Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Hey, good morning. This is Senate Natural Resources and Energy and it is Friday, January 30, And we are starting with, well, we're starting a number of new bills this morning. And to kick us off, we are given a new draft, that's two twelve. And so we have our legislative council here with us. Welcome.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. This is Michael Grady, council. As the chair just referenced, you should have a new draft of Yep. The the it's it's the first draft of an amendment you've seen, but it it has a 4.1 draft on it because the chair director needed to work with the agency to meet some of the concerns that the agency was raising and the fact that they're already in a process regarding redoing connections or redoing authorizations for connections. And so what's in front of you reflects the conversations with the agency, and, hopefully, it meets your intent. Thank you. So I'll just move through. It's still amending the chapter of law related to Potawal Water Spotted Wing Spotted System Connection. The first section is the purpose section, and the bill has introduced the purpose had been about delegating to municipalities with RD to do connections, but there's still gonna be a component of delegation here, but not full delegation like there have been in in prior authorizations. So the purpose is changing, and it's not about delegation. It's about to allow review of global water supply and wastewater system connections pursuant to general permits issued under the chapter. And then you move to the definitions and the definition of approval, the water, the sliders out.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Before we move on, I just wanna make sure I'm understanding what that section is doing. So this is where it maybe it's obvious, but it this is allowing to adopt a general permit regarding

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No, we're this is just a purpose section. Oh, sections are really just expressions of Yeah. State of intent. They can be helpful to a court when looking at what you intended to do if there's Stake. So you it's it's intended there to be clear that you're allowing general permits for connections, and then you will get to the express authorization later on. Thank you. So on page two, you're in the definition of the potable water supply. There's a slate change recommended by the agency that had previously said this definition includes a service connection to a public water system of any size that does, but does not require a permit under Chapter 56, and that's already in the last sentence of that subdivision. So the agency just recommended shortening a sentence that's on lines six and seven. They did not explain that. That

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: sentence was redundant to the last sentence.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That the last freeze of that sentence that when the bill was introduced, how that reference to does not include a probable waterslide that that is subject to rape, petitioner, chapter 56. And you can see pointed out, well, that's already in there.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You don't need that to force. Mhmm.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: On on page three, you're moving into section three. This is the permit section. I want to point out a couple of things that are existing along that are not changing, but that are relevant to the discussion. The first is on page three, line nine and ten, making a new or modified connection to a new or existing potable water supplier wastewater system requires a permit underneath this chapter, and that's why you were here, what this bill is about. I also want to point out on page three lines twelve thirteen that the law, the statute already says that the secretary shall give deference to a certification by a licensed designer with respect to engineering designer judgment exercised by the designer in order to minimize agency review of certified assignments. But keep that in mind, we're going to come back to that in a minute. The statute already says the agency gives deference to licensing its designers. But before we get to where that is relevant, the bill continues to strike full delegation to municipal. And so part of that is striking the language on page three, line nineteen twenty one going on page four. That was a delegation for connections in designated downtowns with no real other criteria, and so that screen struck. And then on page four, you get to line 13, you get to the language about the agency's authority to adopt a general permit. So the secretary shall adopt a general permit for both portable water supply and wastewater system connections that require a permit under the chapter. Under the general permit, secretary may gain a deference, Remember, we just talked about how the statute already allows them to give deference. Secretary may give deference to applications for connections certified by a designer that's done in the chapter. And the secretary should also publish a manual providing guidance to licensed designers implementing the general permit. The manual shall introduce standards for determining or defining the capacity for public water system and pollution and basin facility for purposes of approving that connection. So that's the specific general permit. That's what the agency was working for when the bill was introduced. Wanted to go to a general permit. It's gonna be for all connections, not just for those delegated connections, and it's going to rely on veterans to the designer that statute already allows.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Maybe you're not able to get to it, but on page five, second degree adoption of other activities. Right. Because there are there's a long list of actual permits that

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: are needed under this chapter. You just required one for connections, and now you're giving the secretary discretionary authority to adopt general permits for the other types of permits.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Mean, other types of permits, what's encompassing that path?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Here here, Juan, whenever you subdivide land, you're supposed to get a permit under this chapter for the identification of a wastewater and bubble water supply for the subdivided land. So is it possible to have a general permit for that? I'm not the technical expert on it, but that's a category I could see potentially that I'm using a general permit.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And you wanna because we were talking initially about the, you know, the connection, Jen, from the group, and I just wanna make sure I understand if we're going from this to this. So you haven't you haven't

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: yet gone to this. You've said if the if you wanna go to a general permit for this type of permit, you can do it. This is this is not unusual, this type of discretionary permitting authority. For example, in the water water discharge section, there's a a statement in there that says the general assembly authorizes the secretary of natural resources to use general permits to the fullest extent to implement the Clean Water Act. K. And so

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: that is that's your decision now. If you wanna give that discretionary authority, that's your to to actually do it. Mhmm. Yep.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes, So I I noticed the one from the change was from the sector will give deference to May.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. For this program Mhmm. And and to to an extent,

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I think that that is that's probably

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it's probably wise because, you know, if you're talking about a significant scope of instruction with potentially significant numbers of connections, you may not the agency may want to look at that more closely than rather than give deference. This retains their oversight, that their their ability to have oversight, And I I think that's wise when you're talking about something that can really affect public health and the environment when it's not done correctly. Moving, should I involve?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Well, I I think I have a question as well. This this section that we're talking about under k is this is where we're giving them authority to make this general permit that they were intending to do with one, when, since last year, basically. Okay. I'm just making following what's happening.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So you're actually directing the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: To do it. It's not just authority. It's like, do this thing.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: You do that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And then, but then, as senator Bongartz pointed out, there's also discretionary party, dental permits for other types of requirements. Okay. Thank you. On page five, line five, section four, this is that section in existing law about delegation of the permanent authority. We were first striking out that full bit delegation authority, like Colchester and Charlotte, they previously got had received full delegation, and they surrendered it because they didn't want it anymore. And so there's no other kind of full delegation than likely no other than the public fund fits. But I think you've heard a testimony, I believe it was from Burlington, that they might be interested in partial delegation of connections, especially if they have the ability to review them. And so this routines that partial delegation on the bottom of page six, not on page seven, where the secretary may delegate to a municipality, but are you to conduct a technical review for proposed projects that include both municipal potable water supply and wastewater system connections. Provided that that municipality actually has control over the service lines, you don't want to give them connection authority as something that they don't have. For example, there might be a fire district within a municipality that provides water under service lines, and that, you know, the larger municipality fire districts are so it's a larger municipality can get delegated to do the big connections in the like, in that fire district and say they

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: don't control for the service lines.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The municipalities delegated shall be required to incorporate the requirements of the general permit. So you don't have a municipality that's been delegated that has its own different set of standards for connections, they have to incorporate the requirements of the general permit adopted by the agency, and that will include deference to certifications provided by licensed designers. Now if the municipality submits a request for delegation, the secretary shall delegate, but only if certain conditions are met. First they have to be qualified to perform the technical review. They have to have someone either on staff or who they hire that will be able to do the tech that they need to receive authorization by the municipal body so your public works department can't just go out rogue looking for this. It has to meet any other requirement for delegation by the secretary in writing, they will only issue permits for those service lines that they control and when there's adequate capacity in the system. So that is where, going back to the manual that the secretary is directed to adopt, where the secretary is directed to determine or define what what is adequate capacity, that's where partially this will come into play. That will come play.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: One question about this. So this was with partial delegation here. If the municipality wanted this, received it, would they have the capacity to charge for those permits, or do we need to give you authority to do that?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: We're gonna get to that in

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a Oh, yeah, never mind.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But one of the things that came up as part of the discussion about partial delegation was the state would like

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: to

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: track those authorizations. It's important, especially for real estate attorneys, attorneys, to know what permits attach to a property when required, and you'll see on page eight, line four, and five that the municipality that's delegated when they approve the connection, have to submit documentation of a permitted project to the secretary. And we'll we'll get to a little bit of nuance on that in a section in a second as well. So that's the permit section. That is the authorization for the general permit, how the general permit will provide deference, how the secretary will adopt the manual to provide instruction on those connections. It also provides for delegation, partial delegation. And so there is your general permit and partial delegation. And then you go to section five. You're moving out of title 10. You're moving into title three. Title three, section 28, 22, this ANRSP section. It's a monster. And and one of the one of the subsections in it talks about when a municipality is subject to a permit fee and when it is not, and whether or not they can charge a fee for when it is doing its own permit review. And if you are adding on page nine, line nine through 14, that municipalities that conduct the technical review were approval of a portable water supplier wastewater system connection permitted under that permit section within the municipality may charge a fee for the cost of municipal services provided that municipality shall also pay that administrative processing fee of $100 for submission to ANR of documentation of the municipally permitted project. So they get delegated, they're approving, They can charge the Part B. They have to when they send in documentation to ANR, they send a $100 filing fee, which, let's be realistic, the municipality is gonna charge the applicant when the applicant applies for the municipal authorization.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I would just say it makes, I can argue both ways in terms of like, do we, are we just silent on how much that fee can be or the cap on, or say, you know, should we know more than, to try to like limit that. But my instinct is to not specify, but do you have thoughts?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I did not put in a specific amount because I've heard that different municipalities charge very different fees for those connections, and that they can be potentially a tool for municipal development decisions effectively.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the question Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: The A and R said a 100 plus. So how change do that here?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, no. This is just the filing fee. This is just when the municipality approves the permit, they're sending the fee that the the document, the permit approval to ANR. ANR is probably gonna figure out a way to incorporate that into their their permitting, their electronic permitting system, and they need some money to figure out how

