Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're live. Yay. The theme of world is the center of Natural Resources Energy, and it is Wednesday, February 25. And we are starting with S224 continuing to have a community discussion, hoping to get through as much of this bill as we can closing it out. So working from person that comes from the survey. The table, and just as an FYI to the committee, did yesterday chat with folks in transportation about the DMV portion of this, and they're going to have a conversation about what they would like to do with that.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: And Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: The chair just expressed that it's basically the sooner we can get this done the better, which is also my sentiment. In any case, I think we're up. Well, maybe there's changes that you would like to, that you could walk us through on sections one through six. Otherwise, I think it's

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're IP edged.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Section seven that we can start in on. Right. But I think Todd, talking to you the changes that we made last time would be good. Sure. Yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So on page two in the definitions for use of waters, you wanted definitions of aquatic nuisance inspection station, boat watching unit, and decompondation service provider. So some of the language that was provided from different advocates kind of overlapped those definitions. I tried to make them distinguishable. So an aquatic nuisance inspection stations at or in proximity to an access to a lake or underwater, is staffed by volunteers, utilizes minimal space to operate portable equipment such as boat watching units, educates about aquatic use of species, and conducts inspection of vessels for aquatic use of species, and it removes the disposes of aquatic use of species down from the vessel. So that's volunteer, transportable or temporary equipment, education, inspection, removal. Boat washing unit is the portable equipment capable of heating the exterior with pressurized water but not hot water. So that's what an inspection station is going to use, but a decontamination service provider, note the definitions from around the country, The site, at, or in proximity to an access to a lake or other water, owned or operated by a private entity or state. So it's not volunteers, private entity or the state. It's designed to remove or prevent the spread of aquatic nuisance species through these high pressure and hot water over 140 degrees Fahrenheit. So it's going to have to have access to hot water and it's located in a way to collect runoff or to prevent runoff from surface waters for the weather.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You give us question about that? The app or in proximity to if it was in a, like, boat dealers, those aren't always right in your league.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good point. Or proximity to an access to a lake or water or at a vessel service station or something like that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm just thinking there's I don't know, there's a boat dealer, think in Ferris Bird that maybe could be considered near the lake, but it's several miles from the lake, I don't know. And you're thinking just specifically for the definition of the detonation service provider, the boat washing. Yeah, the boat washing usually is right, like in the parking lot or someplace near the lake, but the decon stations, which are basically like, yeah, car washes more of a boat walk, you know, they're, they're bigger. I think I was thinking the aquatic nuisance is also says in proximity, but that's like, it's either in the parking lot or just outside. It's near.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I said proximity because there was testimony that they're not necessarily in the access area. They could be up the road that is not owned by the acts by the department and located there. Right. So then it's you have to account for that as well. Right. So

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: so potentially adding to 23 Right.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To to proximity to an access to a lake or water adder in proximity or at, I would just say, a private business that conducts deconamination services, so it could

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Work. Yeah. I think that. Mhmm.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, do you see everything? Because they wanna make sure they have a catchment area. You know? Know has a d decon apparatus.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Because that's the last subdivision here. I I put in, it has to be located in a way to clean runoff or to prevent runoff to surface waters.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: So that's very flexible.

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: we're just gonna sort of

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: put all the to the one side on line five.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I think I'm gonna have to rework it a little bit because because I just need this reloaded. I have to look at it and sit it out and, you know, I can't get it. You know? That's good. Maybe Trap on. On. Okay. So the next change is on PG. This is in that definition of in '23, the motor vehicles, you wanted to cross reference back to the definition in 1422, which you just looked at. It was in that same section you just looked at. Mhmm. Great. And and then next section, next page, page 11. And this is a submission from DMV to ANR of the information about wakeful designation and length home length designation. It it didn't say annually before. It's now it says annually. And then that that really brings you to page 12. And this you didn't actually review in your last walkthrough because you had had requested it, like, two walkthrough's ago, and it was the public outreach regarding wake up use of decontamination. ANR and DMV provide education and outreach to the public regarding the requirements of the four gs cycle beam, that a wake coach only operate on the lake office for wake coach use and shall only operate if the lake is designated on the wake coach current registrations. Approach from approved by the owner or operator of wake up to decontamination at an area of internal service provider. So we have patient and outreach, AMR post signage regarding the requirements for operation of at all state fishing access areas and other than public access and lakes and problems. A and R general approved a notification regarding the requirements for operation of the Bay Coast and Company's fishing license applications in the agency website or in the Department of Fish and Wildlife Materials. And then BUV showed notification regarding requirements for operation of on the BUV website and the materials from the restriction vessels where such materials are available. I will note from my experience with data model, the signage costs money, and that'll put you into discussion.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And the so the signage is page twelve, sixteen through line 16 through 18.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Notifications on websites, amendments to application materials or publications generally don't cost anything because they're done every year. Mhmm. But it's. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yes. Going

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: to the the first paragraph, the whole lake part, and then on line 12, or once approved by

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the order or operator of

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the Lakewood, the foundation of the Lakewood. Doesn't say when that has to happen.

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: since it's since since being blue from a body of water,

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was something like that. I But you didn't have part of the discussion earlier about when you wanna do that because because been we've seen it. We're deeply important. No. It's a that prior to entering the Vermont Bank, other than the way it goes home, they prior to reentering the home lake had to use the Wakefield, the person who owns their controlled wakefield will choke and decontaminated. So do you want that added in there?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can picture having a reference like According to The court, yeah, in reference to Yeah. Currently, Yeah. The agency does a lot of outreach about fishing laws and lake usage, etcetera. That was soon, no, I actually found it. So, wouldn't most of this just be like adding to what they already do?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For their annual publications and their website material, that is, would just be added to this, and I don't think it will have cost.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's just the actual physical side.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Physical side.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I mean, what if we added something like, essentially like, if sufficient funds exist, they would, or when updating signs for other purposes, they would add it or something like that, so that it's not like they have to go buy new signs in July. Just for this. If they update their signs for other purposes, they would add something about fake votes. I don't know.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think that's a valid alternative.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, because I think they're not I don't know that we want to get into a appropriations fight about this. I think that's fair. Sort of as out of pocket. You have enough information to Okay. Phrase something like Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Other than that, one other change that was in the previous two markups ago, and this was that will be a suggestion from that that eight sixty nine board can read the commissioner of Fish and Wildlife and the board of commissioner of the conservation collaborated with any local or state entity that proposes to establish, operate, and maintain and provide a consistent inspection stage and or decontamination service provider at any Department of Fish and Wildlife Control access area. So that's what Barry suggested, but I'm not sure if you want the decontamination service provider at the access area.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Mhmm. Yep. I'm agree. Because it could be elsewhere. Yeah. And then we'll just get into a game. Mhmm. It's not a good place for those big things. You're probably

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: P 16. Nine would be. So a lot of those accessor is the school is adequate? Mhmm. They're actually towards the basement? Yeah. Okay. So those are the changes, but the last walk through, I think you got to either section seven or section section seven related. And this would be the judge's suggestion to bring underneath the title 23 potential violations that go to the judicial bureau, the citation of page 11, line sixteen, fourteen twenty four b.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry. I think I've lost you. Were

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 11.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, page 11. It's gonna

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: say Section seven, line 16. This

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: was Oh, yes.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Suggestion about I'm okay. Making clear that fourteen twenty four b, the decompamination and inspection requirements are also a potential DMV violation or DMV and forceful violation under title 23. And these go to the judicial.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So that I think you just did section eight. So you can go to page 13, which is slide eight, which is section nine, and now you're into the discussion about the use of fish and wildlife access areas.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, can we stop? So, paragraph on page 11, I was just gonna I have a note that was starting in 2028 and annually thereafter. Is that

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did I did have the annually thereafter.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't know why I wrote 2028.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That's because the DMV said that that's what they could do with funding. Now I do need to add about the Starting 2028. Yeah. No. Okay. I might do that in an implementation section.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Oh, let me just check today. Alright. Yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that we don't have a you don't have an obsolete date in two years. Right. Mhmm.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 13, line eight, section nine, you know the access, banning area, rules authority, it's the statutory authority you gave the board. The first change is changing the rulemaking authority from the board to the commissioner, and that's for the accountability. The board is largely nonaccountable, but the commissioner is accountable, commissioner is appointed, commissioner is subject to the budget, etcetera. That's a policy decision as well other than I can comment. Where are you? Page 13 on.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I find that as individually as a change for the, You know, thoughts on that?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 100 and Okay. Good sign. Okay. So then you can go to page 15. Michael, it's probably David on line 16. Is there a potential conflict that says the most shown up and the and

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the fact that the way people can't handle the.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which line of the book?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Sixteen and seventeen on page 14. Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I had can you clarify that?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Think that in my grade, I think it's a little think in my subject to this requirement. And

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's there there is there are provisions under federal law that access areas are probably with the federal federal funds have to provide for affordable access, but you can have reasonable requirements for for entry and access, such as registration or validation or something, etcetera, aside, I think I can go about it. Then on the page 15, lines three through five, This is where there's already a distinction or a requirement that the board allow proposing the product engine size and an access area. So this is just it's gonna be the commissioner that is doing it, and it's a mandate instead of shall allow, which shall post. Considering your subs of your previous change about appropriations, I think I'm gonna have to mark that off just a little bit and maybe go back to shall allow. Does that make sense? Would

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: you still have it, like, commissioner shall allow?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Commissioner. Yeah. Okay. Or The commissioner shall allow the commissioner of environment and conservation. Oh.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, it's the commissioner of

