behind what the information is going

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be used for, and whether having it permissive or required is better. If you wanted to get into the weeds, this is a little bit outside my area of expertise or knowledge here, but I don't know that is, you know, if the municipality chooses not to do this in their municipal plan, you know, I don't know that there's any strong recourse against them.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, there's no enforcement.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so my understanding is they they do and I I really should be deferring to my colleague here, but the plans do get reviewed at the regional level, and I do my understanding is there is some consequence if the plan isn't in conformity with the requirements of the statute. They lose certain permissive aspects of of review, but, you know, it's not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: how much Charlie it's Charlie Baker was going to come in today to be here as a resource on this. He'll be here tomorrow on the transit quarter, so we can ask him about that. But let's Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, I don't hear anybody objecting to any of this. And my my humble experience with comprehensive plans, these plans, is they that those those volunteers, not usually the electeds, it's like planning commissions or otherwise, at our committees, they welcome guidance as coalition focused on. So I'm supportive of this language. I don't

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see any sort of return here.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm I'm supportive of it too because if we have a housing crisis, we need to be pretty granular about how each of our communities is dealing with it. And we have all gone through this process now with identifying what our house housing targets are. I was stunned at our housing target in Woodstock being a lot less than I thought it should be. So but I do think, we, might just hear from VLCT about the smaller towns. If if the town doesn't have a a plan, Randy, there's nothing here that compels them to do it. And let's double check with Charlie tomorrow, and we'll check with VLCT about the smaller towns.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And did they have the capability of creating the plan? Some of our very smallest towns did not have resources there in the system of doing it too.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And and we know those resources are there, but maybe we could just articulate it more fully. Okay. Okay. So are people okay with this if we get sort of a we're talking about housing targets? I have a babysitter. Oh, good. Yeah. This is very good. I had said that you hit mirror today. You I you. Table. People are concerned about smaller towns that may not have resources. They have the LCT, and they have the RBC. We're gonna hear from Charlie tomorrow about the transit corridor so we can chat with him about this and if there's any other language. But I would green light the elements you'd like to add, the housing element you and Ellen would like to add, and there's another piece of cleanup you wanna do in this section. Yes, So I think we're okay in this section, and my sense is good to go if we get some answers from the LCT and RPCs. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm going to bring you down to page three. We'll move to the next section, section two. This is really tax credits, the down payment assistance tax credit for the Wyoming Housing Finance Agency, so if you look at the bottom of page four, I've highlighted the discussion or recommendation for you all as I'm aware of it. Current draft extends the tax credit out for another five years at $250,000 a year. My understanding is you have a That we have a request on. To increase that to $350,000 so that's why I've highlighted that, but the section doesn't change as if from as it was introduced.

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Was any level of this extension in the governor's budget? Or is this above what he forward? Do not.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You're under the impression that this

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: is a This is a mask. The

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 100,000 is a mask above.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The 250%.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: 250%. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's a a base another 100,000 in our tax expenditure bill. I would remind us how successful this program has been. Our only challenge, basically has been the slow the trickle of the revolving aspect of it given the economy, rising cost of houses, and people not waiting for potential revolt. What is your leisure? I it allows us to keep my understanding is that the $3.50 allows us to keep a benefit up to $10,000, which is really valuable as the cost of housing increases, that down payment assistance of 10,000, maintaining that really big patches, the the home prices increasing, and it makes sense to me that if we're able to keep that level of support in the Down Payment Assistive Program, that would be great. What are people's thoughts?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So sure. It just seems to is it upon us as policy committee to find where we would No. Save a 100 k somewhere else? Or we just go to appropriations, say, we think this is worth enough for

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the I think with all of this, we our job, as Andy said, I don't have a sandbox for you yet. But I but your job is to is to identify the needs and clarify them. And so if it gets stripped, it gets stripped. But I think there's nothing wrong with our saying, actually, from a housing point of view, this makes a lot of sense. And and we would support Vermonters who are accessing the market for the first time, trying to get into the house, trying to buy a house for the first time to have this down payment assistance program with incomes that are already identified in the program. It lowers their mortgage payments, which, again, given mortgage interest rate at the moment, it still hasn't come down. So it's a helpful program all the way around for first time homebuyers.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, at some point, I think I always feel better if we look at all the appropriations we're seeking and have some sort of prioritization or make sure they're in a box that isn't even realistic to ask for. But this is a small amount that goes a very long way, so this is towards top of my list always. That's a

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: nice way of putting it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's a small amount that goes a long way. David, what do you think?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: So I agree with Senator Rutland and SEAL. I would like to just add that as a revolving fund with whatever it is, ten or eleven years of $250,000 per year and it's truly revolving fund that leveling out at 250,000 is I think it's appropriate. I didn't hear anything compelling to add another 100,000, but we prioritize it against other asks. We will tonight, I'll just create maybe with Ted, we

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: can create we'll create a the asks are fairly straightforward, so we can create a little chart what is in and out of the budget and what and what are the asks above the budget of of the governor's budget. So are people okay with the section, and then we'll just decide the money? But we're okay with the section, and we will then look at the 100,000 as we look at the rest of the appropriation.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I would just add from my perspective. Yeah. I'm always hesitant to add money to a budget that we already have. And I realize that doing things for government is different than it is in in in the rest of the world. But we're not making money. Oh, we have money. We're just making different choices. We have difficulty, and we're gonna have difficulty this year. From a financial perspective. We're talking about right now putting money in generally that we don't have

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in order to do things that

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: are important. It's not that we're doing things that are frivolous by any means, but when we talk about problems being education spending and all the other issues that we have, we can't keep adding money.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and this isn't adding money, this is is a part of the tax expenditure bill, this means we're collecting $100,000 I'm sure, but it's the same thing. So I'm

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: not enthusiastic about it, won't file it to get closer, but I'm not enthusiastic about it. And I think that clearly we need to sit down

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: at the end of this and say,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: how much money have we had? And are there some things in here in this and other bills that we're supporting that, well, maybe we should take out?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I think we're, happy to create an appropriations box that we can that we can look at. So I think we're okay with that section. The only question is whether we add the 100,000 or not. Okay. Is that my sense? Good. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page five. Page five. So these next two sections are new. They were not in the bill as introduced, and it's under this reader assistance setting of Vermont Housing Special Funds. I'm gonna talk broadly, and then I'll come back to the language specifics. What these two sections will do is they will authorize additional credit facilities, or they will expand the current credit facility with the state treasurer's office. So if you're looking at line 10 on that page, Currently, the treasurer has the authority to establish a credit facility of up to 10% of the state's average cash balance. They take that money and they then loan it out for different initiatives. What these sections would do is it would increase the current limitation from 10% to 12.5%. It would then state that the treasurer can create a separate credit facility of up to 1% of the state's average cash on hand for full purchasing, off-site construction, housing, etcetera. However, that doesn't get you to 13.5%, because however much they established in this new 1% credit facility, they have to reduce the other credit facility by the same amount. So the purpose here was to go up to 12.5 to authorize a specific purpose of up to 1%, but not to go up to 13 and a half percent, if that makes sense. So that's what this first section does here, the section three. All of this language is primarily just organization and cleanup, but what it's doing in the sub A on line 10, increasing current credit facility to 12.5, and then the sub B beginning on line 14, it's allowing a credit facility of up to 1%, or, and then this is where you get the sub two beginning on line 18, facilitate housing development through bulk purchasing of off-site constructed housing or to aid in the purchase of off-site constructed housing units. Now moving on to page six, states that financial losses from that credit facility have to be repaid from this Vermont Housing Special Fund, so that's what the next section does. I'm gonna scroll down to page seven, because this next section four creates a Vermont Housing Special Fund with the state treasurer's office. The money going into that fund is the interest that the treasurer's office earns from the loans that they distribute out using those monies in the credit facilities of the previous section. So they have the ability to establish these credit facilities, they issue out loans for certain development projects, the interest they receive on those loans currently goes into the general fund, and what this proposes to do is create a separate housing special fund, take the interest from all of those credit facilities, put in this housing special fund. And then the purpose of those funds is limited here under the bottom of page seven, top of page eight. The treasurer shall use funds under that section to provide capital for housing projects in Vermont that, in the treasurer's discretion, are necessary to promote the increased availability of housing, including the bulk purchasing of all site constructed housing. There's some other kind of, the treasurer may use the funds for administrative costs, etcetera, standard language in the funds case, but that is what these two sections are doing.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we're Thomas.