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: to do that. And so that's what that is. Yes. So anything that if municipalities are doing this now, back in the bill, or anything that makes us think they're gonna be more likely to do

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: it. So If they aren't doing it now, this that you have some authority to do it, which, technically they didn't have a lot of authority to do anyway. But but but will they be more willing to do it? Yes. Will more want to do it? I I don't know. This is this is something that the general is working smoothly. It's gonna cut down on the administrative review. It's gonna make it easier for development to develop while maintaining the same standards for connection, and you have the licensed designer who is responsible for that. I I think that it might be easier for a municipality to go with the general permit, But that will take some time to implement.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So just to follow-up, this section that we're talking about, making it clear that municipalities can charge this fee, is that for any municipality that is doing technical review work or is this section just those municipalities that receive partial delegation?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's when they are authorizing the permit, it's really only for those that have delegated authority.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So it's not right now, we think Burlington may be interested in that. We're not sure there's others. So this is so this is still relatively narrow.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It's still relatively narrow. Who might

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: be taking that? Right. Yeah.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But say you're a municipality that charges $5,000 for a connection as your way of of it's a as a tool in your toolbox to drive where development is, you may want to get partially delegated to maintain that tool in your toolbox.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's making me wonder about allowing municipalities who are doing this anyway, making it very clear that they have the authority to charge for them. That's not this section. I just wanna I wanna think about that a little bit.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you. And then the other change in this section is actually setting the permit fee for those general permit authorizations, which would be on the eighth of that. So projects permitted under the new permit will be $500.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry. What line was that?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 11, lines nine through

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I see. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I do have a question, and it might be something I I should have talked to the agency about. Are there potentially connections that won't be eligible under the job permit that only need an individual permit? And then do they need to have a permit fee that's based on? Flow.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: I

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: don't I don't I don't know. It just kinda dawned on me as to what I was doing. It's not in here right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mr. Is here, would you like to comment on that question?

[Senator Chris Mattos]: For the record, Brian Redmond, it's a good question. You know, we haven't gone through the process of distinguishing what connections may be so technically complex that they would require an individual permit. I think the intent is to have the connections go under the general permit. We could provide, we could do a quick analysis of that and make recommendations.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So putting a pin in that. Sounds good. Thank you.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay. That's all I've got. Pin in one of them, should have these two cabinets. So we'll have that discussion Sure. From from central to complex. It's all about.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: And and then you come to the second to last section, which is about implementation.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the the agency is gonna need some time to put the general permits together, hire who they need to to help with that together and put together the manual. So on a report 12/01/2027, They published the general permit and the manual, and beginning on 01/01/2028, we begin accepting certifications of connections under the general permit. So it's about a year and a half.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And since Mr. Rutland is here tonight, asked me a question, feels like a reasonable timeline to you.

[Brian Redmond (Agency of Natural Resources)]: It does. We are expecting between eight and twelve months for the work out of the design manual to occur. That's the first thing that really needs to be completed. And then from there, we would be working to stand up the documentation for the general

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: permit, creating the general

[Brian Redmond (Agency of Natural Resources)]: permit on public notice, creating all the materials around that, as well as the transmittal for a system for the partially delegated municipalities information. So I would like to say earlier, but I, you know, always takes longer.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure, no, fair enough. And you were still standing this program up anyway. So it's not like you're, you're already, you weren't already doing, issuing permits under a general permit. It was still under design. It's not available. Okay. Great. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Should I move on?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, I think we're good to go on.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So in the department's wastewater system and potable water supply rules, there are multiple subsections related to either connections or delegation that will no longer be relevant once the general permit is enacted. And so there are two exemptions, subdivision one dash three or bar fifteen and sixteen about modification of the sign flows for wastewater systems or water supply connections. If they didn't go away, they're going to be consumed by the general firm. And then there are multiple, there's an entire section in the rules related to delegation of municipalities. Some of those subsections will remain, but remember there's no partial delegation, some of them are about full delegation, and so anything that's related to full delegation specifically is repealed. And then there may be other references in the water supply rules related to full delegation. It's on page 12, line 11 through 15. I put in, like, a have a disclaimer that anything, any references in the rules related to the delegation no longer applicable or enforceable to the appeal of statutory authority for the full

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Sorry,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: just to I think you just said this, but I wanna make sure that I'm taking some good notes on this. Well So, actually it's right there. So, lines four through six, well so they all refer to what is being repealed, exactly, like in those notes there.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, everything from four through 10 are specific subdivisions in the rules that would be repealed because four through six will be consumed by what's the general permit. And then seven through 10 because you no longer have full delegation authority and there's no longer any municipality with full delegation. And then eleven fifteen, with are there are references to delegation in the rules, but aren't specific enough. I would have to, like, do a line by line amendment, and I don't know if you're really gonna do that. Yeah. It would be a lot.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Be a much longer bill. Well,

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: not much longer, but it would be longer. So this is just saying that references to the old allegation aren't applicable or enforced as well. And when the agency amends their rules the next time around, they can can be the ones that go through and get rid of the Well,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it's just as a matter of how you go about it. It's just interesting. Guess guess it's interesting to just say these rules shall be repealed on this date as opposed to the line by line and then making that an effective date of January. But I guess, so either way, it accomplishes the same thing.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. That's fair. I mean, the specific full delegation authority is being repealed.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So the other references to it technically aren't applicable anymore anyway, but just want to be clear. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: just in terms of like how that happens, so we get to '28 and then yourself or as recommended by the department, they would then go line by line to be like, alright. I'm taking this out, taking that out.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the next time they go on amendment of their rules. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's when it would actually come out? Yeah. But then if they don't do that until, like, '29 or '30, and then that's That There's just pieces lingering that are ineffective.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And this is still law. Even though it's session law, it is still law. It will still be something that the agency can rely on and say those references are not That applicable or

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: was also part of my question. So this section six is session law, but the rest of it is not?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. Okay. It needs to be a good factor being session off of. Sure.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Just wanna make sure that I'm understanding

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: The rest of it. The rest of it amends the chapter and law related either it amends the chapter law related to photovolta water supply and wastewater system permits or it amends the ANR permit fee section. Mhmm. So to two statutory provisions. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was zooming out for something, but just to be clear, thing that we are, aside from the partial delegation, with the general permit, the thing that we're facing there is that they might have had authority to adopt a general permit for municipal, affordable water supplies, water and wastewater, but not for general, what's the right phrase, like septic systems?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, yes, right. So they do have general and permanent authority for indirect discharge. Oh, indirect discharge. 10 That's the BSA Chapter 47. There's no specific general permanent authority in this chapter. You are directing them to adopt a general permit as the method of providing for administrative efficiency for permitting connections, And you are also specifically giving them general permit authority for other permits underneath the structure. So there won't be an argument that they whether or not they have general permit authority or not.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: They have it. They have. That will clarify that they have the authority and we're telling it. Okay. Super. Questions about this? It seems like we're getting closer with this. There was some discussion about whether or not we should require them to figure out a definition for capacity. That's something I think we can talk more about, but I would love to start thinking about winding up this bill.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Directed to them to adopt the manual requires them to determine or define what is adequate capacity. So it will be in the manual on this draft. If you want it in another way, I really think that's the discussion.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Did we call that out specifically in this draft that the manual shall include? Yeah. Okay, I think I missed that. Okay, great. So as long as that is in there, so they will be coming up with a definition of