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. It's commissioner of environment and conservation and insecticide uses

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: program. Okay. Two commissioners.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving on. Page 15, I six through 10. This is upon issuance of a permit by the commissioner. Fishing access area may be used by an approved product use inspection station in order to allow forte contamination of weight quotes, motions to clean. Inspection under fourteen twenty four for inspection of vessels and turning bases required in recession. This is the difference, right? This is not what the bills introduced did. The bills introduced said that a quadratic inspection station was an allowed use. Now it was far down on the priority of uses, but it was allowed, it didn't need a permit from the commissioner in order to operate. This now requires a current. This is is largely the department's proposed, and so that's a policy decision. Now I think what you need to weigh is that the advocates want it to be an allowed use, but they want it to be high up in the priority of uses, and that's problematic because the current federal rule says that the access areas need to be used for their authorized uses and the authorized use is in the grant. It then goes on to say that the state didn't allow for secondary use of recreational uses that are not authorized in your grant, but those secondary uses can interfere with the authorized use. So if you make the product nuisance inspection station number one as some of the advocates want it to be, or number three as others do, you're likely going to have an interference with one of the authorized users or the access to the article. If you put it down as number nine, you're not likely going to have that interference, and if you do, then they have to resolve that interference side of conflict and the broader inspection, nuisance inspection station would have to be removed until the conflict is resolved. Now that doesn't necessarily address the department's point of view that they shouldn't just be allowed everywhere in every access area, and there should be review of the site conditions for before an inspection station is located in an access area. So that's why they're looking for the permit because they wanna be able to do site evaluation to determine if an inspection station should should go in the access area, and if so, where. And they they've given I think they've given you examples of where it's not appropriate or or where they would say I believe when I talked to them, they gave the example of shadow and Blower, and I don't know if you've ever been there, but on the I guess it's the South End or or the East End. There's a beach and a parking area, and the inspection station is is sited set back from the beach so that there isn't runoff into the water. And it's portable, so it can move if there's a conflict. And so that that's the kind of thing they're looking for instead of just the default allowed use. And that's a policy.

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: section only applies to. No.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is going to apply to inspection station. Remember, you need to find what a product usage inspection station is. Yep. It's not and and I I I acknowledge page 15 line eight that word decontamination. And waitboats. And waitboats should probably be gone. Okay. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because this is just for any of those. We'll stash all the shades for any votes.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is this in the section Is it okay? It is correct. Do you know how many fishing access areas there are? I'm looking oh, there's a map. This is what I asked for is a map. That's what I'm looking for.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: this is a policy here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. So one question that I have is, because if it goes in the list, and there's no conflict, then someone could just set up an inspection station. But presumably, it would still have to meet all of the criteria of the definition, right, like that it couldn't, it couldn't just be set up in a way that the, you know, the runoff goes right into the lake, etcetera.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, now the nucleic acid cessation deficit doesn't have that criteria, but I think you can add that, because the acute can be cited in a way that it doesn't mount or run up into a water or weapon. Right.

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

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I mean, just to put it out there, if apartment doesn't love these things. It could be that our own risk issue. And it could be worse off than we are now. It

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: might be more of a pain. Curious for the thoughts of the committee as to what you're Do you have any other questions about this or if you have any preference for It seems like we have this choice to make, right? Either we put it in the list and we can talk about where in the list it goes, or we go with a permanent use.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: As high as list can make it go, then they will not

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That will not make it That was how the bill was introduced, essentially. Yes.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Except it was still about Yeah. Was at the bottom. It was the lowest. Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we can look at four? No. I mean, you can you can see the prior uses. It's on a page 19. And so angling, ice fishing, locking of any vessel or fishing is one. Once you've been boarded outboarded motors engaging in any activity, and it is true, is two. And that's that's actually related to federal law. Traffic, honey, and parking vehicles is three. Non motorized vessels not used for commercial purposes of parking is four. And so you you arguably

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: could put it at four,

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but five is ATVs and snowmobiles used for fishing. So if you put it above five, you might be creating an interference with an access area that gives you the grant for fishing and for an access for fishing. Permitted special uses, I think you could put it there because that's where I put

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it. So it could become

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could put it above 4.6 at 4.5. Mhmm. Arguably, you could put it at 4.4, but I think that might create a conflict with 4.5. Maybe you move ATVs for fishing up to 4.4. I mean, there's that kind of discussion.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It does make some sense to me to move 4.5, the ATVs and civilians used for ice fishing up since that has to do with the purposes of access point, but I would also need to make that change without also consulting income. It seems like the ATVs for ice fishing and snowmobiles could actually be combined with number one, because those are That's valid. Yeah. That would make it cleaner. That sounds fine to me if we

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'd wanna talk to the department about that. Yeah. They think there's any grant where it was just the granting for the access by vessels instead of just access to the core of fishing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, could also I wonder if if we combine the ATVs and snowmobiles with one, if that creates a conflict between one and two.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so because remember the authorized purpose of most of these in the original grant and in the maintenance grants is usually access for fishing Right. Obtained an outsourced route. So I I think you're probably gonna be okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Just to go around for thoughts on what the preference is, do we add it to the list? Do we make it a permanent use? Senator Beck, do you have any thoughts on this? If not, that's okay. Permitted use. Okay. As opposed to putting it in the list. I don't know, I'm going back for it. Okay. Can talk about it.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm thinking that the argument I heard the other day, the list and

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: list. Put it

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on the list. I've heard I've heard so many different places and so many different sides. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Fair enough. Senator Hardy, any thoughts? I'm sort of with Senator Beck. I'm kind of going back and forth, but I think that you know, I think if everyone is comfortable with putting on the list, I'm fine with that. And Senator Williams?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think that, you know, ATVs and small deals won't be an issue during the

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wintertime going on. Mhmm. They already have their home. I'm I'm wondering if we can find that up into winter at some Mhmm. Because

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: there

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are different uses for ice fishing that wouldn't make one. It's just

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: well, I think probably it's a it could be a

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: catch all of the. So you'd

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: rather put it in the permitted use as opposed to putting it in the prioritized list. Right. Okay. Less clear. So my sense right now for myself is to put it in the list, but as low as is reasonable. Or as

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: high, what are doing?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Or, I'm sorry, as high as, thank you, yeah, that's a better way to say it. As low as it needs to be, as high as it can be, I think is where I'm falling right now. Though I will also say that this is one that I feel, I feel torn about and could argue with both ways. When the bill was introduced, there was language about if there's a conflict that

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That that's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that's fill in there?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It's on it's actually in. I mean, in the statute, not in the rural. It's on page 15. For any use of an access area by its product inspection station, filed with the requirements of the CFR part 80. I mean, consistent with the federal regulation of the inspection station interferes with the authorized use Inspection stations are relocated and modified its activities until the conflicts are remediated. Got it. This

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: can also be something that we, if this is where we're, if we're landing on the list, is where it's, you know, seems like where we are generally. I mean, is also something we can flag for the house to say, pay more testimony on this. This is a tricky one.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It says if it's if we require a permit, there will be fewer of them than everyone. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Just to check, if we put it in the list, everybody could live with that? Yep.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I guess.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. So I think we have clarity at the or I should ask you those questions. Do you feel like you have clarity Okay. This I I do.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll I'll I'll give you some options for the ATVs as senator Williams is saying, should it be winter, not summer or winter? That's a good call. I'll give you a couple of options for that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. I have to say, you guys, you should look at the, if you haven't already, the Department of Fish and Wildlife website is actually really, really good at this. And they have a map, and they have the whole rule laid out, with like a FH to prove and everything. It's, and they have a boat safety handbook. Oh my gosh. Yeah, I mean, like a whole bunch of stuff in there. So it's quite good. If you're on the website right now. Yeah. Would it be easy enough for you to just grab that link and email it to us? Oh, Of course. That'd be great. So we'd love to make a list.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: But we're before I I don't wanna interrupt this. Terry.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We're gonna come up with the definition of the.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. I think we can.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: With access guy. That's okay. DC, lakes and ponds people. Yep. And they do have two decontamination sites.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they have a definition.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And requirement for, you know, power and water and they have a map. But, unfortunately, the the only the only sites right now, one one is the low end capacity, the only high capacity Mhmm. Mhmm. So if we're gonna require people to go to the site, there were two that are out there.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. So Mhmm. They they agree that they'd like to consider maybe our affordable one. Yeah. And having some sites along to go to where they can be contaminated, very well it's not in the cards. Right, right. Yeah. Well,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it also seems to me that as there is more demand for it, that hopefully other principals will pick it up. Fair enough, so there is on page three definition of decontamination service provider. So if you have thoughts on-

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know you think they're looking at it due to the system or department's definition of that, I appreciate it. I also think you have the opportunity to phase in the nation contamination and to have the department over the first six months approve decontamination service areas and then go to the prohibition after six months or something like that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That actually makes some sense to me because when we talk about an approved decontamination station, that is a nice, I think it's a good idea, but what is the process for getting approved as a decontamination solution?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right now there is an unofficial process. You can put in language that says, on a decontamination service provider shall be approved on a form provided by the commissioner or something like that.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I would like to add something like that. Does that sound reasonable to others? Okay. Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then six months, they've approved, and then after six months the decontamination requirement goes to build up. I

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think it's what's realistic. I realize that puts us past this summit for that being an effective policy. Right. But I think that's for this to be functional, I think that's hopefully what's realistic. Okay. And where are you putting that in the bill?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going to put it in 1424 b, the weight of the water. And what page is that on? Sorry. That's on three or four. Oh. Three and five.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You because that's where the requirements for decontamination decontamination. That's it. So that's where I have the Yeah. Maintenance here for this load inspection service provider. Okay. Okay. So now page you can really go to page one two.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, Pete, I have a final list. Is that what we Okay. Another panel list. Alright. As high as it can be.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 22, this is where fishing coordinates are. That happens. The first provision here in section 11 and slides 10 to 20, If the department receives an application for a fishing tournament that serves as municipality's public drinking water source, the municipality of Winter controls all the way and surrounding it, the department notifies the municipality of the application. Let's say the body of the municipality shall review the vote to approve this approved application that's next regularly scheduled meetings. Department shall issue the permit. Only if the legislative body of the municipality approves use of the water to the police department. Barf and Shanhat issued a permit that the legislative body did not approve the government bill.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Benning, Thoughts on this one? No. Go.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I know. Yeah. You're you're talking about fishing. You're you're almost better off to separating in the winter and summer. Mhmm. I don't

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know if they actually have fishing terminals on on this reservoir during

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the summertime. But if you have to wait for a permit from the fish and wildlife, and then it goes to the municipality and wait until their next meeting, The date is already gone, and and they don't they can't count on how much to do the dirt.