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

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: know this Cam but can you help me understand what the current law with the 10% that's currently being set aside is mostly being used for and how that types of that authorization could be purchasing a loss of site constructed housing if they purchase loss site constructed housing units.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: As

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've done a little bit of research on this, there is no real limitation on what the treasurer can use those funds for in the sense that it's not limited to just housing, for example, or it's not limited to just off-site purchase of housing. As long as the treasurer is complying with the guidelines that their local investment advisory committee have set up, they can use those funds for all types of economic development activity. It doesn't have to be limited to housing. There is a subsection in there that says that, for example, they can use those funds to help fund infrastructure projects and mobile home parks. Have, the treasurer has a lot of latitude in what they can use the current 10% for. As long as they're complying with uniform, prudent investor principles, etcetera, then they're complying with their guidelines. There's no limitation in a specific area of of development.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So to that point, does this necessarily need to be called out or if this is conforms to the prudent investor act, why do we need to explicitly state that they have the authorization to use this money to purchase all the same construction costs?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what this language would do is it's adding that 1% credit facility, and it's saying for that 1%, you can only use it for this purpose. So for the 10%, or what is proposed as going up to 12.5%, they could use that for any range of things, but for this 1% piece, if you're going to use this 1% money, you must use it for this purpose. Now that's a policy decision for you all of whether you want to limit them in that way.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I may Yes. Just does that circumvent or step aside the prudency requirement? Okay. So, this bill has to conform to this name, the prudent standards and it's defined in section 81. Yes, sir.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Except the, my apologies, just accept the, this was something that the treasurer's office asked for a change, except the interest on the special fund. The interest on the special fund is not limited by the Uniform Prudent Investor Principles Act because, at least as it was articulated to me, the treasurer's office wanted even more flexibility for those funds because it's the interest they're receiving back on the loan, so it's not utilizing the state's cash on payment currently, so they felt that they wanted even more flexibility for those leases. So I just wanted to clarify that response to your question.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Love your other thoughts, and so I'll just say this. I wish it wasn't the case, but to me, this seems like a a highly risky set of asset an asset to hold on to with these dollars that in Vermont, I could see these off-site preconstructed houses not being able to put somewhere because of our regulatory environment to sit on those for longer periods of time. It costs a lot. Carrying costs that we might not necessarily get the payment of these loads back in a timely fashion because of how I see housing construction go with a statement.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I guess I'm more optimistic than that. This is, I just wanna back up to to just remind us all that 10%, this is earning this is roughly meaning we have a 120,000,000 in to loan in economic development and housing, which we have used for housing, a lot of housing, lot of economic development, but it's been a big game changer for a bunch of our housing projects. At 12 and a half percent, it would kick off about a 150,000,000. And I think the one percent, the the interest I just I don't remember. Kesha, do you remember what the amount was the treasurer was hoping? Because I think it was about $2,000,000, but I may be wrong. Does anyone remember that amount? Or what? Peter, the one the 1%. It would be more than that. I can't remember what.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It would be 1% of the 12 and a half percent. The interest coming back

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well still wanna Yeah. Which would be about 12,000,000. 12.5. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. That has an

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But then they said they wanted to use 6,000,000 just for this.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is a spectrum program. Right? It doesn't have a proven track record.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: A It's a it's a pilot. Well, we have we've heard from Alex. We this is with Alex, and we've heard from we've heard from Alex Farrell. Oh. Maybe this is.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. Alex I will say, I mean, I talked to him. He does not have a strong feeling about the off-site housing at all. We can have it back in, but he would he that was not their interest.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, he prevented it as as such, and and it's certainly part of their the administration's bill. And I'm happy to have him back on this, but this the treasurer and I believe I believe they've been working hand in glove to create this opportunity to help finance this without having to use state resources. I mean, without having

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to Fear. Be strong budget. I've said this before. I have no problem with anything but section two set asides are never a good idea in a special fund that constrain entities we otherwise think do a good job managing their flow of risk and capital. So I'm a strong no on provision to subsection two on line 18.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I wanna make clear, I fully support exploring pilot funds to pilot opportunities for off-site construction housing. I'm just about it's I have similar concerns about using these dollars to subsidize at a much lower interest rate, what I would take as a a highly risky venture that I I don't think is gonna match the risk for the dollars that the the state has and and the treasurer's offers. So so I don't wanna stop these off-site construction constructed things moving forward, but I I share much concern with using these dollars at this interest rate, these subsidized pensions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. David, you can stand.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Oh, I

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: was waiting for Randy. Oh, I'm trying to what are your thoughts? I have time. And say I have none because I'm.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay. I'm I'm hesitant just because the legislature designates expenditures, but here we are carving out the executive branch having larger access to the treasury, state treasury. So I'm a little hesitant about that, just kind of opening up the window a little further, And I do have a problem with the state purchasing, this effort. If it were less risky or not risky, the commercial market would have already done it. So I think it's potentially the reason why the commercial market has done it, it's a potential loser and I'm very hesitant. Unless I hear something.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Are we interested in having Peter Trumbull and Alex back in? Because my feeling is that Alex's effort, to go back to your point, is that that there's more support at the moment for eight zero two homes, the piece that's in the bill that's in SNRE.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They just wanna open up more capital for housing. They have a very little concern about safe to to pass. Great. So I think if we wanna hear more, let's get Alex and Peter in to But maybe we should hear about some off strike off-site struck oh, purchasing. Like, who who are we buying this from?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, that's the pilot. So the the design of the pilot was There's

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: enough information to do this just based on having two people back in who like, who where are we getting the offset constructed housing?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't know. We have to find out knows. I mean, it's their pilot, so I I think they have thought that out.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Just because we issue a loan for this doesn't mean we're gonna get the money back. It's my concern. They can see us sitting on a defaulted loan with a bunch of blocked constructed housing that we can't put anywhere. It's I I

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: would say don't have enough information. Yeah. I'm assuming.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great. Let's We'll we'll figure it out, then make a decision, hopefully, by the end of the week. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm gonna bring you back to page eight, because the next section because you all have been discussing, so I'm not gonna walk through. This is the off-site construction accelerated pilot. That's why I put the treasurer sections right above this because I see them as kind of linked, so that's why I inserted it there. You all were just discussing this pilot program, so I'm not gonna walk through. There are no changes in this draft, and it sounds like you're gonna be looking for more information.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'll just say I'm just a no. Hearing from those two folks, I don't think would convince me of anything different. I'd like to get the more access to credit capital. They can come back with a clear proposal of why this needs specific risk allowance more than other important housing needs and projects, I'm entirely Are up at

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you okay with taking it up 2.5%?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I think all of us are in agreement about the first piece of section three through lines or that the question marks are beyond.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I'm even okay if they want to experiment with some risk on 1% of it, but this is not a priority above others that we've heard. I'm not going

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to be convinced about the weight. Again, I would remind us, we need lots tools in the toolbox. If this is a tool that we can actually use effectively-