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It says on page four, line nineteen, twenty going up to page five, the manual shall include standards for determining or defining the capacity of the public water system, etcetera.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Okay. There's still a couple of items in here that think are worth discussing. The fees, we have two categories.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Whether or not they should have individual permanent authority for certain convention. Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Perhaps we can either have a discussion or get some further testimony on that, and I think we're good to go with that.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I guess I wanted to make it a little more, because it's still not in my environment, but mental runs around all the other sections and what that actually translates to. I just wanna make sure that I know all the sign up. Mhmm. So some key examples of what we're also giving general affirmative authority to include. I've been thinking about connections and now it's well, I just wanna make sure I know what we're doing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep. I think that's fair. Perhaps we can have Mr. Rutland in sometime. Happy be next Tuesday. Tuesday. Oh, Tuesday. Is this something that you could address at that point? That would be very helpful. If you have any thoughts on these other couple of questions that we've raised about fees and then complex permitting situations. Fabulous. Thank you so much. Very grateful. Okay, so we are going move on to a new bill, S two forty seven, which is a bill about, largely speaking, it's about plastics. I think of this bill as having three different parts. You can hang out. That's fine. We're just walking through this bill so they will take testimony on it later on. But generally speaking, the three different parts. The first part is about the use, I would frame it as the use of plastic material as feedstock into hydrolysis type processes. People might call this chemical recycling of plastics. You might also hear it called advanced recycling. That's another phrase for just from my perspective, on the one hand, think pyrolysis, that might be useful for me to just say a little bit about that. My understanding, anyway, pyrolysis is is bringing material up to a very, very high temperature in the absence of oxygen, and so as a result, it starts to break down. One of the concerns is that as it breaks down, it gasifies, you can get some really exotic chemicals coming out of that process? Is that something that we want in Vermont? Do we want to be putting these kind of chemicals out into the world, especially as they might break down in a variety of different ways? We can take some testimony on that, but is roughly speaking, my understanding. This bill would prohibit the building of chemical recycling processes with plastic as the feedstock in Vermont. So that's part one, or the first chunk in my head. The second, it's about there's a type of plastic, DEHP, that is sometimes used in the plastics in certain kinds of medical devices, so IV bags, that kind of thing. Then as they age, they break down and the plastics end up leaching into material, basically getting into people's bodies, which is not great, and even more largely speaking, as they get thrown out and leaching into the environment. You end up with this plastic breaking down into microplastics into the environment. Again, not great. And as I understand it, there's some sufficient alternatives so that we think we need to use this. If there's a sufficient alternative, then let's not depend on a material that is doing this kind of harm. And then the third part of this is about prohibiting microbeads, or microplastics, we can have that conversation, microbeads, microplastics. Having that kind of plastic in personal care products and wanting to, again, as much as we can, get microplastics out of the environment, like prevent it from getting into the environment in the first place, prevent it coming into our ecosystem, largely speaking. So, that is part of the idea there. I mean, Part of the issue with all of this is that we know that microplastics in general break down into very small parts, especially as they age, and then they're very hard to get rid of after that, and they become sort of ubiquitous in the environment, and that's something I think we would all like to avoid. I think we've all heard the stories about the amount of plastic that we end up consuming that ends up in our brains, that ends up in the different organs. Again, if we can prevent that from happening- Doctor. Exactly. How do we reduce the input of microplastics into the environment? Having said all that, I'm going walk you through this bill, the legislative council. Thank you. I will turn it over to you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, again, it's Mike McGrath, legislative council. I think the chair just did a good job of defining the three components of the spill. First is about chemical conversion technology and what may be about, or second is about the use of that Valate DEHBs in medical devices and medical containers. And the third is about use of plastic microbeads and personal care products and feed products. I do have a couple of questions for you for this bill as we go along, and I'll point them out for you. I think they're just really largely questions about enforcement and how you want to enforce the second and third components of the bill. So beginning with the first component of the page into section one, This is about the use of plastic and certain types of technologies that can be used either to create other types of chemicals or can be used for fueling. Generally, the burning waste syndrome is This isn't considered, this type of technology isn't necessarily considering the burning waste because the component, the input, the feedstock is not being discarded, it's being used for something else. And what you're proposing here is to prohibit those types of feedstock inputs, etcetera, uses because of the potential harm that they may cause. So the big definition that's relevant is what is chemical conversion technology? It's using plastic inputs as a fuel or fuel substitute for the general use of gas in energy production, or it's used in the following processes: gasification, that's conversion of biomass or inputs to gas, hydrolysis, the chair just described what that is. Solvolysis is using chemical solvents to get down the input for its intended purpose. Hydrolysis is the use of hydrogen for the chemical breakdown. Methanolysis is the use of methanol for breakdown, glycologists is using the breakdown of glucose, enzymatic breakdown is protein catalyst used for the breakdown in solvent based purification is the selective solvent or dissolution of the input. Combustion is tumitive, and then any other process used to transform plastic or plastic derived materials. Monomers waxes, deeper than steam size, reboiled diesel, gasoline, or. The facilities, there's a if you're going to be using these inputs, generally, ANR has to permit that facility, and that is what that definition facility is. It's one operated for the purpose of reporting facility, year otherwise engaging in peripheral version. Plastic is the general definition we use for plastics and embedded material made from the chemotors through a chemical reaction to create a polymer chain that can be molded or extruded at IV in various forms that retain it in fine shapes, etcetera. Recycling, you might not need the term recycling here unless you're gonna add something later on. Going to point that out. So then you get the prohibition, page three, lines thirteen and fourteen, person shall not use or operate chemical conversion technologies since safe. So all of those processes using plastic as a plastic input, they would be prohibited. That's So why that definition of chemical conversion technologies is integral to this component of the bill because those are the things that will be prohibited. And then a person shall not build or construct or operate a facility in the state that uses chemical conversion technology. So even if ANR has permitted one of those facilities, that facility no longer can operate. And the prohibition and the subsection applies to the modification modification or conversion of any existing certified solid waste facility in the state into a facility that uses a chemical conversion technology. So you can use a solid waste facility that's processing and then convert it into chemical conversion facility. Now, this is where I think recycling comes in. I think this is where you make a decision. Are you banning chemical conversion technologies for recycling? The term recycling is not used, honestly, in this component, and will it include recycling or does it not include recycling? Recycling? I think you wanna probably talk to the advocates or the agency about that and if you wanna be clear if recycling is something that is allowed to use these technologies or is also prohibited from using this technology?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thanks for flagging that. You can ask that question. And

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: then the state shall not provide grants, subsidies, etcetera, other financial or incentives to support development of facilities that use chemical conversion technologies or programs focused on chemical conversion technologies. Now that is a prohibition, You don't see any violations. You don't see any penalties. You don't see any appeal. And that's because this is entitled 10 in the solid waste chapter. Solid waste chapter is enforceable under ANR's general enforcement authority. It's appealable under ANR's general appeals authority. You don't need to reference any of that. The agency has the ability to set default penalties under that chapter. So that's why enforceability is in reference. It's not that it's not there. Just inherent in the program itself. Moving on into the bill, this is going to ban that type of phthalate, the DEHP, the diethylhexyl phthalate from use in medical devices and medical solution containers and medical tubing. So you will see what intentionally added DEHP is, something that the manufacturer additive and intravenous or other specified medical solution container or medical tubing product, and that has a functional or technical effect in the product. Medical solution container is things that are used at house medicine, food or nutrition therapy, administered innervate meniously or through the mouth, etcetera. Medical tubing is tubing used to administer fluids, medication, etcetera. It includes IV tubing for I'm not gonna say this right. Parenteral nutrition, and that's that's nutrition that that without the use of the digestive system, so intravenously, and it also includes it for enteral nutrition, and that uses the digestive system, feeding tubes, nose feeding tubes, etcetera. And it involves some food respiratory, and nasal cannulas, liver and oxygen. But it's this is a question. Is it it says just to an infant or a child. Is it just to an infant or a child? Should it just be for everyone? I'm I'm not sure. So that's a question for you. Teenagers excluded. They can just maybe maybe they

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That that's that's fair point. So page five forty five. But before we go, you were you were referencing line 18. Is that right?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: No. It it would for the for the canals for the infant or the child. That's page five one one two.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Because I Mhmm. So Oh, I see. Because that there's also page four

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: But that says adult child or infant adult child or infant, but then the canolas is just an infant or a child.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: As I'm just reading, like, like, reading this again now, it's occurring to me that, like, that feels like it's covering everyone. We have to say everyone. Right. And then for H5 line two, should it be everyone?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: There's a definition of unintentionally added to EVHP intravenous. It's when the valley gets into the medical solution container or medical tubing when it's not and potentially added for that functional or technical effect, you're going to have to eventually have de minimis byproduct that winds up in these products. And then beginning January, no person shall manufacture, sell, or distribute in commerce in Vermont medical solution made with intentionally added EDV. And then beginning 01/01/2035, the person shall manufacture cell or distribute in comprehensive amounts out of the tuning means intentionally added DEHP. And if no person replaces DEHP prohibited in a product under the section with other work of valence, and a medical solution container and tubing product shall not have unintentionally added DEHP present in a quantity at or above 21% the week. So there is some byproduct that's allowed, but not more than 21% by the week. And then there are exemptions on page six, human blood collection and storage bags are exempt, uracists and cell therapy, blood kits, and bags, including interval tubing are also exempt.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And before we move on, this section here, starting on page five where line eight, so no one shall distribute in commerce this medical solution container made with DHP. Then the next part, no one shall manufacture, sell, distribute in commerce from tubing, but essentially added DHP. Can you describe the difference between b and c?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So d is for that that type of product that's a medical solution container. Okay. It's just not c is for the medical tubing. So you have two different effective dates for the two two different products. It is duplicative. I probably could have done it in a way where, like, the language could have been combined.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure. Well and the other thing I I just wanna make sure, so that this is this is I'm thinking about the the plastic bag ban and how we allow people to, like, use the stock that they have. Oh, sure.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: This doesn't have an inventory exception, but the other alternative to inventory exceptions are are long run up effective dates. I mean, you have a long

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: run up

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: effective date here. Right. So they can plan for it then. Okay. But that's that's a very good one.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Speaking aloud, I think we're going to move on. Thank you.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. But this is where the enforcement comes in. Right? So like that first section of conversion, which is in ANR's authority, this is in the Department of Health's authority, and the Department of Health has default penalties too. They're 50 to $100 as a default penalty. What other sections in this chapter do is this provides the ability or a person or the attorney general to bring in an enforcement action as a consumer fraud violation, and then for an an injured person to bring their own private private equity. So for example, the tanning facilities prohibition, no, no, let me use another one. The bisphenol a one says a violation of the section shall be deemed a violation of the Consumer Protection Act. The attorney general has the same authority to make rules, conduct civil investigations, bring civil actions, and private parties have the same rights and remedies as provided under 96 after 63, which is where the private action is. Do you want that type of authority here, or do you wanna rely on the Department of Health general penalty, or do you wanna create your own analysis specific to these ground issues? I think