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

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I think that just makes it go wrong and have dirt. Mhmm.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Other thoughts? I'm just looking at the other language because I was hoping that we could I don't know what information is required when somebody applies for a fishing derby tournament ish permit. So I've never done it myself. What information do they have to provide the department, do you know?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They have to provide the organizer name, the site, the date. I think there's supposed to be, like, a general scope, like, number of participants. I don't know. And I think that's basically it. What their fish is wanting? Or I don't know if it's on there.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because I

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: They don't they have liability insurance, sir? Okay. I think that the organizer is far and hard.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Lying away, etcetera.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Certainly. So I was just thinking, this is a pretty blunt instrument, and I don't think the select board or city council would have much information to make the decision with. You know, it would just be a, well, I like this or I don't like this kind of decision, which is hard to make. So I'm just wondering if we might want to first try something like, if you're going to apply to do a fishing derby on a drinking water source, you have to provide additional information. You have to have additional sort of precautions, and there needs to be communication or notification to the municipality. There needs to be requirements that X, Y, and Z happens. I don't know exactly what X, Y, and Z are at the moment, but I just feel like there could be an interim where it's not like we're saying no or giving the decision to the locals, but that we're getting, the bar is higher if you want to do a mission tournament on a drinking water source. So we'd

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like to hear the information.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So Senator Bongartz, do you have I to

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: have go, I have this thinking along those lines that if it's a drinking water source or or that just the application in general should in addition to what Michael Redd should have, but with parking And whether it's gonna be boats on the water, there's little kids with a fishing rod on the side. That's one thing. Boats on the water is another. So it's the and then notify the town so the town can give input to whether the application is issued, but it's really all drinking water sources that are little dipping, gasoline and everything else on the world, so that's all.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you would remove the requirement that it's just for the wholly surrounded

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: drinking water. Yeah. I'm thinking of drinking water. Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. I mean, I sort of go back to the thing I was saying before, like information and communication, we should start without, or saying no, or putting or creating a whole other layer of approval, you know? Mhmm.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But how does that work on Champlain?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. That's the one that's weird.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know. Or where there are multiple surface water sources, multiple systems. Mhmm. I I just think of it as if what's the difference between 20 people fishing on a lake in the same day and 20 people trying for a fishing tournament? I mean, as long as the people that are involved in the fishing derby or the fishing tournament are following the rules of that lake or pond. Like, if it's not motorized, okay, then we're all from the shore. If it's, you know, I mean, you can only use this type of bait or you can only fish for the I mean, whatever. As long as they're that derby is following the rules of that lake or pond, then I don't see why the municipality would have the right to say, you can't have that fishing derby.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you know I my my understanding of this situation is that they did approve a fishing fishing derby that violated the rules of the lake.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Is they Department

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of Fish and Wildlife approved a fishing derby on Dix Reservoir that allowed for ice fishing, and ice fishing is not

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not allowed.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Allowed. That's my understanding, but I agree.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So then a mistake was made. That's made. Then a mistake was made.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But I just don't understand why we would tell a fishing derby. As long as you're gonna comply. I mean, it sounds like they did in this case, but as long as you're gonna comply with the rules of that lake, that the municipality would be able to say Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think we're agreeing that taking out the municipal approval is something that can come out of the bill. I think that's fair. I think the question is, in its place, we want, I guess I'm appreciating what Senator Hardy is saying about, providing information and what would be the right information that would be useful in that decision. So notification to the municipality, just to be like, heads up, this is happening on your drinking water source, or? Yeah, so I mean, I think what you're saying makes sense, but it sounds like what the information they're asking for,

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: they don't have full information to determine if the fishing derby would be following the rules of link. So they need to ask for that information and make sure that the derby would be following the goals, and if it is, then

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it can be improved.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we had this conversation the other day, I mean what if on the application you know where they fill out everything, this is the daytime place, is the rules of

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the derby you know

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: everything. If there was simply a box on that form, that application form, where the municipality had to say we have reviewed this application and we understand what it's asking for. And then when it goes up to Fish and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife is like, okay, I see that you have communicated everything about this Derby to the municipality.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, so you're saying that the it's on the applicant to inform? That's right.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To check to check that box before they submit it to to Fish and Wildlife. So

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I have I have a copy of the application I got from Vermont Federation Sports and Club. Mhmm. And, basically This is

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a state the state application form. Yep. And it's a

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it's actually a fishing government approved in this area. Send it all to you, but Keith Kirk Bradley spoke to the commissioner. This guy's name is that approved actually has burned. Agent said that, you know, can you put a box on there that said that says, you know, municipalities gonna notify you? And he said, yes, we can do that because the application's on the line.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, guess I think that's great that they can add that to the, but I also think that the department needs to verify it because what it seems like is

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the department didn't communicate with the city. And so So ice fishing is not under the use of water for prohibited on Dix Reservoir. It was probably the public water system prohibited ice fishing on water. Oh. And the department, following the Berlin Pond decision, said that they didn't have authority to prohibit fishing on that water

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: what I heard from the city of Barrier, my understanding of what I heard anyway, heard a lot about this, was that they said that there was no ice fishing, but maybe was like the city regulations for the waters first.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the only restrictions predict some of the use of waters will have shall not exceed five miles an hour. Personal watercraft is prohibited. Aircraft is prohibited in May and November, internal combustion motors is prohibited, and wage structure. It doesn't say anything about this issue.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There may be rules against that from the source protection plan?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially, yes. That's actually a very good point. That's funny.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that feels to me like another, like a potential line of communication, because the source protection plan would be with DEC. Right. And so, you know, if there are rules for this, because it's drinking water source that are in that source protection plan that maybe Fishnuala doesn't know about, like that feels like Yeah. Odd conflict.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, think you can add a box say municipality has been notified. You could also add a box to say if the water is a drinking water source, the department shall determine whether or not the source of protection criteria prevent its use proficient. Mhmm.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That that makes sense to me and yeah.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I I might go a

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: little further than just having the applicant have to check the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: policy. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If I put, like, a signature line where somebody from the municipality says

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It's

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I saw this application. Yeah. Just sort hang it up a little bit. Oh, great. After applications are submitted under penalty of perjury if that makes any difference to y'all.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It should make a difference. Yeah. Indeed. Yeah, just, it just seems to me, I mean, understand Senator Williams, and especially in the winter, you don't want it to take so long that the ice melts. Like you want to do ice fishing. There's like a small window. Most winters Seems like a pretty big window this winter, but can be. Yeah. But I also feel like I think having the communication and verification of all the relevant parties is helpful, and the information that's necessary. So does it include does the application include whether you're gonna be using boats as how many people and parking information?

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I can send Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That'd be great. Yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's to identify the name of the tournament, the sponsoring organization, contact information for the applicant, dates of the tournament, times of the tournament, location of the tournament, the town and county which it's located in, the check-in location for the tournament, whether you're using official access area. You got to describe any man based activities beyond parking, launching. We got the the the the of times I just expected, the number of vehicles, boats expected, tournament prizes. We haven't been here to a firm or kind of.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think he is so many the responsible organizations on there too. So this This is if go down there and find that somebody left a pile of garbage or Yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Whole floor, then they know we go to the.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And do does do they I don't I do they have to have insurance? Is that one of the things that's required? I

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think it's required, but I think it's probably required.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Because, I mean, if somebody falls in their ice fishing hole because they had too much to drink and drown, it's like, is there a liability for the town or the state, or is that on the derby? Or is that I mean, the individual you know what I mean? If something happens.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have it confirmed, but my answer is don't. Insurance is not required. It's just advised because especially with all of the virtual tournaments these days that are multistate, multi region. Very short. Really.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: You catch virtual You could

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be participant and answered by, you know, showing, you know, weigh station, check the weight of

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the fish and species In your state, as she turns