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: If we can use the tool, great. As I've said, we have given back pre manufactured housing. Right. But before we were- Because of zoning, nothing's Nothing's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: changed. Okay. All communities things have changed. Okay. This has changed. This

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I wish it had.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Lauren, well, it's changing slowly. So Okay. And 08/2002, a lot of this a lot of the issues raised in this pilot are addressed in the eight zero two homes, which is again a pilot with three communities. So I anyway, I think that may be where the eggs need to go in the basket at the moment. So, next is section six, the common interest communities. Okay, so moving into the common interest community sections,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't changed anything in section six, I simply highlighted these just based on our conversation that we had on Friday. If you remember, this section is making these provisions retroactive to apply to certain condominiums that existed prior to 01/01/1999, which is when the uniformed law went into effect, and my understanding is there was some consensus about not making this retroactive to those communities, just highlighting it here

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: in case you all went Well, I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: that was the wasn't that the constitutional concern is that we couldn't figure out

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: what it is. I would like to propose that we make it retroactive to 01/01/2026.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and you you don't need yes, ma'am. It would apply to entities that are created after 2011. So you would you would hit those entities.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, without this language.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct, so what this language does, section six, is it makes these sections apply retroactive to common interest communities created before 1999. Like I said, that's where I think we have a constitutional concern. Yeah. In a separate section in Title 27A, which is the Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act, states that for common interest communities with 12 or more units that are created after 2011, any amendment to the title would apply to those entities.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So do we need to say after 06/30/2020 thing?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would take this whole section out. If you're wanting to bypass the constitutional concern, and you don't wanna apply it retroactively, you can take this entire section out entirely. You don't need to make any other change, and these provisions would apply to entities created from 2011 moving forward. You don't

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: need to make any I other think that may be a good compromise. We also have heard from a a lawyer who deals with common interest communities, so I'd love to have him this week. And she from Kermer Piper, a woman named Christina Jensen, and and there was another person who would come with her, and she would like to talk with us about some of the implications. But if if that means that we would be retroactive to 2011, you get rid of this, seems like a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: good idea. And it would apply to any common interest community that chooses to amend its declaration of bylaws and come up to, you know, the the standards in the the uniform act. So over time, you know, certain common interest communities are doing that or have done that. I don't know how many haven't chosen to do that, that exists pre 1999, just want to remain under the laws as they were in 1999, but I think having an attorney come

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: in speak with the for Section six in its entirety. If

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you do not need it to apply retroactively, yes, sir. That is what I would do.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And it would apply to that one. So did can you make sure she needs to come in

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: if we do that? I know we'll ask her. And hopefully she's listening. The so all of section six so that would mean this that this would be effective January 26 on and but be effective for communities back to 2011.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Anyone who's adopted the Uniform Common Interest Community Code.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Who comes under the jurisdiction of that act, yes ma'am.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: What's it called the Uniform Common Interest? Uniform Common Interest Ownership Act. And that was 2011? No, this went into effect January 1999. So what was the effective date of 2011? Why are we referring to that?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a section in the Uniform Act that states that for a common interest community, it says amendments to this, I'm reading section one-two zero one, It says that amendments to this title apply to all common interest communities that contain 12 or more units that may be used for residential purposes and are created after 01/01/2011 or are subject to this title by amendment of the declaration, regardless of when the amendment of this title is adopted in a state. So you've added a provision there signaling to these entities that after that date, any amendments to the title are going to apply to them. So you have a less of a constitutional concern because you put those entities on notice that this section could be amended in the future, and the amendments will apply to it. Right. Then I would boldly propose that we strike section six. Okay. So section seven, where you get into the kind of meat of what the sections are going to further prohibit. Before you go to that, Pam, let's go

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: back to what it is we're doing. We're saying that this 2011 date, we were saying that we gave them notice ahead of time that there may be some amendment that may pass them on whether or not they recognize that fine print, don't know what the implications of it given how long they're talking about it. So my question is, what's the worst that could happen? If you think of scenarios in which there could be such an amendment, how would it affect the people who are affected in the poor? So what

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're doing in Section seven is you are stating that these common interest communities that have been organized and they may have certain restrictions that they've applied to themselves, you're negating those restrictions as it relates to the things in Section seven. So if you have a group of individuals who live in a condo association and they've decided, or the declarant who created the condo decided that this community, you're not going to be able to lease your units out to other individuals based on this change, that would all become voided. That would become Any of those restrictions would become void at that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I So the restrictions that we're talking about are being able to rent it for, yeah, okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we start, yeah, we start in section seven, and if you all recall, we talked about the first provision is about leasing units, and so this is, Senator Brock, this is the consequence here on the one, any covenant restriction condition in any deed, contract, security interest, instrument, excuse me, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of your interest in a common interest community, and any provision of a governing document associated, such as a declaration by law or rule, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the unit owner from leasing the individual unit owner's unit is void in unenforcement. So at that point in time, you joined your common interest community back in 2013. You purchased that unit, and in the deed, it has this restriction among potentially other restrictions, saying, you cannot lease this unit out, and no one else in this community can lease the unit out. You've purchased it with that understanding. If this were to go into effect, that restriction itself would then become delinquent since you or anyone in the community would be able to situate it out at that point. Subject to the other restrictions in here. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But not as a short term rental, which will be further down. Correct.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes, But and then section two, you think takes care of the concerns that have been raised to us about affordable housing covenants and other laws.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, a few concerns have been raised, and I will try my best to articulate them and hopefully not lose any of them. One of the concerns that was raised was, what do you do about the covenants that have been put into place to maintain affordability of a unit? You receive some sort of state funding you know, that assists, you know, a low moderate income individual purchasing the house and the condo association, and they put in a covenant that, you know, you have to maintain the affordability of the unit. I don't know what all these programs are and what their restrictions are, but just for argument's sake, that's what we're talking about. And there was a question about does this language then nullify those if those restrictions say that you can't lease the unit out? We're providing you money for a down payment on a house for you, and you meet our qualifying criteria. It could be a program for low income individuals, and we're gonna say, you can't then turn around and lease the unit and make money off of it. Right. It's not the purpose of the program. The purpose is to help

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you be Oh, a so were you gonna address the the second concern about any I'm loan

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: gonna come back to Yes, what I did was to address that concern.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's Chris that's the CHT's concern. Yes, ma'am. And that's on top of page 13.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't wanna speak for them, but, yes, ma'am, that's my understanding. The bottom page talk to it. Yes. Correct. The bottom of page 13, I added in this subsection f. So this is new language where I said, notwithstanding any provision of that section, nothing shall invalidate or otherwise void any housing subsidy covenant authorized and recorded in compliance with the correct citation.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The correct citation for affordable housing. Or the housing subsidy covenants.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that addresses that concern. There is a separate concern, as I understand it, that has been raised by certain credit unions, etcetera. I believe a similar concern was raised by the state housing authority about the resale of these mortgages on the secondary market, etcetera. So we're