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I think the answer is yes. Then we want the floor to Okay. And and that, of course, depends on the policy. We're hear from those. It's actually working a lot. But assuming it is, then if we're gonna do it, it has to mean something. Okay? Mhmm.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on into the third component of the bill, which also has that same question about enforcement. I'm not going to bring that enforcement issue up again. If you want to enforce this as consumer products violation, you want to probably apply it to section fifteen fifteen as well. And so this section prohibits the use of certain products or prohibits the sale of certain products containing plastic microbeads, and you will see all of the kind of components of the main definitions, there's air care product, automotive product, chemically formulated consumer product, and designated cleaning product, and general cleaning product. So I'm going to skip over them for the purpose of time.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Well,

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: basically, it's when there's a facet microbe that is included in these products. I do want to point out on page eight the definition of personal care product. It's an article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, sprayed on, introduced to or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof, or cleansing, beautifying, promoting, attractiveness, etc. I've pointed that out because there's already a federal law, it's called the MicroBeat Free Waters Act of 2015 that prohibits certain rinse offs personal care products from having best microbeads in them. And that law has a limited preemption clause in it. It says no state or voter mark of a division of a state, may directly or indirectly establish under any authority or continuing in effect restrictions with respect to the manufacturer introduction or delivery for introduction and the interstate commerce rinse off cosmetics, continue to best the plant for dealers. Cosmetics are personal care products. Soap, most soap that you use is a personal care product. Most of you never ever use soap. The soap is basically just lard and that's how and and some why. That's basically how the FDA defines soap. Most of us don't use soap, most of us are using a personal care product that's technically a cosmetic.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just imagining saying that on the floor to a bunch of competitors.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, don't consider your own.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But you all know. We all sit and float together. How I asked the question about hiring, sorry. If the federal law grants state law in this area, it only grants it for soap or does it grant it for personal care products?

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: It preempts it for anything that's rinsed off personal care products. But I think you have a really easy way to deal with that. You just add a provision in here that says something along the lines that these requirements don't apply to the products that are preempted or these requirements shall be interpreted to apply the same requirements for under federal law. And, you know, you just say we're going to comply with the preemption clause in the Rinse Off Products Act. And you then still get to regulate it, but you would have to manage those products in compliance with the because you're gonna get advocates that are gonna come in here and tell you that this bill is preemptive, and I wanna tell you that there's a way that you can get around that, and that's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And you will help us do it. Do. Yeah. Okay. Important information.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So we're on page eight, line 13 through 19, beginning 01/01/2029, no person shall sell, offer for sale, distribute, or offer for promotional purposes in the state of personal care product containing masks, microbeads that are used as an abrasive clean, exfoliator polish, and a rinse off or non rinse off product containing plastic microbeads that used as an abrasive clean, exfoliator polish. The act takes effect on 07/01/2027, but there are effective dates built into the provisions of the matter.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. More to come on this bill, but we are otherwise done with this history for today, and we will come back to this another time. Lots to talk about in here. Any thoughts before we speak No, was

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: really important. Thanks for putting in. I think if you're looking at us to do it, test all of the what we need to make sure we're actively open and so you start there. Okay. Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I agree.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Have good weekend.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, you do. Thanks, Michael. Okay. So with that, I think we are ready to move on. So this is Senate of Natural Resources and Energy coming back from a break and we are joined by Senator Mattis. Welcome. You got a bill S299. Yes. And it's going to be a day.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: It is.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, take it away.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Yeah, so I, for the record, Senator Chris Matto District, had some folks in my area reach out about land posting and how every year they own land and some bigger tracks that they recreate on and whatnot. And going around every single year, to write down the vape to make it be effective for the following year, can be challenging, especially for older Vermonters that are around the area, some of these folks that reach out to me will help out their neighbors and do that same sort of thing. But there was an incident where a couple of the signs came down bumping up against the edge of that ear, and it was during the hunting season and they ran into poaching issues. So being able to, this bill wouldn't change anything, like if the signs are gone, they have to be maintained anyway, but just extending that timeline out five years so they don't have to walk up to every single sign, change the date, update the date, but they still have to maintain them. So they have to make their rounds quite frequently, but they don't have to walk all the way up to that tree or post and write down the date to make it be in effect. And then another piece is just at the time of exchanging of property, have to disclose that your land is posted just so that if the next person is buying them, I know they'd have to register, but just so if the next person's buying the signs aren't standing up, if they don't want them up and that they know or if they don't know, I would feel they would know because they're over 400 feet, but if it's an out of state buyer, they may or may not know. So just having that knowledge there, and if you know, the next person doesn't want to have it be posted, they know right out front. So that's just kind of the basis of the bill. I know there's been a lot more about posting land this year than I was ever expecting. I put this bill request in, but that's kind of the thought process I have with the constituents in my area.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super cool. Thank you so much. Any questions? Back's little Wait, have to go ahead and question. I have ask you I didn't like to hear company, so I might give it The a little disclosure, is this a disclosure in the real estate transaction? Yeah. When you're closing on a house, have to disclose, or do you put it in So the it's you put it up for sale or when you're closing, which is?

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Either or, so just, you know, in real estate right now, a lot of times there'll be a seller property information report. The realtors put out a, actually of seven pages of questions about your property. I did envision a little box on there that says,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is your

[Senator Chris Mattos]: land posted. Got it, okay. Keep in mind those don't go along with every transaction. My experience is being a realtor, if somebody's never lived on the property, I don't have them do a seller's property information report because it can be held liable for whatever's on there. Due to that nature, there's a lot of don't knows, if you truly don't know something on one of those disclosures, you shouldn't guess yes or no. But somewhere along the way in the contract, it should be disclosed. I mean, discloses on levies paying until before 1978. That is my thought process on that. Got it. Okay. Thanks. Question?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Is there a possibility that ironically a back buyer because you're actually putting in the minds of an out of state buyer and posting this about they're all saying nothing about posting, but hope it doesn't occur to them.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: I always would rather disclose more than not.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So It's actually not posted anymore if they buy it because that your sign, they're no longer valid.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Right. But if the signs are still up, people are still gonna say,

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: you know.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Yeah. Me personally, I was brought up if I see a posted sign, I don't care about what the date says or if it's signed or whatever. I understand the intention of that land owner to not go on the property. It was also instilled in my parents to go on somebody else's property without asking for permission. I found out that the hard way from my father when I went across somebody else's lawn. But yeah, that's kind of my thought process there. Like, if somebody wanted to, if they didn't know there's posted signs out there, be able to go out there and retrieve those.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Question?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I know a lot of it has to do with the material that the poster is made of.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Some of the paper, some of the plastic. Yeah. But even when you take a plastic poster using double ink, Two years, and the date is gone. So typically, five years, you know, if I've had my land posted, then it wasn't an issue. I'd probably go out and post it. And you know, refresh the posters. So

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Yeah, in my travels, I've seen land posting signs, they'll print it, their information, put that on the land posting, and then we'll actually, not shrink-wrap,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but- Laminate.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Laminate, thank you. Laminate is fine to try and do that.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But that's- That's a

[Senator Chris Mattos]: tricky one. That's just a little bit. Okay,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: super, thank you so much. Great, and we will invite legislative council up to Julius, welcome. And I think this is your first time in this committee, if I'm not mistaken.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is my first time meeting Senator Mattis. My interaction with many of you so far has just been virtual. It's nice to see you in person.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And tell us your name again.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My name is Bradley Shulman, Office of Legislative Housing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Should we introduce ourselves? Sure, let's introduce ourselves. Bradley, it's nice to meet you. I'm so very Ruth Hardy.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nice to

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: meet you.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Meet you. Nice Nice

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: to meet you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Anne Watson.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So all of our top room, I'm Scott Beck. Nice