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: out But but that defeats the whole purpose. Aren't you supposed to get the fish from the place?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Same body of You you so senator Watson had me confirm all this. There's a map called fish donkey.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Fish Donkey?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Fish Donkey is used to organize tournaments and if the department learns that there's a Fish Donkey or other virtual tournament that you have to, or promote the tournament, that you have to, you have to apply, you have to get a, a permit for that tournament.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, this is And then I bet you that it ties into the gambling app that maybe the state uses and people can wager on fishing on fish. So just to sum up.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sure.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. We've gone down. It sounds like we're taking up the municipal requirement for approval. We're going to replace it with some kind of notification. And I was not hearing like totally agreement about how that notification ought to look. Because either it's the applicant that is required to notify the municipality or it's the state, or it's something like the municipality has to put a signature on the application, which I would say, how about a chat box and the name of the person. Notifying the municipality needs to be some, like, being clear that it's the, you can't just like call up any random person who answers the phone at the town hall and be like, I've notified you. So some kind of official notification and that de- I mean, it's paid some perjury, but the, the, the department verifies and also has to be- Yeah, I guess it's the select board or the city council.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or their, you know, list of things they do, they have the sign off on it. But I said a website about it.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That makes sense. Sure. But then, I'm just in the spirit of communication, the Department of Fish and should have to be able to be like, okay, hey, Barry, you're gonna have this tournament. We just want you to make sure you saw that location and so that so we put that into so in addition to asking Christian Waldet to just to notify the municipality? So

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the the applicant notifies the municipality, and then do you just give the the commissioner authority to verify? Sure. That sounds

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: great. I am interested in some kind of confirmation that the fishing tournament does not violate any source protection plan provisions. Yeah, think that makes sense. Know, they probably should not find it out to do the DEC to make sure. Yeah.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. My my What waters does this apply to?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's a good bunch. So it makes sense to me to I'm going to load this out there, It feels like too much to try to include, Champlain, kind of like us. Well, I mean, I think the way we're doing it now, if we do it this way, it would just be a checkbox and people talking to each other.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But how many municipalities do you have to notify us?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, that's true. So Lake Champlain, do you have to notify all of them up and down the lake? Is that? So if we just call it, I'm just hearing Inland lakes. Can you just identify yourself?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Oh, sorry, Terry Carpenter, Lake Champlain Committee. Rather than international interstate lakes, you could just

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: say inland lakes, meaning they're surrounded

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: by the state

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: of Montelk. Now you could still have some

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: bigger bodies of water, but it wouldn't be like you had land

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: or lake that you're backing up. Sorry

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: about that. You do the statue in the opposite place. That works for me.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So if we did an inland lake and it, you know, Lake Dunmore, which I know, because we keep talking about lakes I don't

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: know, and it's the town

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of Salisbury and the town of Leicester

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are both In my case, you're you're being find both municipalities. If the municipality municipalities, which is so the fishing tournaments located on the lake.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Are there fishing tournaments that might go into a lake from multiple access areas?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So I was going to say we could just do it for the municipality where the access area is, but it's multiple.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Remember, do have to stay if your

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: boat's already in water. Right. And apparently, if you're on an app in another state.

[Terry Carpenter (Lake Champlain Committee)]: Who knew? Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do we have enough clarity on this?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I can bring you language. You might have to refine it,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: but Okay. And again, from everything we just talked about, is this something that you all can live with?

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Notification. It is?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Notification, not approve. Exactly. Yes. Communication. Communication. Okay. You're okay with that.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. But I'm still making this work on.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So we got we got close.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're not totally through give two more gauges.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What about? And just to say it out loud, I would love to take a break at this point here as well. So these pensions, though, are valid for sure.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are, it's about your public access and the reimbursement of cost.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That one. Yeah. Feel like that might take a longer time than we have in this moment.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just going to put it right there then. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we're very close. Heading there. Okay. So I'm hoping not to go to a fishing boat now. I know, now that we've talked a bit about it.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Good grade. That's a fishing boat. Probably can't find anything. You can bring fish caught and they didn't really wake.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the one that we're ready is, as a question, is it reasonable to have you drafted this by tomorrow? I can try. Okay. Okay. It

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: might not be edited by tomorrow, but

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's okay. No worries. Oh, and we're also looking for a new draft on 02/13 tomorrow as well.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Brendan, I think I just see each one word.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. Great. So I think we're otherwise good. We're going to take, I'd like to take a five minute break. Okay. And then we'll be back. Okay, this is another resource and energy again coming back from a break. And we are switching gears to talk about S-three 25 updates to 9.81. And we're joined by Megan Sullivan, Sullivan.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: The process. My gosh, the universe provides. Amazing. Welcome. Thank you. Maggie Sullivan, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, Okay, the Vermont Chamber and the MMC continuing to work collaboratively together. So appreciate you all continuing to hear from us on 03/25 as you work through the changes, updates for Act 181. I think most of what I'm going talk about are things that you've heard. There is one additional piece that was from the testimony, the joint hearing on opt in opt out, that we didn't have been to testify, but you had great testimony. Maybe we ran out of time at our joint hearing. So I wanted a piece from that, and then one of the pieces come up more recently, but otherwise I think generally these veggie parts. So I will just jump in if that works. 325, okay. 03/20. So I think one of the first things looking at the dates, what we would love to see is that 2030 date for the tier one exemptions. And do you have a specific page? Think that starts on page eight. Line 11. Oh, that's priority housing projects. Let's talk priority housing projects. When we talked about priority housing projects, yes, I think extending those to match with the dates of the extensions of tier one makes sense. The other piece on priority housing projects that we see as really important is that those are available in mapped tier 1B areas if the community doesn't opt in. So if an area gets mapped as tier 1B, but in the future land use maps by the RPCs, and the community says, We're not going to opt in to tier 1B, then priority housing projects are still an option there. So that is the incentive of those housing projects not having to go through active 50 or extend from active 50 in those areas. If you opt into tier 1B, that incentive goes away. If you don't opt into 1B, we would still like to see affordable housing as an incentivized option in those areas. I think it's important to hope that most communities are not choosing to not opt in because of not wanting to see affordable housing built, but I think it's important to say that this is a statewide priority, so to say, in the areas that are mapped for tier one being, if a community doesn't opt in, that priority housing projects can still be appropriate. Some simple questions I'm seeing percolating. Okay, that'd be good. I have written on my paper, I, what is the definition of priority housing? Is there a definition somewhere in the There is a definition. I don't have it in your house. Okay. Don't I'll also add in our drafting, but I guess that would be my question is wanting to make sure that that was reliable definition, so it wasn't just like. Yeah, and I think it's been, the priority housing program has been incredibly successful in helping get affordable housing, big A subsidized affordable housing projects started and will be in communities across the farm because of the incentives that come along with that. One thought, so just to, I'm trying to think about, you know, how that might be drafted or framed, and what I am hearing is that there is no deadline on that, like there's no extension on, there's not an extension with the deadline for that. What you're saying is that going on in perpetuity, if an area is mapped, this tier 1B, that priority, like just going on into the future, priority housing projects should still be a program. It's just a record factor where they live in statute and say this program is eligible. And those tenants didn't opt in to 1B. Yes, specifically for tenants that don't opt in. Because they do, if I knew that in the sentence that's already there, I too, it would not think S-one 102 may have an additional beyond that, was introduced last year, that would say, again, those 1B areas, and I think you can want to get as well, there is an additional incentive for priority housing projects, that that incentive for affordable housing continues in those areas, as well as making them allowable in mapped areas that don't come in. The one hiccup that I could anticipate is, would a municipality, which is sweeter, I guess, is the question. Like is it, would a municipality not opt into tier 1B so that they could keep the priority housing project? But I guess it's, yeah, it wouldn't negate, like it wouldn't necessarily go away. The priority housing project's probably going to go away for I mean, I think that's why the S-one 102 had the additional incentive in those Places that opt in. The places that opt in, so that they, so that our affordable housing community could still find an additional incentive for developers to create subspace housing as well as market rate housing. So there is likely language, if I think about it, to read that bill, but likely language within that bill that addresses both of those pieces. Okay, we're at two. So that's page two.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: now we have the extension for Tier 1A, it really starts on page four, but I know the Ratings and Review Board brought up changes on page four to the commercial conversion piece. We would agree with them on that. Sorry. The line six. For commercial purpose. Yeah. So, had mentioned that there are some commercial properties that are pre date Act two fifty, and so an amendment that would make it clear that whether it's a new construction for renovation. I mean, one is specific to converting commercial properties into housing. Are you asking for something broader than that, or? No, no, it was just, they had mentioned specific wording for their construction departments that that would leave out certain types of commercial buildings that predated active capacity. I see. Think Janet was going to say the language. I'm just saying we would agree with that inclusion.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Okay, then we get into the tier 1A starting on line 10. Okay. And there, what we had reported was 2,030 for those extensions, and with the additional piece, and also appreciate what the Land Use Review Board said, that if a community opts in or applies for 1A or opts into 1B, that there will be a time period in which that they're going to be ramping up. And so having the extension go for, to 2030 for our housing targets, and then for those that opt in or have an approved tier 1A, that those go a year after that adoption. So you apply for 1A, you get approval for 1A, you've got a lot to do to get up and running for 1A, and in the meantime, that starts