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: getting It was just that they have a fiftyfifty.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So showing Where are we now, back on page 11?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This isn't in the bill, I haven't done This anything about this in the is when you, for example, when you look at the memo that was provided by Vermont Housing Finance Agency, and I'll just read from it. It talks about these sections, and it talks about the concern of the overbreadth creates serious secondary risk. Many mortgages eligible for sale Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac include occupancy and leasing restrictions required by their underwriting. If such provisions are deemed void, even if permitted in a condominium documents, the affected mortgages could become ineligible for purchase on the secondary market, which could increase the cost and reducing access to mortgage. So if these entities can't turn around and sell these mortgages on the secondary market, they might not provide them altogether, or they might charge higher rates in order to access those because they can't sell them on secondary market. So the proposal was, at least from DHFA, was to strike this information. So this is any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in a deemed contract security instrument or other instrument affecting the transfer of sale that enters an economy in this community. They're proposing to strike that so as to alleviate that concern about selling these on the secondary market. I haven't done that because I think by doing so, you somewhat hollow out the point of adding this to begin with. What do I mean by that? If you strike that first piece, you leave in the next condition, which is any provision of a governing document such as a declaration by law or rule would still remain. What does that do? Well, that means that if I create a common interest community and I put these covenants in the deeds associated with the common interest community, that would be Okay if you strike that language issue. But I wouldn't be able to have a HOA's bylaws prohibit the subleasing of the unit. So it's addressing half the problem if you strike that language, because what you could do is you would just put the restriction in the deeds. You wouldn't need the rule, you wouldn't need the bylaw, you don't need the HOA to enact the bylaw if you have it in the deed. So if you strike the first part, you're only addressing of half of the issue. Hope I'm articulating that in a way that's easy to make sense. So you have a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: common interest It's sinking in slowly.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you have a common interest community, and you want to put certain restrictions on what people can On what people can do, or The units within the common interest community, you go about doing this multiple ways. Of them is you put first, though, let's say you put it in the declaration, and it becomes covenants on all of the deeds associated with your common interest community. So now it's a deed restriction.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And what's forgive my ignorance, but what's the don't laugh. The difference between a deed and a bylaw is what you're talking about.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am. This is in the deed restriction itself. When I go to sell it, the individual who purchased it from me is going to see those restrictions and understand that when they purchase the property. You can't purge those. Separate from that, let's say it's not in the declaration, it's not in the deed restrictions, there's no covenant, etcetera, but we have a common interest community, just decide, hey, you know what? People are starting to make all these short term rentals across the state. We don't want that in this community, so we're going to draft a bylaw that says that anyone living here can't lease their units. Now it's not in the deed, so it can be changed at a later date, but it's still applicable to the people who live there. And so if you strike this first half Which is what? It's about the deed, the covenants, and restrictions,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and the deeds. In one, if we strike from covenant The proposal is

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to strike it throughout the so I'm just using this one example for the arguments. Then the HOAs would no longer be able to enact bylaws or regulations restricting the leasing of the unit. But if the common interest community has that restriction in the declaration to begin work, then it would still be okay. Correct. So wouldn't be covering those. I'm not I'm not saying that this is I'm not saying don't do this. I'm saying this is a it's a policy decision that you all would need So to how expansive do you want to ensure in addressing this problem if you see

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it as a process? Thomas.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So the declaration piece for the all the plan the parcels that would be part of this, Is that easy for them to just retro to apply it to an existing set of parcels that already are in play that they could apply that deed restriction or would they need the parcel owner to sign off on that? I could get how prospectively you could do this. You could entwine it in the deeds for a new subdivision or a new division.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Retroactively amending the declaration itself. I would wanna go review the chapter of action to answer that. You can amend them. I just don't know how in in doing such as putting a restriction like that. That would apply to everyone. I don't know what the amendments would require. And so I wanted to do that. Right.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm turning to the banking and financial folks in the room. Aren't these restrictions already in deeds?

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yes. Well, could, so what are

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: we trying to affect that? If they're already in the deed, that restriction's in place, why are we even talking about affecting the HOA bylaw? So here's how I would articulate it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If the problem is that you have common interest communities, and they're prohibiting people from leasing their units

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: But it's not in the D.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It might not be. It might just be in a bylaw of the common interest community, but also separately, it could be D. It could be in the declaration of It would be prohibited.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And the deed includes the covenant, right? It would be a covenant, yes. Yeah, it is a covenant. So I think that part of, anyway, Chris is right behind us, he would forget.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what I'm saying is you could, you can prohibit these things in multiple different ways, either by putting them in the deeds, putting restrictive covenants in the deeds themselves, or the common interest community could have draft their own bylaws to restrict these things. And so that's why this language is set up to address both of those situations. But if you strike one, If the others would take one away, you could take one away and you could say, We're not gonna amend the deeds. If you have it in your declaration and you have restrictive covenants that say you can't lease that units, you purchased the property when you purchased it, and you knew it was there, you bought it, so we're gonna leave it, we're just gonna prohibit the condo association from creating a buy wall that's restricted. So you're only addressing those instances, you're not addressing the instances where it exists as a restrictive covenant in need. So you would only be addressing certain common interest communities, potentially not all of them. And that's just a policy decision for me to all. But what and the impact on the mortgage companies

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is, I think, what I I'm fine. I get the difference between deed and the bylaw, and and if we strike this, they could just create the same restriction through a bylaw. Talk to us or help us understand. I guess I don't understand what the the challenges with with the mortgage fees. So forget And I'm I'm not a We have two I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not a financial lender here. Yep. Yep. So the point is, if they have underwriting restrictions that say that you can't, you have to have certain occupancy and leasing restrictions, so if I'm gonna give you a mortgage, it's your primary residence.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Awesome, and mortgage is

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: required then to say you be can't turn around and lease the unit, And that's in there because I want to be able to turn around and sell that mortgage on the secondary market to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and that's and standard of those

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you're now taking that away from me because you're saying in this language, any covenant restriction condition in any deed, contracted security instrument, so that could apply to the common interest community, it could also apply to the financial institution that's lending you the money to purchase the home, and it's worth Now weeding that all of a sudden, these financial institutions that are loaning money to you to purchase the condo, if they can't turn around and sell that mortgage in the secondary market, they may just not offer it, or they may offer it at a much higher rate.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, do you have anything to add, or Peter?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Chris Donnelly, the Champlain Housing Trust. I think including striking out the language that BHFA proposed supports their ability to make primary mortgages to folks with those cousins and sons. The second thing that Cam hasn't gotten to yet is the section two below this actually refers to another part of the statute which protects the ability of, well, maybe Cam can look this up, but it allows for mortgages to be sold on the second market. It disallows the ability to pivot those I'm not saying this right because it's like a triple negative. Is where this We'll jump over here. This goes to the question that Senator Ram Hinsdale brought up because you have this sub two here, which says that nothing in the subsection prevents or prohibits a DE contract, security interest, etcetera, from preventing the subleasing among line 17, from preventing the subleasing of a unit or restricting the leasing of a residential unit as authorized by subdivision three-one 120 F3. What is three-one 120 F3? It says that an association may adopt rules that affect the use of or behavior in units that may be used for residential purposes only to restrict the leasing of residential units to the extent those rules are reasonably designed to meet underwriting requirements of institutional lenders that regularly make loans secured by first mortgages on units and common interest. So I brought this up on Friday. The concern is, hey, we can't sell these on the secondary market, everything we just talked about. And I said, well, what about two? Two, I believe, covers you because of what I just read. You need to hear back from them as to why they think that is not the case if they are still raising the concern. They being BHFA. The being BHFA, the credit unions, the other entities that have brought this concern to you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And Chris is here as well, because I know he represents a lot of us.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So as I read it, I think two, and the one point would alleviate the concern altogether, and you don't need to make the recommendation. You don't need to strike the first one. I need to strike this language up here, but I'm also being transparent with you all that I don't operate in the space of lending money out to individuals to purchase condos. Hearing from them as to why they think that's not the case, hearing from the attorney that you have coming in on condominium communities in general would probably be good up to you.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, any further thoughts on Oh, we have two Chris's thoughts on this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would just say that if you are not going to strike that language in one, then I would ask you to leave the exemption down below where there's the covenants. I think that is important to keep because you want to ensure that those housing subsidy covenants, the first piece that I talked about a little while back, you wanna ensure that you're not voiding those out, or I believe that you want to ensure that you're not fully in the first hour. Okay, so I'd be happy to also kind of type this up or kind of draft it up in a question format that you all could have and ask others as it relates