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to see you again. Okay, so I have the bill in front of me and it looks like it's preference of the committee to look at the bills here, so I'm to put it up on the screen unless there's a request to do that. And so the purpose of Senate Bill two ninety nine is to amend the requirements for posting of land against hunting, fishing, and to change the posting requirement from annually to once every five years. This bill also require that the seller disclose that the property is posted at the time of transfer. So let me give you some background on the legal issue here. So hosting of land in the Vermont constitution, hunters have the right to hunt on property, to take liberty in seasonal times to hunt and follow on the lands held lands that are not enclosed. On And so what that means is that hunters can hunt on lands in the state of Vermont unless that private property is enclosed. And so by statutes, what the state has done is define what enclosing the property actually exceeds. And so what enclosing actually means as a matter of law is defined in 10 BSA 5,201, which is the language here. I will also note as some more background that some clerks have raised this as an issue because the Department of Fish and Wildlife has indicated that posting annually means posting once every calendar year. So if you post on November 1, your posting will expire two months later on January 1. You'll have to go out and host again. And this is to my knowledge, and I've looked on the Department of Fish and Wildlife's website, the Secretary of State's website, to my knowledge that this is not a formal rule yet, but it is a directive that clerks are getting from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And so this might be a proposal that would be pending through the rule making process, but to my understanding as I've seen it so far, it is not a formal rule, but it is information that the clerks oversee. So this bill would change that and let's go over the length of the bill to see how it comes up with a solution here. So the first page we're down on line sixteen and seventeen, and owners have the right to post their land. The next page, and owners can post their land against shooting, trapping, or taking a game, fishing or taking a fish, and then or all three or a combination thereof, fishing, hunting, trapping, or taking a game. Property owners can prohibit or permit those activities, they can also post by permission only so to permit those activities as well. As Senator Matos explained that the notices must be legible and maintained at all times of the year, but this is where we're making a change. They shall be dated every five years or after a change in land ownership. So this is line thirteen and fourteen on page two. Line 16 of section C on page two, this changes the posting requirement from annually to every five years in the town clerk's office, requiring that the posting be recorded in the town clerk's office every five years. And then we add some clarifying language saying the posting shall be valid and enforceable for five years after the date the posting is recorded. And so it makes the reporting dates the operative dates to determine when the five years runs as opposed to in the statute as it is written, it just says annually, which could be up for interpretation of whether that means a calendar year or three sixty five days after your approval. So there's some ambiguity in the statutes and this line in lines eighteen and nineteen is meant to make it clear that the operative date is the date of report.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so can I ask? Yes, so just if I reported my land posting on 09/15/2025, then as long as I maintain the signs, it would be posted until 09/15/2013.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: then I would have to do it again.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's correct. The reporting would have to be done.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Okay.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And just to be clear, because legibility is important and notice is important for hunters, it isn't that the requirement to maintain the posting to make it legible is throughout that binders.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, you can't read it, you don't know what it means.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly, exactly.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I want to come back to this question, this is maybe too detail oriented, it's making me wonder about, if we start on September 15, does it go to September 15 inclusive of that day or does it go to midnight of September 14?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think typically how many days it would go until you're covered on 11:59 on September 14 and at midnight on September 15, are not covered. And so you're happy that you're posting it essentially on the fourteenth.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, I just wanted to be clear about that. So that September 15 of the following five years later, you're not covered if you haven't renewed it?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That should be correct, yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, all right, thank you.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the idea is to also give landowners flexibility of when would be convenient for them to post, right? Because when you do have to report, you have to put the new date on according to Department of Fish and Wildlife regulations. And so you would have to replace all of your postings with the new date at that time. And so if you did it in September when it's warm, you're not necessarily having to go out and truck with the snow. And so it gives property owners that flexibility and that was the goal of the satchet here, or excuse me, the goal of the proposed amendment or proposed change to the satchet here. Any more questions on the posting of these, can move on to the property transfer piece.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Don't know if you know this smart money issue, but the $5 fee, do you know how long that's been in statute? Like when was the last time anyone looked at that?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It has not been updated in at least since 2013.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, not the Bongside,

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but I actually don't know any, I suspect it's been much, much, much longer than that. And so that I would have looking at.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Tom Clark's, Madam it's late. Just for inflation, it's $500 Exactly. 1963.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so the disclosure of information and posting of land, Vermont, just some background here, Vermont, many states have maybe a standard form by statutes of real estate disclosures that haven't happened. Vermont doesn't necessarily, it does not have standard form by law requiring certain disclosures, but it does have certain disclosures requirements in the law. Senator Matto said, lead paint when the building is older than 1978. So there isn't a particular form that we would be amending there, it's just we would be adding to a statute or adding to certain disclosures and this would be one of them. So we would add a new section in the statute requiring that prior to or as part of a contract for convenience of real property, the seller shall notify the buyer whether the property is supposedly pursuant to 10 BSA section five thousand two and one. So it's a requirement as the contract or prior to the contract of sale of some kind of notification. And then we added this section because it is in the sub chapter in which this proposed edition lives, its marketability of title. And so we added here that non compliance with the requirements of the section should not affect the marketability of the title of the property. And just add that piece in there, so it is required disclosure, but wouldn't necessarily the type of marketability of the title that disclosures on May. And the effective date of this bill would be 07/01/2026 as proposed here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, yes. I noticed there's

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: no prohibition against trespassing in United Title 10. Is there another statute that covers just regular policy against trespassing?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, yeah there is and it's 13 ESA 3,705. That's an environmental statute for trespass. And the landowner is required to either give actual notice to say, don't trespass or post no trespassing signs. Those signs are less particularized to hunting, fishing or traffic. And the key piece with that is that the difference here is that an individual has a constitutional right to hunt in Vermont on someone else's private property unless the private property is closed. And so the trespass, the no trespass sign in and of itself arguably does not prohibit someone from hunting on someone else's life because of that constitutional right to hunt. And so enclosing of properties is a particularized activity and that's why it's its own section of Department of Fish and Wildlife statue.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So is Fish and Wildlife required to respond if somebody is trespassing on the property?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Feasibly they would, feasibly someone would have to report or investigate a violation of this trespass or urn. How that is taken care of whether Fish and Wildlife contrasts with local law enforcement or whether it's their own wardens who go out to do the enforcing, think would be a great question for the department to testify about those resources that they do to enforce these non trespiracy babies. Prohibition on concert.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So they require the post every year too against trespassing?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The common law events? I know. No.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: They're the fireman. If they're posted, do they have to register with Donald Bullard? I'm just against trust.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just because there is no requirement in that statute to register the trespass only with the clerk. And so the the clerk registration is unique to this piece.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So if if I'm a property owner and my property is posted against trespassing, like call a game warden, does he have to respond to because it doesn't have to do with hunting, fishing or traveling?

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, trespass that would be a criminal statute and so that would most likely fall onto the responsibility of local law enforcement to enforce the trespass. So the no trespass generally is a criminal statute in 13 BSA 3705, this is a civil statute in 10 BSA.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: So punishable as a misdemeanor or? Is

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: punchable as a, I'm not sure if it's a misdemeanor or a felony, almost certainly not a felony, but it's punchable by a $500 fine or imprisonment of up to three months, but not both.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Good, thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super not to miss back the bad hearings judiciary meeting.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is a broader, a much broader issue.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this piece deals with the constitutional issue, the constitutional right in chapter two, section 67, where it gives Congress the right to hunt on private property and it gives Landover's the right to enclose that property and so this statute kind of puts that provision under cost of goods into effect.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that will leave you with the point but if I'm trespassing and I just happen to be hunting and fishing, still trespassing.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that is an interesting issue that a landlord might have to litigate and because if something is posted against trespass you feasibly could contact local law enforcement And if the individual who is trespassing asserts, I'm not trespassing, I actually have the constitutional rights to hunt and fish here, and I don't see that the land is enclosed in accordance to the law, that could be a legal issue that is litigated in the courts. And I will explain to the committee, this is probably way too in the weeds, but I'm a-

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, but this is interesting. Found

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it interesting. So there is a Supreme of Vermont Supreme Court case that deals with the statute in a footnote, so it's data, it is not binding precedent, but the issue in that case was whether it did not concern hosting land against hunting, concerned hosting of land to to make it private property, right? To prevent police officers from entering without warrants. So this is bracket that he saw. So it did not concern hunting more broadly, but one of the issues was that race in the case was that, okay, so this property is not posted against trespass excuse me, against haunting, fishing and trapping pursuant to this statute. And so it should be the case that police officers can come into the land without a warrant and the Supreme Court in the footnote said, that's the wrong issue. We're not even looking at that. One is open fields, constitutional rights of search and seizures, this doesn't touch that. But in the footnote, they said that, okay, well, just because the landowner didn't comply with the statute doesn't mean that the land is not enclosed pursuant to their constitutional rights to enclose the property. And so essentially what the Supreme Court is saying is just because you don't record or just because you don't post doesn't necessarily mean that you have not effectively enclosed your land against haunting. And so that's interesting. It's an interesting recall. And so Senator Williams, when you bring up that issue, if there's a no trespassing sign, but someone says they're indenting for haunting, I think that that would be a meeting issue for the Supreme Court to take up and it would be a big question mark on how they would decide that.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think more than that is that a lot of people, when they post against no trespassing, they do it on the roadside and they don't do the backside of the property. So if a 100 houses come in on their property, they can be arrested for cited for trespassing. They didn't even know what's supposed to be.