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: to clock and say, okay,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: one year from now, those extensions, those interim extensions end. She's a girl. We're on line 10. So the first date is 2028. We would like to see that push to twenty ten-thirty. Page four. I think the lure came in with suggested dates. Yes, for that second piece. Yeah. What would be the after? Is yours the same as theirs or different? I think the one of the items same. I think the 2030, I'm not sure they weighed in on how long the income exemptions should last for. I think there was some coalescing around 2030 by some of the advocacy groups. Think they but They how long don't have, yeah, there's dates for a lot of dates. Well, going be dates, so many dates. Well, and what I'm also hearing is that you're hoping for a year after. For those that adopt. The 2030 would be whether or not you And I think as we see some of the other pieces of this needing to slow down and take time, especially around our communities, how quickly are those communities going to be able to apply for tier 1A? If they're getting their plans together, if they're making sure they've checked all the boxes, it might take them a few years to get that and not having those interim exemptions run out in the meantime. And same with that opting into one fee, we're hearing there's communities that are sort of waiting to see how it goes before they opt in, so keeping those interim exemptions available in the meantime with that end date of 2030 in place. But for those communities that are raring to go and say, All right, we're going to get our application in. We want to do this. Having an overlap of inter exemptions, it's Tier 1A or 1B, two years might be too long, but that one year is okay. You've got one year to get everything set up. In the meantime, you've got the annual exemptions for the next twelve months.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Yeah,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Questions? I feel like I've been starting to want a new draft to just start to incorporate some of the suggestions that we've heard to keep it all straight. And I don't think I have received language yet from the ladies review board, but that would be I'm pretty sure they requested an extension of all of the interim exemptions until, but I can't remember which date they're positive. Right, like I don't have, I have not internalized what those dates, but I'm also appreciating your suggestion about wanting a timeline. Yeah, it would be super helpful. It might be interesting to have like a timeline of this is the timeline of what it is in current law. And then you have that timeline of current law, so insurance. Right, and then the updated, like, is what the new timeline would look like. Well, like, this is what's alert based. Oh yes, yes. Right, right. Yeah. We're like, even we start with someone's new timeline and then say, if you agree with this part and that part, but not that.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: what mean? Just there's something to point at visually. Yeah. So so yeah. Exactly. It doesn't have to be. Thank you. Okay, I think next we're starting to talk about tier three rule making. And this is a, and what meter are you going? Sorry, page six, line 12. So, you know, one thing that I don't believe is addressed in this burn draft is that he said, Does every piece of criteria need to be looked at if the trigger for development is only, and I say rotary, I want to hear because that's the truest way to say construction of a rotor driveway that they converted to thousand. Does every criteria need to be reviewed? I think there were some during the period when Act 81, 01/1981 was first being drafted that thought that there was specific intent there, that they didn't, but Legionage and Respondency goal team has said that that isn't there. So really specifically giving them the authority to, in rulemaking, determine which criteria would apply if the only trigger for an Act two fifty working is the construction of a road or a restricted natural resource. Yeah, I think the LRRP was they were on board of that, and I think it was a little bit even broader than just if the road rolled triggered it, but also just, you know, if there is a house in a tier three area that the owners want to subdivide and build a house for their kid or something like that, they would have a limited review as well. Think you remember that.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is with the purpose of tier three.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Exactly. That was the idea. Yeah, so for both of those, the tier three rulemaking, and that's why we think tier two should also have rulemaking to do that. So in the tier three rulemaking, specify that they have that authority to contemplate a reduced review based on what the trigger is. If it's a development that is, you know, there are four different things that trigger Act two fifty, then you're going to go through the whole review. But if it's just that one piece, Someone, Dave, was talking to me about, well, there's a person who's been in the draft map, and their son was planning to build a house, and if they built it through the driveway through a wetland, it would be shorter, but if they went around wetland, it would trigger. It's like, well, so then in theory, they would set a path to be reviewed and say, Yes, the longer driveway is minimizing impact by avoiding the natural resource. Thank you, big government. But that in theory is the ideal outcome, but not saying, Okay, well now you should get a study on the impact from traffic in schools and communities and an engineer and a lawyer to tell you that there's something. Right, but I think the point is that not just the road rule treatment, but just for both. So it's tier two, it would be the road roll. For tier three, it would be the natural resource. Yeah. And then neither of those, they're not relevant to tier one. The original rule is not relevant Well, to tier I think heard that's an excellent question. I've got something to say about that. That is the way I'm gonna talk about it in

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: the afternoon, not that for

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: you. Okay. And because I think that work is going

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: to take some serious consideration,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I think that needs to reflect in the date that these both tier two and the road rule and tier three go into effect, because that's going to need some stakeholder process and the rulemaking process, and to say on top of your already planned deadline for tier three, now you have this other piece of tier three you need to look at that that date should reflect that. So it's going take some additional time. Are you agreeing with the Land of New York's recommendation for the dates? I'm not going lie, I struggle a little bit to understand what her date was. It was before construction season, but at '20, I mean, I think 2028 or 2029, wasn't sure where it landed, but in March timeframe. I thought it was January because they were letting you do it now. Not for year two for road rule. Yeah. And I don't recall what the tier three suggestion was, but you're agreeing that it

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: needs to be

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: It needs to be extended.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, the season

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is less important for cheerfully than it's for.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Yes, yes. I think this should probably move out in here to that work and, you know, I think rulemaking is the right way to do that, though, if you make sure to have folks back in and see how it's going, that oversight authority of miscommunity is important. So I don't know if that gets us to the road rule yet, but this isn't in here, so something to do with fun. Do get on rope? The road rule applies to tier two, and tier two is everywhere that tier one and tier three are not. If you are a matched growth area, and you do not opt in to 1B, the road rule now applies where your growth area is, and I'm not sure that was the intent. Can you say, can say, can you get anything? Yeah. Tier two is everywhere, tier one and tier three

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: is not.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Tier one is either an opt in or an application 1A, you're applying for tier one status. Tier 1B, you're opting in. If you do not opt in, now that area that's been mapped as a growth area for you would be under tier two. So, what's mapped as tier one, you didn't opt in, now it's tier two, and you have the road rule applying. So, this to me is getting at the distinction between the language review board's maps to say, here's where it's tier one eligible versus this is a tier one B area. Right. Is that, it's like we need a to different distinguish like the eligible. Right, eligible versus opted in. Can there be a growth area? And then, opted in. Yeah. So I think of, we heard examples of Colchester and Essex are not opting in, but they have growth areas. Because they, I don't, you'd have to have those committees in to ask them why, but let's say their community says, You know what, we want the work to do. They're happy to do your review here. So we're not going to opt in. I wonder though, I mean, what we've been hearing is that the reason that places are not opting in is because they don't want to take care of all of the previous Act two fifty permits. Well, that's one of the reasons. I don't think that's all of the reasons. Okay. Yeah. But they don't want to do 1B? Some are not opting into 1B, and so that's where we are sort of pushing them like, well, if it's because we don't want affordable housing, we're going to get that. Some are also saying like, you know what? We don't want to do We want the land use of rebirth to do these reviews, so we're not going

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: to opt in because we still want them to do that review.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I see. But they don't necessarily want the road rule to trigger in their growth area, a review of every development. So if, again, if the road rule was the only thing that triggered in a growth area, so they go through the I need more information about what a growth area is. That's something we can ask Mr. Fairleigh. Okay. Because he's mixed. Okay, so we

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: got it.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: The VLTT always is good, but they always have masks, so they might have these today. Of course you do.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: There it is. Just about the words.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Okay, so that was the piece that

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna draw the

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: other day. I think it should be at least considered, do we want the problem with all in those math growth areas if someone doesn't opt in? Agreed. What

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: you wrote there was you actually be 9b.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I mean the 1b, the mirrors that are math growth. Yeah, it's b. Yeah. As opposed to the technical, future land use, mapped, from the area. Will have the mapped one B areas. Okay. If they do opt in, the road rule doesn't apply. It doesn't apply just about the opt in. It's just that people, right, who don't opt in. I mean, what's the consideration that that would, if they don't opt in, I'm not sure we ever, was ever considered, do we want the road a little bit? Well, just to, conversely, that a reason to opt in? Right? There's so many good reasons. The benefit maybe that you Yeah, get to there. Like that's one of the incentives for opt in. And if we take away that incentive, fewer towns opt in. You know, sometimes it's an unintended consequence situation. Yeah, well, I think sometimes, you know, if towns aren't knocking in because they don't want development, they don't want to help save the other family members, we have to We're just getting along with that. Maybe it's just like a nudge. Yeah. Say, yeah. If this is about stopping development in growth areas, because we're trying to say we need more housing. Why would they say it's a growth area if they don't want development? That's what I would pursue. So I think it's the land use review board? No, I guess it'd be in the municipal map. Right, yeah. But, yeah, just curious. There's a lot of There's 250,000, I don't want to assign us. It's all of them, but I think it's 200. Think it's 2. 252. At Essex. Yeah, well, they make orange. Minuscule study. Oh, the, land use review board, what they had about, what they were talking about in terms of keeping the permits with the land use review board for those tier 1A areas, and then sort of slowly moving over, on board with that, as well as if someone does all Cert 1A,

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: that those would obviously be fully returned to the ladies room for.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I think they're already settling on that, so, but we would agree with that. Guidelines on page nine, Feedback's important. I'm glad it's in here. That, you know, as those Well, I think just ensuring that we have consistent guidance being given to folks is really important. I know there's a lot moving and everything, the ladies of yours being asked to do a lot, and so as they learn more and engage more, things might change, but I think consistency is really key in creating trust in this process. Sorry, are you talking about section six? Sections six? Yes. Oh, the Yeah, I'm not having enough that the verb doesn't think this section is necessary. I respectfully disagree. I've noted that too. Okay, thank you. And then the appeals report, I know it says tier 1B appeals report, maybe it's okay just to say municipal appeals report. Think that's the focus on this is the municipal appeals. And would recommend that living with the PHD. And then again, I think we're looking at some different proposals that groups have come up with, with the DATV, the eighty two homes, as well as Lettsville homes with the Rutland Zone. I think having Lettsville homes as a part of that group makes sense since they're dealing with this bar as well. It's actually Yes. Because it's in consultation with a whole bunch of groups. You're suggesting that we add.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is there two homes? What's that? Add eight two.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Add, well, DHD has eight zero two homes.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Wait, so are