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, dividing the baby. Okay, let's just keep going. I think that concern is sinking here. Yes, okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the other piece that's in this amendment is here in the subsection C. So above, if you remember, you had the change in the leasing, so individuals who are in these common interest communities would be able to lease their homes moving forward. You also have the sub B about family childcare home, so those are the two pieces that were in the draft as it was introduced. Then you get to the sub c, which is new. Yes, sir. Well, before you

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: gloss over that, I I have this email from Mara Collins this past Friday. We all received it on the what you just glossed over, the family child, like, your home piece. Are are you familiar with this, Pam? So she raised the concern that the the mortgage programs that they have that people sign an affidavies, that they will not use more than 15% of the total area of the property for the home business or commercial use, not more than 15% for the cost of property will be deducted from home business. So does this would this circumvent or nullify those affidavities creating a concern that she has?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I sent that to Cam, and he's seen it. And we have not included that language yet for us to have the conversation.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so it's like that, it's a policy decision for you all, right? BHFA is saying that we lend these monies out and we have people agree that they're not going to use these homes for certain business activities, they would change it, and it would say, you can't do that. In a common interest community, an individual would have essentially the right to run a family child care home, and the policy decision.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But can't you qualify and say unless a an owner if if an owner has a mortgage with these restrictions, then these don't apply. But for the people who don't have a mortgage with those restrictions, this would apply. Can't you differentiate? You possibly could, but my I guess my immediate question would be, are you wanting to single out for one financial institution only?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you get a mortgage through BHFA, then you can't do this, but if you get a mortgage through anyone else, you can.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, but if you have but there may be other institutions that have those restrictions that getting their mortgages. Can't we simply say if you have a mortgage with an institution that restrict that restricts your use this way, this doesn't apply. But if you have a mortgage with that allows this, you're that these restrictions are lifted. But why can't we differentiate the institutions?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'd be happy also to talk to Mora because I think you I feel like you could do the opposite. Yeah. They could say, oh, we like, I guess what she's saying is it's a loan at a higher level than this individual. But because if you just said to this individual, we can't offer you this loan option, it's an IRS restriction that you can't get tax exempt loan dollars to and have more than 50% of your property be of business, then then they they don't have access to that loan

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. To that loan option. Think

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I didn't think in home. Are there Like, it's an in home. It's a home based child care.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I Right. No. No. I are there other mortgages that that stipulate this kind of thing in HOAs? I guess this is a question for our HOA lawyer. Sorry. Can't answer the question. What? I don't know what restrictions certain financial Yeah. Other questions. Yeah.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The question for Chris. Yeah. Chris Rice from MMR for Mortgage Bankers Association. Some of our members are looking into the same issue and have the same concerns raised by mortgage. It gets really complicated really quick because it's not just what's in your mortgage or HOA, it's what the secondary market is looking at and whether they will purchase those mortgages that it becomes complicated.

[Chris Rice (Mortgage Bankers Association via MMR)]: To the extent that you have time to hear from the experts, and that'll probably be more fiction free. That would be my suggestion. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if you identify somebody, we'll have Laura, and we'll have to have people in on Friday. That's when we're we have time to address it. So let's do that. Thank you. Chris and Laura. Great. Okay. So I think okay. I think we're

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I I just think this like, let's put childcare aside. Like, people have a hard time making money, you know, if if we try to say you can't have an annual business in a common interest community. Like, I I certainly like to deal with the IRS, but I don't wanna make this so broad. I I'd actually like to fight the federal government on this this question, you know, like

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Exactly. I think that might be harder to do this year. But I think that also with the move to so much remote work, it just strikes me. This is really Yeah, this is silly. I mean, post COVID scene is ridiculous. I guess.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: If somebody wants to make jewelry, right, you know?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Okay. So it's we will get so who are the people we need to hear from? Weeksha Bank, mortgage people, and we'll also hear from Christina and the other person who I forwarded you that other email. And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: and you do have the do have the, still the person who actually had their home based childcare shut down. Didn't know that. Have her as well.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Do we have her name?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. Yes. Okay. Right. It's the boardroom. Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Okay. Okay. I think we're gonna have to clarify this for for our understanding for us to make a decision on this. But okay. Let's keep going because we have a a new proposal on on restriction to lift.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you go to the bottom of page 12, this is on the amendment here. The bottom of page 12, top of page 13, you see this new highlighted language. This is a new addition to this section. We've we've talked about it in the committee. Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We haven't seen language

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: on it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Related to accessory dwelling units, the number one here on the top, page 13, the sub one, it's all the same Legion language, covenants, restrictions, conditions, and deeds, declarations, bylaws, rules, etcetera, that effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict a unit owner from building an accessory dwelling unit on the property restricted to the exclusive use of the unit owner as void and enforceable. I want to highlight a few quick things. First off, this would only apply to a planned community and would not apply to economy.

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because it doesn't make much sense for economy. And so second is the subdivision two, which says that the subsection C only applies to a planned community where the unit owner has the right to an exclusive use of greater than one four of one eight her.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I'd like to suggest, unless this was based on something Based on my suggestion. That it's a onefour or greater.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was something I was going to raise.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, yeah. Onefour, which is small, I see.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But not greater than A lot are onefour.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you want one quarter to be the minimum, then yes ma'am, it should be changed.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, so great. One quarter of an

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: eight or greater, and happy to make that change.

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then it just has the tie back to the definition of an accessory dwelling using Right, right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: B and E are renumbered, and then F we address

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: F we spoke about is the housing subsidy covenants that you don't want to make.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can we stay on this for a second? Because I was taking my parents to look at houses in South Burlington that are in plant communities, and I don't know exactly what we mean by exclusive use of greater than one quarter because there are some that say anything everyone else can see is not your exclusive use. You can't leave a bike outside. You can't have a garden outside. I'd like to make sure this definition works. A lot of them don't have fences, so they exclude you from having

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Fences?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. A lot of them don't they don't have a fence around each individual unit. Oh, that's a huge thing. Yeah. And so I don't want exclusive use to have a loophole in it. Thomas, same type of thought.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm not against any of this, but the quarter acre, mean, there are parcels that can go up. So, like, a side story accessory dwelling unit on a smaller acre. I'm just wondering

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: why I just want we I just chose a quarter acre because it seemed like the the size that made sense in a planned community that would make sense to have enough room for a an accessory dwelling unit if it was not attached. Remember, they don't need to be attached. So it could be you know, that gives you enough land to to have a and it you could also go out. So, I mean, I'm happy. I just think we wanted to make sure that accessory dwelling units were included in this provision of HOAs. Right. Because that's where the

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But it's it's it's the joint still well taken, but

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I just there are houses in Essex that are smaller than the border, but you can put something above the garage.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There were also I mean, we talked to Wheelpad. There were also ADUs that attach to the house. They're not a separate facility. The idea came to us from Can we just say, like, point to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, can I just ask? The person who had brought it to us is sitting here, Megan Sullivan. Would you be kind of introduce yourself and

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: talk talk Remember, she was talking about, like, points you get or don't have. No. No. I'm the one

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: who sent you back

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: to the last part.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I Megan, for the time to

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: do this. Here as a resident of Jericho, Vermont, HOA restricted individual. Yeah.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: So, I mean, from, you know,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: where I live, it's one acre and you're having a no additional units. That's wireless. Anyway, so whether it's point two or quarter, whatever it is, I see the point of, you know, if you're living in attached units, saying we're gonna build an ADU is challenging, but for detached single family houses, it goes

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: up or not under detached. That's the implication, I believe.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, if it's attached, I assume it's condoized and you don't actually own your land. It's it's commonly owned land that your unit so you own your unit, but you