[Bradley Shulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this statute does, the statute as it is right now does require notices prohibiting taking a hand shall be erected upon or near the boundaries of the lands and effective notices at each corner and not over 400 feet apart along the boundaries thereof. And so if they just post on one boundary but maybe not the others, it might not be effective for enclosing. And those are sticky individual issues that might lead to litigation or might lead to a property owner not being able to enforce what they thought that they could enforce, but the statute does anticipate in closing perhaps or it does have been using with notices throughout the virus.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Great.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Also, I really enjoy your enthusiasm. Yeah. Dicta there that was seen on like, well, getting the weeds and getting, it's great. Very good. So thank you. Super. And so we're switching topics one more time. Make one more witness for show today.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah, my pleasure. So we're moving to Mr. Davidson from Summit Properties who was not able to join us the other day when we had our housing updates and who was able to join us today. So thank you so much for being here.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, good morning everybody. Yes, I realized I missed housing day in your committee and that this is the last piece of testimony on a Friday on the day that you didn't have the rest of the testimony. So I hope this can be open and maybe more question oriented than presentation oriented. But Jude, I don't know. I prepared a few slides that I didn't get sent in. Are you able am I able to share those?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Not unless you send them to me.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Okay. I didn't know if I was able to share them myself, but that's okay. I will send them to you right now.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You. Let me give you cohost.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Is that okay with everybody? We can Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. We're gonna give you that power. All set now.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Okay. Well, thank you. Well, I I'll do the the introduction for the record. Zeke Davison, Summit Properties. We're the one of the state's largest developers of affordable housing. We do maybe more true mixed income development than any other developer in the state, pairing affordable phases with market rate phases and workforce housing. We have been operating in Vermont since the 70s. We were one of the first low income housing tax credit developers in the state. We manage about 1,300 units. Most of those have some affordability restriction on them all over the state, Chittenden County, Addison County, St. Johnsbury, Rutland. And so we see a lot of the property management occupancy issues, but but we are active on the development side. I think, you know, when when Jude invited me, I think you were, you know, between Kathy Beyer and and Jonah. I don't know if you heard from Jonah on Wednesday, but looking for a perspective of a larger scale by Vermont standards developer and affordable housing developer. I've been in to testify for the last three sessions. And so forgive me if I forget what came through in the HOME Act and what was Act 181 and what was Act I don't know if it was 47 the year before that. But I think the thing that most of my testimony has revolved around over the last two or three years is a project we're doing in Middlebury because it's a large project. It's outside of Chittenden County, and that's sort of a bit of a unicorn for many decades in the state of Vermont. I will share this slide and walk you just through a little bit about that. And then I genuinely would prefer if this ends up being a little more question oriented. Is that working? Is this up?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. We can see it.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Okay. Great. So this was a little bit of Summit Properties. So on the left here is 94 units that we delivered in 2023 in South Burlington. That's Kennedy Drive in the background. 71 of these had a low income housing tax credit restriction on them, 23 were market rate. This at the time, I think still was the largest sort of one time delivery of affordable housing in the state of Vermont. On the right is a picture from the fall sometime, late summer, early fall of Stone Crop Meadows in Middlebury. Focus on that a little bit more in a second. This is a master planned community, new neighborhood construction in a designated zone, took true partnership from the town, the state, funding partners. And this again is a bit of a unicorn right now in the state of Vermont because of its size and being outside of Chitlin County. So this is a site plan. Again, we went through preliminary on two fifty homes. We went to final plat on 184 homes and we're under construction on the first 80. And what what I'll show you, if you could I don't know if you can see my cursor, but the stick built building in the background here is the Low Income Housing Tax Credit building. That'll be ready in May. At the time of this picture, this first town six townhome stick was occupied. Five of those were sold to people through the middle income home ownership program, formerly the missing middle program with VHFA. And then you see the foundations going in up along the front, and then there are two more going in here and here. Those are all modular construction with Huntington homes of in in East Montpelier, just around the corner from you all. Townhomes, most of which are being sold to the middle income homeownership program with VHFA. So the first 80 homes are really focused on the affordable and the mixed income component. What made this neighborhood work so well was the ARPA funding that came through three sessions ago as you all were discussing some changes to Act two fifty. There was a bit of a compromise in the moment, which was they knew they were you all commissioned some reports, and you knew you were going to be having a more robust HOME Act or Act 181 conversation about Act two fifty. And so it's three year exemptions for certain types of projects. We benefited from one of those. There used to be this for priority housing projects in designated areas. You're exempt from Act two fifty, but it used to have caps on the number of units based on the population of the town. So this project would have been capped at, I think at the time it was 50 or 75 units. But that one lifted that jurisdiction of Act two fifty for priority housing projects, regardless of size. That is what allowed us to bypass, not have Act two fifty jurisdiction, which we can talk a little bit about, was huge from a timing perspective, cost perspective. And as I know Kathy mentioned on Wednesday, it's really about the risk the risk of appeal. Allowed us to move forward. This is true smart growth. It's walkable to Downtown Middlebury, energy efficient. These are great homes. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit building is geothermal, heating and cooling. Everything else is all electric. You can see on the site, the site is ringed with wetlands and the 50 foot buffer here you see designated. We can talk about the governor's executive order if you guys are interested. I don't know if there's much legislative work on that right now, but we can talk about some of that. And again, this is sort of what these first 80 homes that were under construction on look like. 28, big a affordable rentals, 31 middle income homeownership, six more deeply affordable homeownership, and then a handful each from the homeownership and the rental of market rate units. I will pause as promised there only to say if I do want this to be question based. I have a couple of things that I've I've been talking about as we've sort of tried to summarize what the last two or three years have meant, but I wanna stop at least first see if anybody has any questions about the project or yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, we have a question, go ahead.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Did you go with those buildings?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Why did we go with the types of structures or the model? I couldn't

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: tell from the slide on the right.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: How tall are the buildings? Got

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: you. The multifamily building is three stories with a pitched roof. The townhomes and duplexes are all two stories with either a tuck under garage or a surface level garage.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And just so I understood, why did you not go higher?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well,

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: on the townhome structures, the amount of square footage we were shooting for both for the market and the construction method didn't need a third story. So for the for sale product, the honest answer on the low income housing tax credit building, the multifamily building, when you size those, the first and this gets wonky. But the first limitation you have is the number of affordable units you can put in one of those buildings. There's a max award size. We have a certain allocation of tax credits. VHFA and its QAP puts a certain max. No single project can get more than 30% of any year's allocations. When back into how many units that supports, it's gonna be a certain number of units, usually in the twenties. And then typically those product projects only have about 20% of them that are that are market rate units. So you sort of back into the number of units you need. We would not have been able to probably to support the absorption of more market rate rentals, which gets into another point I'd love to talk with you all about if you're interested. But we just wouldn't have been able to support absorption of that many units because we were sort of capped at the number of big a affordable units.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: What does that mean? The absorption, why couldn't you have done? Just I want to understand it. Could you not have done in that building another 20 units of market rate housing?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, and when I listened to some of your testimony, and I apologize, I can't remember who of you it was, wanted to talk a little bit about construction costs. The really short answer is, it costs more to build today than the market will support. And again, I've got some good visuals on that since you wanna go down this path, really wanna make sure that we talk about. The short answer is the tension always here is construction costs and incomes. And so it is so true that there are so many people that want housing and need housing and we need to grow. But we developers simply can't build homes at a price point those people that are looking for homes can afford. Which is why as a state, what we're building are subsidized, affordable homes and higher end homes. Because those homes that are getting built without subsidy are getting built to serve incomes that can afford what we can build today. Does that make sense?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. And just one more that

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'll say.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: If that's the case, why did you build any market rate?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: We were fairly a, philosophically, we have a commitment to making sure we're not packing affordable housing into certain buildings. Every time we build with big A subsidy, it is really important to us that there is a certain amount of mixed income nature into that. I think philosophically, it's important for affordable housing developers. I think it's important for the state. The QAP incentivizes it. And so we always try to incorporate as much of market rate housing into that as we possibly can. If we had put another floor that was all market rate, I don't think we would have gotten the rent we needed nor absorbed those quickly enough. I think we would have seen some vacancy. Right? When I say absorb, I mean rent them up really quickly or in a homeownership context, selling them. So, yeah, I don't think there was enough demand at the price point that we would have had to charge to support the cost of building another floor.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Thanks. That's helpful. I just wanted to really understand the market. Thanks.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I have a few questions. This is Ruth Hardy. First of all, thank you so much for all your work in Milkberry. A unique

[Senator Chris Mattos]: unicorn project.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Just to follow-up on Senator Bongartz's question, if the VHFA subsidy was essentially capping you at the number of units you could build, if you had had more money from them, would you have been able to build more or was there other reasons why you couldn't build more affordable housing?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: The only limiting factor to affordable housing probably in the country, but certainly in Vermont is scarcity of resources, is the amount of subsidy. Had a market study. When we did our market study on this, gosh, I wanna make sure I get these numbers right. We talking about bringing 35 units right to the market, 28 of