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: you suggesting they take the lead on it? I'm suggesting they take the lead Yeah, on because they eat the nerve out

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: of it.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: The nerve does not. Yeah. According to my. Your objective is to that. I thought we've got some sense. I think since the HDD is already doing some of this, if this makes sense for them to take the lead on it. Okay. And your agency needs that it's administered by the state.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes, the board would still participate.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I mean, you can add to this Kristen. I think. Makes sense? Yeah. I mean, I suppose we'd also ask them to participate, but I

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: think they would be open to that.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: It's just, they just don't like people leave, because they were like, this is municipal zoning for us. That's not what, that's what we do. Yeah. Okay. And then the last piece that is not included in this strategy, that you may not have very much noticed, I just talked to A and R recently, is in the list of criteria to have 1A status. There's, I think, 11 different things

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: that a community needs to

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: have in place, and one of them is about natural resource planning. And the word rare is included in the rare, threatened, and endangered species. But in Act two fifty, including the new 8c, the only review is around threatened and endangered. So the inclusion of rare species goes beyond what Act two fifty reviews. So we're asking talents in 1A to actually go further than Act two fifty. And apparently has been a bit of a challenge to try and figure that rare, no problem with threatened or endangered, just the rare piece. And if you ask me any questions about that, I defer to, you know, something about threaten and endangered. So she's a first. Yes, a new patient. There you are. Yeah. Really, what I'm hearing is that you're suggesting that we strike the word rare from tier- Rare from the tier 1A. You mean you ran in endangered, because that would then match what we're asking tier 1A to do with what Act two fifty does. If that's the idea, right? It's the designation. Right. You're not suggesting that we add the word rare. Well, wanted to hear from Anne, because it could be a term of art, I'm wondering if we make changes to either one, if it's messing with some federal requirement or something like that. So I just wanted to hear from them about that. I mean, I hear you. Yeah, I'm no good

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: at this.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Yeah. And they had flagged for me that this has been a challenge for one of the communities that's trying to get 1A status of figuring out how rare is a whole different ball of wine. Yeah. That I don't you know, went back. So it's been a challenge. Makes sense. But even those threatened and endangered. Relevant. I think that's a rare implied. That's why I'm wondering. I think it may be, S1 versus S2. There's tears. There's tears. Tears in it. Love is of endangerment. Okay, I think those are all of my notes. I will email them to you. Great. But thank you for doing this and good support. Thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Exactly on time. Amazing. So good. You know, it's good. Getting brownie points, right?

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Okay, so we're going to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: move to Commissioner Carroll. Welcome.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Thank you. Thanks, Madam Chair. Nice to see everybody. Same. Okay. For the record, Alex Bongartz, Commissioner at the Department of Housing and Community Development. I'll start by saying, I think Billy Costa would be really good to hear from on that rare issue. Because like Megan, I'd just be trying. It was Melanie Costa. Also made Agency of Natural Resources.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Oh, okay. Cool.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: All right, so I've got a very brief slide deck. So my goal today, I know there's a specific question around the study, would we be okay meeting? Megan volunteered me to do it, so what can

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I say? Afternoon. My goal is also to just give

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: full transparency upfront as to what the administration wants in these rounds so that there's no surprises as the session goes on. And this is largely already laid out in one, really two bills that fortunately are right here on the wall in this committee, both administration and housing bills that were introduced by your very own Senator Beck. So I'm gonna start with my last slide here, which is just to say S. Two sixty seven is the administration's bill, which touches on a lot of these. Am I? Okay, good. Which touches on a lot of these same issues. So a good way find out where the administration is on all of these would be really where we stand in S. Two sixty seven. I'm going to walk through that at a very high level in a moment here, but the language is already there. I know sometimes that makes things easier if we can just look at language rather than have me describe it. The point of this slide though is also to say S. Two sixty seven, which was this year's administration housing bill, builds upon S. 102, which is last year's administration housing bill. So some of the nuanced stuff, including some things Megan was talking about, are in S102 and not in S267, not because they're no longer priorities, because they're already in a bill that's here. I'm going to jump to this issue right here, which Megan flagged and the chamber and the administration independently arrived at a very similar solution here on priority housing projects. So I'm thinking with my partners at VHCV and the nonprofits with this. We performed a study jointly with VHCV and VHFA last year, actually rather before last session. That study asked us to determine what's the future of priority housing projects when there are new exemptions that are broadened for market rate. How can we make sure priority housing projects stay relevant? So in S-one hundred two, what we proposed was a version of what Meg and Argyt outlined here, where if you're in, and I'll just say that the future land use areas that are tier one B eligible would be downtown center, village center, village areas. And village area and Flanders area, those are the two neighborhoods. So if you think centers and neighborhoods, those are the future land use areas. So downtown and center village center, village area, Planned Growth area. Those are the future land use areas that would be eligible for Tier 1a and 1b. You can have those areas mapped without opting in to 1b. So those are the areas that I'm talking about. If you're Tier 1B eligible and you opt out, like what the chamber just laid out, PHPs up to 50 units would still be the regulatory incentive. In tier one B areas where folks do opt in, I propose pairing with that a 50% bonus if you build a priority housing project rather than just a full market project. So you get a 75 unit cap if you do a PHP. So for PHDB and the nonprofits, this would give them more regulatory certainty that there's a relevance in the marketplace for them. We'll try to testify for GUSC later, Polly, and I'll let them speak to whether or not that would be useful themselves.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can I just stop you for a second? Your slides, these are different slides and letter, right?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Did you update them? Late last night, early this morning. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I haven't loaded up this late this morning. That's okay, I'll just look up on the screen. Other

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: slides would be marked. Okay. Oh, and then just a flag in our policy bills where there are appropriations and things like that. They're really, you can ignore them. What's in the budget, so that matters. Those are the points. All right. Let's turn

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: you and go back here. So comparing track 1.2 of S-three 25 to S-two 67, I'm going to flag one error that I made in your bill, but I just wanted to give sort of a side by side where things line up. So I'll start with extending the interim exemptions In 1.2 of three twenty five, there's extensions.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It looks

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: like there's an effort to line some of them up. So some are one year extensions, some are six month extensions. I think trying to get some of them on similar dates, similar sunsets. We did something similar in trying to align them in S. Two sixty seven, but like some of the advocates, we moved all the dates to July. So that language is in S. Two sixty seven, but again, moving those dates out to 2,030 for the interim exemptions. There is also a change in ours to remove the exemption only qualifies for parcels under 10 acres. In S two sixty seven, we proposed to remove that on the screen. We've seen a couple projects where the parcel is over 10 acres. The project in the impacted area will be less, but just across the board, it's not unique to the area of exemptions. The way Act two fifty will look at a project is tracks the plan. So it's gonna be a parcel or adjacent parcels. So we move to strike that from the interim exemptions. Now I have in here that S3 25 has road rule implementation extension. I think that was I think I'm misty, but I don't see as I look

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at 395 Road rule.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It should be there. Okay. If it's not Yeah. You know, funny. I It should be.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Then I saw it and I'm, okay. So I just ignored that. I was right. And a tier three notation extension. S two sixty seven proposes repeal of their own rule. Pretty divergent approaches there, recognizing that, but I don't want anyone to be surprised as to what's being proposed by the administration. Tier 1A, so some overlap with what you heard from the chamber, what you heard from BAFTA late last week as well, removing the sort of requirement for municipalities to assert 1A municipalities to assume jurisdiction of permits in those areas. S-two 67, the language largely manages what's in draft 1.2 of S-three 25. Oh, yes.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, maybe you're about to say this also. I was just curious, the first bullet point under tier 1A allow municipality contract, what does that mean?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Yeah, sure. So in tier 1B, there's an additional provision that says capacity needed to update bylaws to do the things to achieve tier 1B, municipality can contract for capacity with regional planning commission or another. We carry that up into tier 1A as well so that a community could see tier 1A status without currently the requirements that you have staffing capacity, permanent staffing capacity. For 1A? For 1A, that's right. Okay. So the proposal in S-two 67 is to allow that capacity, necessarily requiring it to be permanent staffing at municipality, but allow them to contract.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mean, we had like real regional government, would helpful.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: I don't have to weigh in on that. Another thing that you've taken a lot of testimony on is tier one B, S two sixty seven as with S 102 proposes to change opt in to opt out. So the final piece in S325 that I believe you all, we're interested in our opinion is would DHCD lead the study? I'll give you a caveat to a yes. If a study remains in here, if someone's going to lead it, we'd like it to be us. I agree with the chamber that I think it makes sense to broaden that to municipal appeals rather than simply tier 1B. It could be noted that that should be incorporated, but I think broader study makes sense. What I'll offer is the administration position is we don't necessarily need to study this issue anymore in S102. We would point to some of our appeals proposals there as possible solutions, But I think more relevant to what we're proposing this year is in S-two 67, are three sections which have to do with these pre approved designs, which is the seventh direction of alleviating some elements of this appeals problem. You've probably heard other groups talk about buy right housing