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: don't own the land. It would

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be if it I don't actually know if that's So, Cam, we need to clarify it.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Chad is giving me serious eyebrows. I'm totally wrong

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We spent so long on ADUs and ADUs could be a lot of different things. Right. Right. And you could say, I have a disabled family member that needs a wheelchair accessible unit. We're going to attach it to the house.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. It could be attached. It could be above. It could be

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a separate Pertinent to, but attached or it could be adjoining and separate. And so the point is well taken that if you wanna say I mean, this is where we could over define things and essentially, yes, I would say we should have

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: a lower threshold if it's attached. Okay, so we'll read it to a C.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was just gonna pull up the definition

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: referenced to, and it doesn't say that it needs to be attached or

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Unattached. Exactly. We went we created It can

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be all those things. Yeah. So I I don't wanna mess with that, but I do wanna clarify the the ex exclusive use question. Mhmm. If you wanna make sure it's on land that that that people own because obvious and I thought you had done that with only applies to a planned community. Is there a definition of a planned community that it had? Yes. Okay. So there's a definition of ownership in that. So I think the questions are guys are okay with including maybe use is exclusive use and what size? If it's an eighth of an acre or more point to whatever.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: An eighth.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Just to clarify, exclusive use be is really where you segregate out condominiums because they're all common land when it's a condominium. Yes. So if it's just exclusive use, I feel like you're you're getting what you're after.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I hope so. A partial size special.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's our question for our lawyer.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: Right. I am we have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: yeah. You have exclusive use of that one acre. Right. And there are restrictions in our

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: bylaws about how you know, where fence can go on your exclusively leased land, but we also have common land. Right. So this would not say that we is the only one person could build something on the commonly owned plant. So I like what Thomas said. They could say if they have the right to exclusive use, you don't have to put it. The problem I'm having, madam chair, is every time we put in a unit amount, it it confuses people, and then they say, I thought you said I couldn't build more than two units on on one quarter of an acre, and they, like, we don't need to do that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, we could just not specify the size of the lots.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: She's gonna speak so much. Manager, I will just inform you I have a hard stop at five minutes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. And we do too. Okay. So And I apologize. I'm just letting you know. I am happy I am happy to do that. I I mean, this was just something to get the ABUs in, and I just thought it made sense that we that we wanted them on all sizes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: The only hesitation I have about this is that the planned community is typically have kind of an aesthetic look. It's a community that has common interest, and if if they restrict somebody from building an ADU, which is essentially, say, they dragged in a manufactured home and put it into a, you know, part of their property, This seems to avoid the community saying, it doesn't quite fit. You know?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think they still get to say the paint color and stuff in a lot of these.

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

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm wondering if this is trying to roll bylaws aesthetic considerations.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would your HOA then have a requirement on? I mean, one assumes that any other requirement about what it looks like and what feels like is applies. It's just that we're a Right. Or you

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: have to get it approved. Like right now, if

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you're wanting to put up a

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: fence, you have to get it approved by the know, head honchos of the HOA

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: governing board.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. So, I would With

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: this language on reasonably restrictive. They may say, look, I can't afford the the, you know, construction costs of what you want me to build and this is what I can afford and they could unreasonably restrict this person to build the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the I assume that if a person wants to build an AU, they have the money to do it.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, I'm saying that if they if they propose to bring in something or build something which doesn't fit the aesthetic nature of the community, this says, this unreasonably unreasonable restriction, raise could allow them to bring in anything.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we've had a lot of discussion around aesthetics and that is a common discussion in form based code and zoning in every community. Generally where we've landed is that if you could do something to your single family home that you could then do to this accessory dwelling unit, they would be treated under the same rules.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would assume they would

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: be treated under can we check that, Pam? And So if you're required to have, like, white siding or something, I can still require that to go back to ADU. I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think there's anything in the language that would prohibit them from still requiring the similar aesthetics, but I think it is a good question to raise, what is an unreasonable restriction, and I'd be happy to look into that and then maybe a refresher to ask her

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the attorney to bring The attorney. Because I would assume that all the other restrictions were up in terms of color sinus. Setbacks.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Setbacks, all with The thought. We know separation.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But I will echo that the

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: language here does say you cannot unreasonably restrict someone from building ADU. So somebody could argue, argument could be made that your conditions you're putting on the aesthetics of the location or restricting the location criteria, you have to have a certain setback, etcetera, effectively prohibits me from being able to build an ADU.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It has to be limited to the kinds of things that would have applied to a single family. They can't make special rules for your ADU. So I think you could borrow from probably the Home Act, the areas we've poured over with a lot of municipalities about, you know, what a reasonable or unreasonable restriction is because you just couldn't apply it differently to a multifamily unit than you would a single family unit in the same footprint.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, same concern. We want to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: make sure that unreasonable doesn't backfire. I'm gonna mention one other thing, Madam Chair. Yeah. The only other edit or the only other change in this draft is I've removed the section related to mobile mobile rent.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Wait a minute. To to get to f. But also after we haven't

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: talked about

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: f, bring us a lot of those.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We did. Because that remember, that's adding in the the homeowners covenants? The Right.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Now this works. I think f works for us in solving the housing Affordable housing Yes, ma'am. Subsidy. Okay. So you sorry.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Keep going. So then you have the section on electrical vehicle supply equipments. Right. And I removed the section related to mobile home lot rent. Right. Then you get to section nine about the Vermont Economic Development Authority. Is where it's amending the definition of eligible facility to allow VITA to fund certain property unit housing developments.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think we're good to go on that section. That is the one section I think we are basically all green lit with the VHFA and VIDA coming into Kumbaya.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So just highlight the addition of that online, the eleven and twelve that I added at the request of the HNT.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I have the witness, since I requested this morning, that I emailed you at Sierra, First Service Supported Housing. I think there are

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I have that are not the task force that would be helpful. And advisory can join us here at. Great. And we are going to thank you, guys. I think we've made some quick progress. And I think Cam would would wanna if we can get rid of the of of qualifying the thighs in the HOA and just stay at anything that's has where you have the exclusive use of that property. Great. Thank you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm sure it's 11:45 to present a bill that I'm not a commission, but I fully support this resolution. So if you vote, please. Thank you.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And if I have to not my child. Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hi. Well Thank you. We're going to shift to The Ukraine and the four year anniversary of this horrific invasion. Thank you for your words this morning. Thank you, Michael, for drafting this resolution. The resolution is now in our committee for us to take action. Do we have a copy

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: of this? Yes. Yes. Have a copy of this.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It should be, madam chair. I sent an electronic version to your committee assistant earlier this morning. She can bring it off in this chair. Yes. Good morning. Before we go through it, we would love to hear you tell us. Tanya, it's yours. You go with what you'd like.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: So for the record, senator Tanya Dubske, its resolution, does acknowledge, what is happening, giving brain, and what has been happening really since March 2014, but more aggressively since February 2022, with a particular focus on the impact to civilian infrastructure and children. The Senate in the General Assembly in Wisconsin passed a somewhat similar resolution earlier this year. And a friend of mine there sent me their language, we grafted into our format and our language, with some additions, particularly around this the kids' disability infrastructure, given how much that has increased in in the last month or so. People in Kyiv are living without power. It is four degrees. Across the country have their children to school because they have no kids. And and I think it's, for me, like, really important to focus on the impacts to civilians and children. Sorry. Yeah. No. No. It's very confusing. The other important thing that I don't think we have talked about enough and that is highlighted in the bill is the tens of thousands of children that have been picked up. Sent to reeducation camps, forcibly adopted into Russian families while they have Ukrainian families at home to that month of that is a

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: war crime.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: And and I

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: sorry. It's okay. Take a sec.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: And I just think it's important that we stand in solidarity with people who are under occupation, under constant air raids, and the children whose lives will forever be disrupted. So that is what this resolution is for. The resolution would go to the Russian and Ukrainian ambassadors to The United States as a statement of our solidarity and our condemnation of the war crimes that are occurring daily.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you for doing this. Thank you for being needless to say, I think all of us have been hearing in the news. The news has been full of this anniversary and the ongoing, and certainly the air raids and the drugs, the tax, and the number of people who are living without water, electricity, heat, anything, and how they are managing to do it is beyond under certain comprehensive. Language

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: was also drafted in conjunction with people who are living in Ukraine and going through these conditions every day. Some of these words are their words.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, Annie. David?