[Senator Chris Mattos]: those being big A affordable. And we had

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: a market study that said Addison County needed 1,500 new rental homes and like 11 or 1,200 of those needed to be at an AMI at an affordable rate that was below a certain point. And so we felt that was sort of disheartening and that what we were doing was suddenly seemed such like a drop in the bucket. But I think the point is when we talk about nobody can find a home to live in. Nobody can find a home to live in that costs less than $3,000 a month to rent. Yeah. Something that costs over $3,000 a month to rent, it's out there. Or if you want to custom build your own home, it's out there. But the the the the conversation about affordable housing is just we we there's just not enough money, especially in a post ARPA world to build the number of units that there's demand for.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, and I know that down the hall, they're trying to tackle that issue of how do we get more funding to subsidize affordable housing? So hopefully they'll have you in down there. But my other two questions was, one, I would like to hear your thoughts on the wetlands issue, because that is an issue that is percolating in various places. And then also one thing that we, in addition to all the housing we need, one type of housing that we really need is sort of specialized supportive housing. And I heard a rumor, and I don't know if this is true, that you were trying to work with some people who are looking at specific housing for people, like adults with disabilities or something like that, and I'm wondering if that has come through, and if it has, how did that happen?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: If it hasn't, what were the barriers to that?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, well let me, I'll come back to the share here, Go back to this picture and start with the wetlands piece. So I think I can see in the let me know when this comes up. Yeah. So again, this is the site. This is an aerial shot of the site of Stone Crop Meadows. It's somewhat This is at an angle, obviously, and this is the vertical. But you can sort of see this wetland line with the buffer. What you see in the background here, and again, can you see my cursor as I go over? Yeah. So this black line here is a silt fence. And that black line is installed at the 50 foot wetland buffer. And then what you see past the old hayfield is the wetland. So this is all delineated wetland all around. And this silk fence is your 50 foot buffer. And so that's sort of what a 50 foot buffer looks like in practice. This here is a stormwater pond. There will be a stormwater pond here, and there'll be a stormwater pond here, all inside of the wetland buffers. Essentially, what that does, the size of the buffer. So a couple of things. And I'm not an ecologist, and so I know that I'm not I'm giving you the developer's perspective. We need to build these stormwater ponds to release in one hundred year storm water into the wetland at no greater a pace than the unimproved lot does. And I think there are probably engineers that'll quibble with exactly how I said that. But the point is we can't make it so that water dumps into the wetland faster. The way we do that is we take all of the storm water that collects, you put them into catch basins and you pipe them into these storm water treatment ponds. And then those can collect it for a little while and then release it at a slower rate into the wetland. This site is classic Vermont, virgins clay that does not, once it's absorbed, it's running water and then there's ledge underneath. And so already the site condition was that it goes into this wetland really quickly. What happens is, we have to then build, and so here's that buffer line, that 50 foot buffer line. We have to design this site. This is a perfect site right up until that. If we had been able to go to a point that was halfway in between this, 25 feet, we would have been able to get more units on the site. We would have had to design bigger stormwater treatment because now we're going to have a little bit more impermeable surface. But again, that stormwater treatment is getting designed to not discharge water any faster to the wetland than it already is. And so I think when we talk about the trade offs between how

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: big of

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: a buffer we might want versus what the limitations are, and we think about not wanting to really focus development in our core centers, it's just that trade off understanding, if we'd had another 25 feet along what is I think, about half a mile worth of border here, four tenths of a mile, that would have been some developable acreage that we could have used to add units, add efficiency, and reduce cost to hit a lower price point on each of these and open it up to a bigger piece of the market. Now, that's not an ecological argument. That is just sort of as we think about why those matter, that's where that comes in.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Are you doing that, if you go back to the map that you just were at, the sort of spur that goes off and there's a circle to the upper right, is that happening, that part of the project?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: So what we have preliminary plat approval for is this part. In order to do this, we would need a wetland impact to cross the wetland right here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: And and this we sort of have been picking as a as you know, setting aside as an independent senior living project, larger building, you know, having the amenities. It's a part of what we do. So we are not to final plat on that. We have final plat approval on all of this.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got it.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: I don't know. I hope we get there. We'll need to talk about the wetland impact. But in conversations with the state wetland ecologists, being able to deliver 70 units of housing is worthwhile for the impact of the culvert that would be required here at the narrowest point of the wetland.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got it, okay. And what about the

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: thing? Other That's a great question. We've been talking with a group of families in Addison County that have children with intellectual and developmental disabilities. It is in some ways no easier and nut to crack than any other vulnerable population, like a low income population or homeless population, in that it is about how you operate and sustain the debt service and get built. And so it all comes back to cost. The design, even the services with CSAC, they're like, we can provide these services. We just can't be landowners and we don't have the money to build, own, and maintain. And so what can you as developer do? And it always comes back to, well, how are we going to finance this? And it comes back to scarcity of resources, it comes back to we just we just can't build at a price anymore that can support the type of vulnerable populations without a lot of subsidy or a lot of state support. And so it's the same quagmire that we not quagmire, but it's the same challenge that we end up in no matter what population we're trying to serve. Still talking to them. I hope there's a place on this site that we can put something together. But again, it's the same sort of troubleshooting on how it's financed and operated.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: A follow-up on that. Are the subsidies the same?

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Well, no. And as far as

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: so Okay, big step back. There is a huge industry of affordable housing. It's a federal program, Low Income Housing Tax Credit program. So you've got expertise in the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, makes affordable housing really easy. We've got VHCB, we've got VHFA, we've got DHCD. There's a lot of entities, money, energy, organization around how we build those There isn't the same attention to vulnerable populations like people with intellectual or developmental disabilities. I know VHFA and VHCB talk about whether some of their funding can be used towards those, the Vermont State Housing Authority can have vouchers that support those. But right now, there just isn't We're focused on low income and formerly homeless or currently homeless. We're not focused with them as a category of vulnerable populations that were actually So

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: there's not a similar, at the federal level, there's not the equivalent of LiTech or building?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: I'm sure there are programs, but certainly nothing to that level, right? And nothing we have expertise or knowledge in. But that's one of the benefits that those families are bringing, right? They're really doing that research and trying to understand that and bringing that to us. That's a piece of

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So to the extent we want to do this, road that Senator Hardy was going down is a road we need to really explore. We're gonna have to do a lot of it. We're gonna have to figure it out at the state level.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, that is my understanding. Don't even

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: know who's an expert And on

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: there have been a couple bills it in the last few years, studies and various things, but this is a

[Senator Chris Mattos]: huge issue for people around the state. I

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: prepared a couple of slides, not knowing exactly where your attention wanted to go or what I can do. Senator Bongartz, brought up sort of how, well, we kind of got to the point of how cost is driving, why aren't we building more affordable housing? I have a couple, we've been thinking for so much as we come in and testify over the last three years of how do we make this as simple and understandable as possible and really express it. Hopefully, I'll share a few more slides and that can be a conversation starter and stop me at any point if my attempt at simplicity is just leading to people glossing over before lunch on a Friday. I think as we're about to hit 11:00, I heard at one point the worst time to be sentenced by a judge is between eleven and noon because they're the cranes

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: before lunch.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: And so I know we're entering that 11:00 hour, especially on a Friday. And so, any point, is not interesting to you. Just tell me and ask me an irrelevant question, but

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it's all interesting. No worries about it.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: All right, good. It's interesting to me, but I don't want to take that for granted.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: So you guys have heard a lot

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: about we need 30,000 to 40,000 new homes. I assume that's not a new number. People have heard it's been out the last few years with DHCD and VHFAs, housing needs assessment, 41,000 is the number they say we need to hit our 2,030 demographic goals, economic development goals, vacancy rate for the housing that that's needed. And they do this dashboard that says we're on pace to build 12,000. And one of the reactions was what one of you said, think it is like, why aren't we building more affordable housing? Between Kathy and me and my team, we build 80 to 90% of the affordable housing in the state of Vermont every year. And there aren't enough developers and there's not enough resources to support those developers. We're probably on pace to build 1,200 units of affordable housing as a state in the next five years. And that's just because of scarce resources. The point here is we're not going to solve the crisis by building more big A subsidized affordable housing. This green here represents the rest of what we're on pace towards the 12,000. 11,000 of that or so is what the market is supporting, custom homes, higher end rentals, the stuff I talked about at the beginning that people can afford based on what it costs us to build it. We're builders, developers, not us, but developers around

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: the state are

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: catering to that clientele because that's the only people who can afford the product that can be built with today's construction costs, labor costs, land costs, whatever you wanna call it. So that really leaves us in yellow here, this 20 to 30 homes. We need to find a market solution for it. We need to figure out how homes can be built. What that ends up looking like in who can buy it. And this is where it gets a little wonky, but bear with me. Lighter green line is the number of households that make these incomes. The lighter green line is Chittenden County. The lower green line is Addison County. And I picked those two because we're working in Addison and Chittenden Counties, so we're most familiar with them. In 2020, we could build a home for $300,000 and that was affordable to people that make at some point between 75 and $100,000 but think about it as $100,000 and up. In 2025, that same home is costing us $525,000 to build and incomes just haven't accelerated at that same pace. And so you need to make 150 to 200, but probably more than $200,000 to afford it. And so the green on the right are the households that can afford new construction. And the households in yellow are the households that maybe could have five years ago and can't anymore. This is like the visual representation of when we make expense if we make homes expensive, who we exclude from the market.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll pause

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: if somebody has a question.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I do have a question. So I'll make sure that I'm understanding this graph.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So okay. The the the people in the in the yellow in between, this is the people who those are people who can no longer afford the same house.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that that's an accurate way to

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Yeah. And and this

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: is the peak of the bell curve of incomes. Right? This is a moderate income, median income to above, but a pool of home buyers that are the greatest sort of concentration of incomes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so we're really looking at the, like the curve in line is effectively like the number of, it's the number of households that earn that income.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, correct.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, okay, I think I'm digesting this now and so, okay. So it's basically, it's a picture of who can afford what overlaid onto the, effectively like a histogram of incomes.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah. And another way to look at it is this home that we could build for $5.25 in 2025. If you're right at this line, you can afford to buy it. If you're right at the line,

[Senator Chris Mattos]: you can't.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And this is for market rate housing?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, correct. Unsubsized. This is just now I'm pivoting away from anything with a big A affordable subsidy because that's such a small sliver of our overall need. Another way to look at it is to sort of put these two together. So with this red line from that first graph I showed up here, this was my sort of way to show you this DHC dashboard, which is affordable housing being built, higher end housing being built, the housing that's not being built because can't there's no market for it. Right? So you put those two together, and basically, this line is the same as this line. Right?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: This is the