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: and doing more in

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: the plan to alleviate some of the appeals challenge because things will be pre approved. So I'm gonna dive into that a little bit more. Those are the two sort of non Act two fifty secondtions in S. Two sixty seven that I think would make sense in S. Three twenty five. So I'll start with, you've already heard a bit about this. I think Deputy Commissioner Formalari was in here and gave a passing glance at this. Jake Hemric from our team talked a bit about this. But Sections eight, nine and ten in S267 take the concept that's already being implemented right now with eight zero two Homes, with pilot communities where essentially communities will have the option. Any community could take the designs that will be published later this year and choose to adopt those pre approved. What sections eight, nine and ten of S two sixty seven do is establish that DHCP has the authority to designate designs as pre approved, sets out a process by which DHC would have to undertake public input, have a public hearing or adding any designs. And then adds to, there's a list in title 24, there's a list of restrictions which municipalities cannot zone, and this would just be adding these designs to that list.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it would

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: establish these as pre approved statewide within residential districts perspective to whatever the residential zoning district is. So the four unit wouldn't be pre approved in a duplex and single family home district. It would only be one and two given homes there, if that makes sense. Just to state, and I believe Jake got into this a bit, but even in this case, the units would still have to comply with other regulatory municipal regulations like setbacks and other things, but the design would no longer be considered Can

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I just jump in here? Maybe you have more to say about this specifically, and if you have more to say about this, I'm happy to pull my question. No, please go ahead. Okay, so something that, there's two things really. So when you talk about pre, I'm appreciating the pre approved or I guess another phrase might be like pre permitted designs. Think that's a better phrase than by right, so to speak. Think it's more actually just descriptive. Yeah. One question I would have about that is pre permitted for what? Like which pieces are you anticipating, specifically which permits would you anticipate bypassing? I feel like that has only just had a light reference as we've talked about this so far, so that feels a little unclear to me. That, because it is. Sure. And I'm sure it was more clear that could be, that's there, that I just don't know, but that's one question. And then the other question that I have is, because right now you all are, this is being piloted in three municipalities across the state, awesome, Love that that is happening. Is it accurate to say that there's not, right now in the works, a report back on how it has gone for those three communities?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: That's correct. The pilot is just launching and the designs aren't published, so this drafting, taking effect July '20

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, for what it's worth, this is aspect that I am interested in, which is one of the reasons why I feel like the, a study or something makes sense. But I would love to learn from those, the experiences of those municipalities before we just, well, forward with implementing it.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Would also say that I think what we have now is a bottom up process that seems to be gaining traction. And I think every child oppose it will be percent. Yeah, the opposite will end up with less.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: I'll offer that this is admittedly actually very incremental. This would only be 10 designs. It's really only development review that would be pre approved. Other regulations would still apply, state permits would still apply. So we're not bypassing all regulation here. It's actually a very incremental approach to this. And putting it in statute now gives us the ability to build upon it down the road.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. So I think we got testimony on this before from somebody in your shop and it is quite interesting. And the three communities, it's what Manchester is one of

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: them and Bradford and what else is it?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Essex. Essex Junction. Essex Junction. I mean, I think I agree with the chair that we have a tendency in this building to create pilots and then put them into law before we each have found out how the pilots work or to create pilots before we actually do a study about whether or not a pilot is a good thing. I'm not referring to anything in particular, but I'm not. So I guess I would just say that I would like to hear, I think this is a really intriguing idea, but I would like to hear how it works first. And so pre statified yet seems, yeah, too soon.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: I'll offer, I'd say the administration position on the whole is that there is urgency. So these solutions, we aren't eager to study things because it Not that we don't wanna study things, we wanna study based on evidence we have. We've looked this out and we've looked at others and we've seen how this has been successful in those attendees. So we're modeling that and we're being thoughtful in our implementation. And so holding back from a more broad implementation when we do have a path in a housing crisis, feel is not moving the moment.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that's fair, but when is the report due? What's the timeline on the pilot?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: So there's no report due to something we've undertaken on our own. The pilot is underway now. The designs have been shared with those three communities and public engagement over the last couple of weeks. The final designs will be published in the fall. We will also, over the summer, we'll be working with a likely developer in Manchester on a demonstration project utilizing these sites. Okay. And this

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: is just something, I'm sorry. No, no, no, you can- This is just something that you guys are doing on your own. It wasn't a legislative It's not in statute anywhere? That is right. Oh, interesting.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'll sonder. Either has got huge potential and not be bottom up and buy it, but then build a way it's been proven. So I'm very excited about what I'm saying here.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And if I'm not mistaken, so the proposal that the administration has would be that it would take effect as a that this would be statewide by July 2027.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: That's right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. That's soon. That is next year. Yeah.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Yeah. Again, public input would continue all the 10 designs that are being developed throughout this entire calendar year. And then there'd be a six month sort of final public input process where we can engage with the league, we can engage with Ms. Palamis after they've seen the final designs. And during that six month period, adjustments could be made if there's-

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I will say I did, I just connected a constituent of mine who heard about this- Oh, great. Who is disabled and wanted to make sure that the designs are good for people with disabilities. And he's not a senior citizen. He's in his 30s or 40s and wants to have a house design that could accommodate him. So I do think also in your outreach, need to be talking to maybe you already are, but community promoters with disabilities and other issues to make sure your design's accommodating for everyone.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Absolutely. A requirement in our contract is that accessible signs be included. We're also working with AARP right now to potentially add additional signs that they could choose to fund. So it's very much top

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: of mind.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. He has some really specific, really good suggestion.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Okay, that's great, thank you.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Your shot was considering adding more types

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: of subs? If we did, we would have to go, according to this language, if it were mandated statewide, we would have to go through a public engagement process and have public hearing in order to add any designs. Now without, we could go ahead and add designs on our own. Right? But without this language, it couldn't be a new design. It couldn't be mandated without us opening up all the gating process. That that makes sense. So you can add a design, make it open source for any builder to use and optional, but it wouldn't necessarily be by What

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: about I'm sorry, was still thinking about it's our middle ground. I'm wondering about, so effectively what the pre approval would be would be like a development review boards approval. That's right, or a SOAR review. Both? Okay, and so it would not include things like a fire permit. That's right. Okay, that's right.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: It's discretionary. Mhmm. So the municipal zoning administrator would still have to sign. Okay.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And all the code compliance too.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Code compliance as well. Code compliance can be incorporated in the design, we engage in fire safety with them. Sure.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mean, it should be seamless, but.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: How did you pick the three communities? Did they raise their hand or did you recruit them? It was

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: such a good story. We put out an opportunity for what we call development ready communities to participate in this pilot. We weren't sure what the response was gonna be. We got an overwhelming response. We only had the resources to choose three communities, but I wanna say 26 or 27 communities applied. And so we set some criteria based on one geographic diversity, we wanted a mix of towns, two size, and then we also wanted to ensure that we did have communities in this first, the pilot phase that had municipal staff that we couldn't administer. So we were a little bit constrained in terms of we couldn't go too small of a town, but we got a good geographic mix.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, sorry, unless you have the phone. No, I'm still mulling here. So these are towns that you are supporting in this process. Is there anything prohibiting municipality from adopting this on their own moving on to the future?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: That's right. Without any statute and status quo, even in the same rule v, these are open source. Any municipality can choose to deal with these they will. Any builder could use these and save 10% of their building costs, but not have a great sign. You're absolutely right. There's nothing preventing municipalities. I think Senator Bongartz's point from opting in to these assets.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, so the proposal I'm now starting to frame this as like, Oh, this is an opt in versus an opt out. Where a lot of municipalities may not even know that this is an option and not know how it has worked. Another thing that this raises for me, I don't know if, maybe if there's overwhelming support or there was a response, you know, that there was interest in this, that maybe municipalities know more than I'm suggesting at this moment. But I guess I'm also wondering about, you know, based on the experience of those three communities, is there a plan for outreach to advertise, you know, how it has gone?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: Yeah, there is. I mean, part of the logic behind choosing July 2027 was that even after the pilot concludes, we then have months, you know, six to eight months to do public outreach, a little more public engagement. Maybe I'll offer, I'll fill in some of the gray area here with what we're thinking down the road. The reason we're interested in a statewide implementation across the board is part of this is we're requiring that these designs be both traditional on-site instruction and the vendor is also developing them as off-site instructions, logic for analyze. The reason we wanna do that and the reason we want as much sort of bulk certainty right off the bat as possible is that's our greatest chance at getting engagement from modular manufacturers, either in Vermont or that are outside of Vermont, because they know they have predictability. If they can be sure that municipalities across Vermont will accept these designs based on design review, that's a little bit more certainty that in a factory, they could turn off 50 of these units because they didn't go to Vermont. Right now, they don't have that certainty because theoretically, you have two fifty two different thoughts on what we've got to decide, okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm wondering about, and I am not fully baked this, so I'm gonna just say it, but since this is a pilot that you developed on your own, which obviously you're welcome to do that, it's great that you did, you don't need us to ask you for sure for things like this. I'm wondering if we put in criteria about the pilot and its success and its outcomes, then that would trigger more of an expansion if you met those parameters or criteria. And maybe it wouldn't be a full statewide expansion yet. You're gonna have to come back to talk to whoever's in these chairs again, but it could be somewhat of an expansion. I don't know, just sort of like a phase in, so it's not a automatic expansion or a statewide thing automatically, but there's some kind of middle ground. What I was trying to out. That makes sense.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: I understand. I'd happy to engage to see what that would look like. I'm sure for all of us, hard to say without saying specific.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, because I mean, this is, I'm also not sure, the timeline for the pilot, I don't know exactly what your goal was for the pilot. Was it just to get the houses designed and get three towns who were interested in them, or were there further goals?