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, just wondering, why not include the, as far as delivery to our federal delegation and US Secretary of State,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know, like, off it

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: off or what, you know, if it goes overseas, what, what, and what matter of fact, will there be

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: Well, so this would go to the the ambassadors here in The US, but I'm also if if you would like it delivered to more people, I am Yeah. More than happy to have it delivered to more people.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Great. What? I'm good with expanding the scope of delivery. Yeah. Significant. Yes. So the President

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of The United States would help too. Yeah? If I may, Yes, Mr. Apologies. I could certainly do a fast amendment after the committee to include the president. And if you knew that, I would also recommend that you add the congressional delegation, our congressional delegation, is highly standard when I do the president on any of these.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: I would absolutely support that. I thank you for raising That's an easy question.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Or beyond to, like, just going through the wording. We won't do that with my. Thank you, Ty.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I hope you're gonna move on this as quickly as we are able. Thank you. I appreciate that. Well, we appreciate your keeping our eye on the ball and having gone this summer. Yes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: I did spend the holidays with you, Greg.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And your stayingings, which I yeah. I mean, I I have a little preamble, but I fully support this resolution and I don't want to to slow it down unnecessarily. And I don't want looking at certain words to be taken as any disagreement. We just have a responsibility to make sure these words are used properly and So again, I just don't want it to be triggering or activating, but I have word choice questions. Okay.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Brian has been a leader all along. First resolution was four years ago. Yeah. Listening to radio and TV, eventually this is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the fourth anniversary, I remember the resolution we worked on this, how long ago it was. Yeah. Michael Chittenden, legislative council. Before I start, I just wanted to explain a little bit about the mechanics of how this happened. There was a Wisconsin resolution.

[Michael Chittenden (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not verbatim from Wisconsin. We made some changes. I pointed out some concerns that I had, the things that I thought we should change here, and given the fact that it was already six months later. And then I did a draft, and then senator Vachowski emailed it to various contacts in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine who were obviously English fluent. And they made some comments, and then Senator Vachowski sent me some modifications and additions, and then I incorporated all those modifications and additions. And then what you're seeing now reflects both the some of the Wisconsin, some of what Senator Bahuski and I did together, and then some comments that came back from Ukraine have been incorporated in. And what I could do is if you want me to I know senator Ram Hinsdale has some suggestions. Would you want me to go through it across my clause? Or probably you want me to I'm happy to proceed for you.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: How do you like me to do?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That'll be just 20 minutes. We have twenty minutes. I think if people have had a chance to read it. It's it's fairly long, so I think going through it might be a little time consuming. But if people have concerns, I'm fine with it as it is, but I know Kesha has concerns or has some language and questions.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. They're they're I think one could consider them all technical or dramaturals, but that's important. Like, specific something. Diamond.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: You know?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Can we I'll send her on for you to tell me which quads you're inside.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I are we ready for that? Okay. The second whereas clause, this is more technical than grammatical.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That it begins whereas this Augusta Papua York And

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: it says, was initiated with the illegal invasion of Crimea. I circled the word illegal because we don't cite under which international agreement it is illegal.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And it was not related to any particular statement, but just the fact that it was an invasion of another country. And that language actually came from Wisconsin.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And that's kind of what, you know, it's like, I just want to make sure we own this language and we understand the use of it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And one option to take the word illegal out, or you could use a different word, for example Outrageous. Outrages or I don't

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: like those kinds of words. Right. Because I don't think they are factual. Right? Like, I've always been taught that resolution should have us we should be endorsing the factual statements in the warehouse, not using it plain and foreign language. So I I I wanna I'm happy to say illegal as long as we cite.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Do you wanna say horrendous?

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Or

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. Don't. Think that I want. If it is illegal.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: A better word. If there's a definition. Yes.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Then you can what? Stated,

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: but commonly accepted definitions.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think you could I suspect that I could find under law of some sort.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I have

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: no doubt in that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We should cite the international law, that it's illegal, at each other. Okay. In the third warehouse? Yeah. I don't wanna debate this forever, but I think it says which has wrought havoc, but it should be which have wrought havoc, because you're referencing three different

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is there only We actually talked about that when we got editors, aside from the two different, other millennials, I think they was referring to the overall agent. And I have, it's been through our editors. This is like,

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: yeah. Okay. And I'm not I don't know the dial miss it.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That makes me 100%. What's that?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Page two? Page two, I think it's just how it's worded at the top center. Before the top sentence. A minimum of 16 documented deaths with likely more undocumented and it-

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm gonna go back to

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: the five sentence sentence. I think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: four Yeah. We're in March

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a lot

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of- Attacked Open at the Family Hospital. Of was from Correct me. If it makes it easier, I could say with a number of documented deaths and leave it at that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, no. Or I'm sure there are undocumented deaths and injuries. You could just say Password.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Leave that all there for documentation. But we could if you are concerned about the number 16 No. As I said No.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sorry. Mike, go ahead. Go ahead. Time. So if I could just suggest that it says a minimum of sixteen documented deaths and countless injuries or, you know, anything more like, it's just, yeah, otherwise it's a very confusing-

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: about them with countless injuries Yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, they're I guess they're they're documented or they're not.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I think what I think probably the answer should be documented in there.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's it's the use of the phrase with likely more undocumented in the middle of that last phrase.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And it's something like and more undocumented and more injured and undocumented.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. A minimum of 16 documented deaths And more And likely more undocumented deaths and injuries. Yeah. Well, that's what it is. Well,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, that's okay. So not so likely or document undocumented.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Otherwise, it sounds like you're saying a minimum of 16 documented deaths and injuries, which I don't know if that's

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And either just the. So I'd to be absolutely clear, Senator, so there's no mistaking what I'm supposed to be doing deaths, and likely more, and likely more undocumented deaths and injuries.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Next one. In the first whereas clause that's pulled there, potentially a war crime? I think we should just know if it's a war crime or not, and if we believe it's a war crime, we should state it's a war crime.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, well, because it hasn't been

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: don't think

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: hasn't like been a juvenile. Juvenile. And it

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: points No. But then you would say which would constitute

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, we know each way was being a little more cautious.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I guess I guess, like, I don't like the these qualifying words. Well, it

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: was intent I made it qualify and cautious.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. But I guess my suggestion would be saying, would constitute a war crime? Because otherwise, it's saying the forcible dress for children may or may not

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be My a war decision not to do that was I didn't want the resolution to per se say that it was a war crime, but say he had his real potential something like in all probability is a war crime. Or just There's an idea. Yeah. How about that?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Where is it considered a war crime? Under what? Is it the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Geneva Convention?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I would say which would constitute violation of the Geneva

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, would I need to then check that because I can I buy

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: would I would check it because I just I I want us to we have to

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think about what it's a little Transferring to someone to another, which probably violates Geneva? No. I would say which cons which probably constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. Meaning the word probably in there? No. If you're wanting to be cautious, I would use the word probably. Which probably probably Or I would just check the fact whether taking children like this, I think it is a war crime. I think there was roughly I looked