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: the to the left of this line is the people that are not being served. Above this line is a representation of of not being served.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: And so what we think

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: about as developers is, okay, what can we build it for? And how many people are there that can buy that? And so we think of every policy decision you all make. We think of every change in incomes, every change in interest rates as essentially who's going to be able to afford this home. Like what finishings are we gonna have? Are we gonna have a back deck? What kind of parking is there gonna be? And so we think first about what do we think it's gonna cost and policy drives that, and then who can afford that. And so when we think about solutions to how do we create a market for this, we start to say like, okay, if you can make something that takes the cost of this home from $525,000 to $500,000 you're moving left on this line of the number of people that can afford it, and it opens up this amount of the market, the homes that we can build. And so now we as developers can build homes that this portion of the market can afford. And as you keep moving left, it sort of exponentially grows as you get to the higher part of this. And so, okay, what are the levers to go from $525,000 to unit to $450,000 a unit, because this is the population of Vermont that you start opening up to be able to afford a home, and then you'd be able to open up developers to build homes. That's the sort of like oversimplified underlying aspect. And so we start to say, okay, how can we build more cheaply? We're trying to do working with Huntington Homes to see what modular can save us. Modular is saving us about 6% on the cost of the home. You're not getting from $5.25 to 500, but starting to eke that way. And this is where it starts to be conversations about the stuff that we talk about there being political will for. If you can save costs in Act two fifty, if you can save costs, this goes back to the governor's, the other piece that's been controversial in the governor's executive order, is going from the 2020 RBES, the energy standard going from the 2024 to the 2020. A lot of builders have said that costs about 15 to $25,000 per unit. And so when you do that, essentially what you're doing is you're making a tighter home. You're making it more energy efficient, but you're moving this line to the right on who can afford it. And so there are some policy trade offs we start to make. The biggest thing, because we always come in and say, we are all for energy efficiency, we're all for the tightest envelope we can possibly build. But as soon as we make those changes overnight, we are just pricing out a certain portion. And then we get the argument back, yeah, but the long term savings of the energy efficiency is worthwhile. And it's like, yeah, but that doesn't get underwritten by a mortgage lender. So those buyers do get cut out. And so some of this is like if interest rates came down, you would immediately, the purchasing power of people at certain incomes would go up and you immediately have a greater market for homes and we could immediately build more homes. We don't control that. We really only control the policy decisions that we make as a state. And this is kind of what that looks like as those slide on cost. I'm going to pause. That is like my wonky developer perspective on supply demand, how we create a market for more homes here in Vermont.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, that's great. I think that's very interesting. I really appreciate the visual there. It's very helpful. Yes. Zeke, that's really helpful to see those visuals, I agree. And the oversimplification of it is helpful for us who are trying to absorb a ton of information every day. And I know you're in the business of more large scale development. That's kind of your MO, I think, right? Yeah, that's what you do. So I don't know if you'll know the answer to this, but is part of moving the line to the left doing, like refurbishing the housing stock that we have to make it more match what Vermonters need, does that help move the line to the left? You know, like the big farm houses making those four unit condos or whatever, or four unit apartments, or infill building of one or two houses in, places in our towns or something. Does that move the line to the left or not?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yes. There is like an all hands on deck. We need every solution. Some people say like, don't worry about ADUs because ADUs aren't gonna solve the issue. That's true. But like, no one thing is gonna solve the issue. So if we can convert four or five bedroom Victorians into two or three condos, you're adding to the housing stock without adding impermeable surface. The cost is still real. Sometimes the price per square foot to renovate an old building is no less expensive than the price per square foot to build new on a greenfield site. But that isn't to say one is better than the I mean, my whole point in all of this is it's a yes and moment. So if you start to look at it as what would be a more efficient use of scarce resources, that ends up being sort of a case by case basis. And it depends on the condition of that farmhouse. And that just becomes more of a nuanced conversation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Not

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: projects we do. You heard Kathy, I think, on Wednesday talk a little bit about why some of their costs are higher. Yes, dense infill in existing centers is more expensive. Brownfield remediation is more expensive. What we did in Middlebury was a hayfield, true greenfield development, walking distance to downtown. And that exists in a lot of towns. And I know that it's I mean, I'll say controversial. Everybody hates to see a hayfield go away, and I understand that. But we need to be Okay with trying to find the most efficient places within the parameters of our dense downtowns surrounded by countryside. And we just need to be as inclusive of that type of development as possible.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and the Hayfield that you built on was the perfect Hayfield to build on based on where it was. I mean, it's a completely logical. And I asked you last year, I think maybe about the sidewalks. I see the sidewalks are in, so yay.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah, yeah. No, the pedestrian connectivity is great. I think, I'm jumping around, so you can all rein me in anytime you want. But one of the big takeaways, and this is sort of what I was asked to originally talk about from the last three years worth of legislative changes on Act two fifty, as we enter this tier one A and B era, those were huge efforts. And my genuine concern, and this in no way diminishes the work, but my genuine concern is that we didn't go far enough to try to have the impact we really want to have. And I understand there's political will and there are a lot of interests at play. But from a developer's perspective, if I look at how that one B map is going to end up, how that one A map is going to end up, there aren't so many available parcels that have removed some of the jurisdictional and permitting challenges that we're gonna suddenly be able to go from 2,500 new dwellings a year to 8,000 new dwellings a year. It's good progress. And I'll echo Cathy in saying, really big wins that we have to celebrate. But we do have to collectively push our comfort zone if we're gonna try to tackle the demographic and economic development and housing crisis. What the response we gave was, it would be really nice to have more homes. The reaction wasn't, oh my God, we're in a housing crisis, here's our solution. And so I think I say that both to celebrate what we were able to accomplish, but also say there's more work to be done and hopefully there's continued political will to see the challenge.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The comment here, yes. So just thinking along those lines,

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: the reason I was asking about height a little while ago is, is it less expensive or more expensive or equal to build two five story buildings as opposed to one ten story building? Is up part of the answer here?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yes, and it depends on where and what that looks like. So the least expensive per square foot construction is probably a two or three story slab on grade, no elevator. Elevator adds a huge wrinkle because of the cost and the number of units you need to support. You can build with wood four stories. Once you hit five stories, you need to start building with steel. And that adds a ton of cost per floor. And so

[Senator Chris Mattos]: it doesn't really make sense

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: to build five and six stories with steel. Because once you make the switch to steel, you really need to get to that seventh or eighth story to start making it pay off. So it's, then you're gonna have an elevator once you get to three, four stories, no matter what. And so as we think of, and that's sort of such an interesting moment we're in in trying to figure this out, and I keep going back to my slide deck here. But As we think about this site, we're building out everything that's kind of in this right now. And we've got these structures permitted and this structure, which is a four story, 48 unit building permitted. But we're trying to figure out construction cost based on our understanding of what the market can afford right now. And so would these be good as a two story slab on grade walk up, no elevator, very simple surface parked? With the market be able to afford a home like that? And what would condos in a four story up to 50 unit building look like here? Since we have this through final plat and we're trying to bring as many units to the to Addison County as we possibly can. We're running all those numbers right now. Okay. Very good. And it's it's sort of a fun playground only because it's the same site, same infrastructure costs, it's permitted, and we can run it with as few variables as possible. So was a really long way, Senator Bongartz, to answer the question of, yeah, there's efficiency up. But once you need to do an elevator, you need to do enough floors and enough units to get that elevator. And once you go to five stories and start doing steel, you need to get enough stories to be able to pay off, to be able to make that change worthwhile.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So you you I mean, if you go four stories is one great point. And the next time, if you're gonna make any money, you gotta go eight or nine.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Yeah. And again, we've never done anything more than four.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: So there are developers that have, and they may gonna have better numbers on that. So I wouldn't wanna be record representing for the development community that eight or nine is necessary. But yeah. I mean, our our buildings in South Burlington doing this to you all toggling back and forth. But these are four story on a concrete podium over a parking garage wood construction. If we'd gone a fifth story on these, which the South Burlington market could have supported probably, We would have had to go to steel construction and it would have become

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: just

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It's five interesting to get some sense of the right points.

[Senator Chris Mattos]: Elevators are really hard.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Elevators. Elevators and steel.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Elevators and steel. Yeah. But yes, you know, going to five stories, there are only so many places. Elevators in any building end up being a big challenge. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that's interesting. Mean, I think you all as one of the a developer that does large buildings. If you're not doing steel, does anybody in the state do steel?

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Yeah. Mean, you see going up in Burlington, those are all steel framed buildings, stuff that, gosh, where would be, can I think of a five story steel building outside of Chittenden County? Yeah. Yeah, Obvious in the last five years, somebody's gonna correct me on that if anybody's listening. But no, what you see going up in Burlington, right? If you've been downtown. Yeah. See that steel frame, I think some of the stuff.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Interesting. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. This has been very interesting and helpful. So I really appreciate your testimony and to be continued.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: For any follow-up, whatever I can do to help.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right, thank you.

[Zeke Davison (Summit Properties)]: Appreciate you all, thanks.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right, any comments folks would like to make before we close for the day? Any comments on anything we've heard today? Okay. Okay, fair enough. Super continued.