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the Geneva Convention. The way the reason we're getting hang up hung up is because you're convicted of a war crime, ultimately. You are violating the Geneva Convention is not in and of itself being adjudicated as having committed a war crime. You were you were being found in violation of something that could then be taken to the international court as a war crime. So, I think the problem is trying to name something a war crime Before it's a judiciary. Before it's a judiciary.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Guys know about just ending the sentence after the word another.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I understand the power of referencing that transferring children a violation of international law. Law. Exactly. And our war and our war protections.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. And if you would you could either do research the Geneva Convention or you could say which in all probability constitutes a violation.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, to me this conversation's really important because if we went out and thought this was a war crime, we need to cite that.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So how long would you know probability violate the Geneva Convention? Would you know probability is a war crime under the Geneva Convention? No, I wouldn't say that. I would keep to in all probability constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. Constitutes. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: Work on

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the brain layer, but just make sure,

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: just maybe Greenland should even That's why I did, as opposed to some of the That's why, as I said, senators, I was cautious in my use of language.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I guess cautious to me is not the same as equivocating, which I worry is not cautious. It's just not a good practice in a foreign relations.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, there's some time when the legislature is making, just speaking generically, a comment on one of these. As you said, I wanna be able to be certain, I'll say possibly or probably, just to hedge a little bit that I'm not saying absolutely concerning, but there's a consensus that it may well

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: be. That, let's just start there, but I.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Your next concern. Yeah.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Because you have a couple. Want to be on this paragraph. Let me back in. Let me back up to the bottom of page one. Whereas 03/09/2022 I'm it still looks there. 03/09/2022. Yeah, right. It attacked maternity hospital. Rutland forces attacking hospital. Yeah. And marrow, causing at least four deaths, including one child, and a minimum of sixteen documented deaths. Are the sixteen part of the four? I think that was documented, listed separately from the four that

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: then it Based on the material I added to Ray, I mean, we could do something to the effect causing a number of deaths. Yes. That's right. Well, I don't say causing a number of deaths. Oh, we're causing a number of additional deaths.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Could you bring the source material? I had it here. Okay.

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Why why additional? Why is

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: it four and then six times Why are

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: they why are they separate?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I was trying to understand all the comments, and I I missed the yeah. I think in all the comments and the

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: wording of that, I missed this. Yeah. I was not happy to.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I want to make sure we have all the concerns identified so that Michael can work on them, and with Tanya about. I'd submit that the warehouse, Randy

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Earth's highlighting, would be more effective if we use the total number of casual seizures as opposed to a central incident. Yes. It would be much, much more compelling, but I'll leave it up to the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let me go back as opposed, here, on my Because we don't reference that again. You're right. I agree with David. I think the cumulative effect of the number of people who have died in this Assuming you've definitely, actually, I'm looking at it. They killed at least four people, including one child, and injured at least 60 others. I understand. So what do we do? More people have died on the Russian side of this Yep. Before than during World War two.

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

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hundreds of thousands of people. Wait.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: Over the. I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: know. Was like, wait.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: What was the difficulty with these numbers, just if I might, Senator Tony Buzioski, the difficulty with the numbers, particularly in the Siege of Mariupol is that we don't know. There are mass graves that have not been excavated. There are people who have disappeared and might be prisoners. And so it may make sense. But the siege of Variables did start with bombing of a paternity hospital, is likely a violation of the Geneva Convention. Yeah. And went on for nearly three months and was really when things, the civilian acts escalated. Yeah. Which is part of, as I said, the focus in this was to some extent the civilian impact. The estimate coming out of Ukraine is as many as twenty five thousand people may have died in

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: the state of Maricopa.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, well, more to go on then. That

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: Four deaths in March 9.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But this was looking at the maternity hospital.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: The maternity hospital specifically. But

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're looking at here now in my sources, it would be more accurate to say Attracting Maternity Hospital, the crate, marital, causing at least, causing at least four deaths. I want to And injuring at least 16 others. That's the information I have. I think the cumulative number of deaths in Maripole is much more compelling than just the hospital, even though the hospital triggered it.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: You have a personal I do. I wonder if we might state that on March 9, this maternity hospital was bombed, kicking off the siege of Mariupol, which has resulted in an estimated point five thousand deaths. Not five thousand.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But now I'm looking, I'm just wondering if they had that twenty five thousand.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We'll get it to you. Okay.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: And it is an estimate, again.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So you understand sort of our intent. I think, take that away, I think

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: it's much more compelling. And you would also like to have the total impact in there

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: as I think we need an additional whereas because it is one of the numbers are together. You could do something to the effect of whereas on 03/09/2022, Russian forces attacked the Germany Let's not wordsmith it at the moment. I think you have a notion of what we want to say. I wanna get the indirect response.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Hopefully, they're they're quick. Page three. Yeah. The fourth line.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: One two three four. Where do we use heritage?

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. Launching pad. It just I don't I don't think that's like a good phrase for a foreign relations resolution. Also serving as a launching pad for involuntary Russian family adoption.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Initiation? Well, certainly when it began. I mean Yeah. Yes. I think wait. Let's come on. As the start of. Yeah. Certainly as the launch of or as the beginning of the of the involuntary.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's just too casual. There's a little kidnapping. Pad.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The kidnapping is great in children. So let's figure out something better than that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And then

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: I think of simply saying the start Yeah.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And the starting point Russian. Began the voluntary Russian. Yeah.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Served as the served as the initiation. The starting point? Or just the starting point. Served as the starting point. He could do that. It's easy. Russian family doctor. Starting. And what's your

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: last one? The last one is deplores. General assembly. The first, be it further resolved. So the second resolved. Mhmm. That the general assembly deflores the Russian federations. Usually, condemn something.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I've used condemn in the prior paragraph.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. That's okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Clerk)]: There will

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be a lot of condemning here. Right.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Deplores is is

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I would not use deplored. I agree. You wanna use condemn there as well? Wouldn't be condemned. Yes. Damning to have so many condemns. I can't just condemn, but that's easy to fix.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I think I think and then the last result, I think we want to expand the truth of the president of The United States and our Vermont congressional delegation. As he can do. Yeah. Thank you, David, for catching that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Do we want to do the state department?

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, and our secretary of state. Again, he's

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: may represent the president. The

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: president Sure. Yeah. All of

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You're right. I think when we did the immigration month, we had immigration Michael, and the

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: let's include the president of The United States and the Vermont congressional vote.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And the president. If the president and the federal

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The president and the congressional congressional government. Yeah. Right. So Along with the two ambassadors who will obviously stay. Yes. Oh, yeah. Obviously. And, Tanya, we could ask you and Michael to work on this and come back to us with it when you're ready or the next month. Well, whatever you can do. Yeah. Tomorrow morning or night. That's easy. Perfection. Great. What time do you like to see us tomorrow? We'll figure that out. Okay. Lord of all. Right. Because the day is packed, fall rush, as you can imagine. But thank you. If I wait, senator, just ask what would be the earliest you would expect it to be tomorrow? 08:30. But it doesn't need to be 08:30, it could be at the end too. Could do it Whatever works better for you. Ten of twelve. What works for you too? Whatever can work. I can be 100% Why don't you let us know how you The programs you're making. Okay. Okay. Okay. Tanya and I will see each other at 01:50. So we'll know by then probably. Okay. Or by the end of the day. Right. You. Thank you, Blackpool, for drafting it. Thank you, Tanya, for living in.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We're a

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: lot stuff right now. We're making some changes.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Guest Senator)]: I'll be back.

[Sen. Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're making some good changes. I think with that, remember, everybody, we're starting at 08:30 tomorrow morning. And I just then I

[Sen. Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: think we're ready to go.