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: And so sort of fleshing out what the pilot actually means.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure. And then before it could move on to the next phase with more incentives. Sure.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: And I'd be happy to talk more about that to help flesh this out. A good portion of us wanting to do a pilot rather than just create designs, a lot of the municipalities help us and tell us what they would want to see. And that's why we chose three different municipalities with some slightly different books. That's just one of the outcomes. As well as we'd like to see at least one demonstration project.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, I'm interested in the municipality experience, the developer experience, the community experience with all of them. The homeowner. The homeowner, yes. Yep. Are they nice to live in? Yeah. Yes. That's really cool. Yeah. No. Just anything to add to

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I just I don't know

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: to beat the source, but I just think that getting this combined will make it work much better because this is from an administrative process, we have if it's imposed, we're gonna have useful resistance as opposed to buy in.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And I think we'll get more housing built. This will probably be more successful if we let it be bottom up and not make a top down.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: offer that, Senator, that's fair. I mean, I think during the Home Act discussions, we heard a lot of that same challenge, right? We're struggling with how much are we comfortable mandating from the state level because we're recognized we're in a crisis. And so there's some discomfort in this building, always is in creating a mandate that, you know, push municipalities. I'll offer that I think there's a good balance in this. I'll also offer though that we wouldn't propose this in a vacuum. This along with some of the other statewide permitting proposals is really, we're trying to give the municipality something while also asking something of them and the builders. This isn't just asking something municipalities, it's asking something of the builders to fit into a box.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I also wanna make sure that we get to your next slide.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Okay. I can

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: can be quick on this slide because I think this may generally fall in Senate E. D. Jurisdiction, but I wanted to cover it here so you know another element of this bill, section 11 of two sixty seven, may be a good fit in this bill as well, is incorporating the municipal housing targets into municipal plan. And this is a pretty relaxed approach to this. It's not mandating that zoning be updated to enable the targets. It's not mandating that municipalities do this right now. Upon update, they would analyze and the housing targets demonstrate that they can accommodate those or, and what we see is actually the more important piece of this provision is, or if they have constraints, can't meet the housing targets that the RPCs set for them, they should catalog what those constraints are, whether it's regulatory infrastructure, which I suspect water, wastewater is gonna be top of the list for most municipalities, or some other constraint. So that's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: cease to abolition. Okay. Our interpretation. Says the planning. Oh, great. Thank you very much. So glad you all are working on this eight zero two homestay. It's very cool. I'm actually. Yeah, there you are. Welcome. Thank you. Tadding a little deeper into 03/25. I mean, we've heard you already on this, but love to hear some. I'm sharing. Yes. Well,

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: first of all, as others have said, thank you. Thank you for having this bill bring this bill forward, and thank you for inviting BLCT and the other testimonies today to discuss it. This is vitally important to municipalities across the state, in particular, small vote passing for all communities. Quick overview. I actually wasn't, let me say first, Madam Chair, I have pictures of maps more just to be interesting and exciting, not to discuss. But you, but time permitting, I could pull up the FLU. I have an FLU testimony on this question of what is a mapped growth area as opposed to a 1B growth area. So time permitting, I'm happy to discuss that. So I'll tell you future land use area. So anyway, this is, I'm going to go through the bill with comments on a number of the sections. I'm going to hop around a little bit, because I kind of went by jurisdiction rather than by section. This is how I understand the new proposed timeline in your bill S-three 25, and so I thought I would stop here, pause here, so we could see these because I'm going to suggest changes. Right. So you discuss extending the PHP exemption to 27, the other Act two fifty exemptions to 28, Tier three rulemaking February with jurisdiction applying in Tier three on parcels in Tier three in July, same with the road rule jurisdiction, and then the new tier 1A guidance soon this fall. So our first recommendation, this, I hesitate to say anything is the most important. I think this might be the most important request that we're needing, which is to require that the final tier three rule, we're on our third draft, But to require that the final tier three rule be reported to the legislature no later than November 15. And one important reason is that this allows legislative intervention if necessary. So for example, the current draft rule in the types of development that are exempted, utilities are not exempted. So this committee or the House Environment Committee, House Energy Committee may determine that that's not appropriate, that you don't want to put it in state permitting processes for telecommunications or energy utilities. If that's in the final rule, we feel you should have an opportunity to add a legislative guideline if that is important well in advance of the jurisdiction taking effect in tier three areas. So that's the most important reason. We have our own sort of local reasons, which are that a earlier rule will allow some of the municipalities and pharmacies still in their regional planning for the Tier one FL news to see the draft. If it comes out in February, that opportunity is kind of out the door for anyone. If we could really roll back the clock and go back in time, wouldn't it have been nice to just see tier three first? Then, basically, if you could pick the worst month of the year to issue something vitally important for municipal officials to read, it would be the month of February. As you know, Madam Chair is a former elected municipal official. There is zero capacity at the town level right now. So the fall and before the legislative session, before the municipal budgeting season and municipal elections kick off, would be, we think, the best time to review the final. Second recommendation. So the LERP has said that they plan to issue road rule guidance. Putting aside concerns about the tier three rule and specific concerns about habitat connectors or exempted development, non exempted development, sort of putting in that category of concern, I think the most frequent concern we hear specifically from zoning administrators is where is the road rule guidance? We need the road rule guidance because the municipal planning processes and communications and public engagement processes are long and require a lot of work, mostly volunteer capacity, and they are sort of desperate to understand what the road rule is, how it will work, how it should be applied, and they want to see that guidance in time before the jurisdictional change so that they could adapt and evolve in appropriate ways their own local code so that it's working together with the road rule and not in conflict that creates jurisdictional gaps or duplicative jurisdiction if that can be avoided. So we actually suggest that S-three 25 add a requirement that the LERF issue the roadblock guideline that doesn't currently exist in the law, and that that be on the same timeline as our suggested date for the Tiers three rule, which is November 15. And in both cases, we support the jurisdictional extension going out to the 2027. I don't know if anyone has discussed this yet today. If you'll remember, BNRC touched on this at, I think, the first joint hearing. Maybe you'll remember it, I'll remind you. And I'll add that today, Bert Bingledine, who know Burb, a member of the LERB, met with the Rural Caucus, and she also discussed this. VLCT has had a number of meetings with LERB members about a number of components of Act 21, including some months ago, many months ago, we specifically asked, why doesn't tier three development need a full Act two fifty review?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can ask before we move on to this? The LERB suggested the road rule going into effect in the winter. Are you suggesting it going into effect in the summer? Because you were saying July, because they were concerned that that's in the middle of construction season and that, like so they were suggesting moving it to, I had written down twelveonetwenty seven, but I don't know, maybe it was oneonetwenty eight. I don't know. But,

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: yeah, so. That's a great, I'm glad you flesh out that specific concern, because whenever the road rule takes effect, it is the largest jurisdictional trigger in Act 181. It will cover the most area. Whenever it takes effect, it will change someone's development plan and development time. Probably many people's development plan and development

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: time. Right, but they weren't thinking summers when people might be building something, so do it in the winter when people

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Right, but the permitting would happen before the planned construction. So the jurisdictional trigger will shape the permitting navigation as much or more than the construction, the beginning of construction, because that project will be permitted or not permitted by the time they break ground, right? Well, it will be permitted by this company break ground. And that's why we think this seven months is so important. So have the rule for tier three and the guideline for the road rule come out in the fall, and then have the seven months and then have the jurisdiction apply in the Southern post session and sort of along the normal timeline of effective dates of changes in state laws and municipal campaigns. July 1 is a date Maybe we don't all love, but we all know. So that's our thinking, is that that distance between when the rule is issued and then jurisdiction applies is critical. Okay, and that's a

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: good distinction between construction and permit process, but I just was noting what they suggested, and that was their logic, was it's in the middle of construction season, but you're right that it would have to have a permit beforehand, so.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: It might be considered your

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: extension, actually. That's what I'm thinking. They suggested extending it until the- Intowards. The implementation because- It's set

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: to take effect this July. And so if SB three twenty five didn't pass, the road rule would take effect 07/01/2026.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Pay appeal. Right. It's basically just another summer of being able to cope.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Okay, so back to this provision. Basically, so many months ago, we went to the lab and we said, why does a development, especially a development like a sugar shack or a gardening shed or an ADU, why does that need a full Act two fifty permit review in tier three? And our discussions with ALERT at the time were like, well, we can't make that decision. We don't have discretion. The law says it's in or it's out of tier three, and it gets a full duty review or not. Since then, they have discussed and indicated that they would be favorable to this change where it could be considered that full activity review is not required. I think there are other parties who feel they have this discretion now. I mean, that was my reading of it six, nine months ago. Frankly, in any event, it's not their reading of it. It's not what their general counsel is advising the LER to do. And so this language is in H730, the Rural Caucus Bill. And I think there's common agreement and support for this change in language, and would really like to see it brought into your Senate bill. So this, yeah? Sorry, just had

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: a question on this language, because it says if a criterion under Temi say is not recommended for review under tier three, it should be defined in the rule. Okay, so it's defining, just so I can understand what that is suggesting, it's saying that the rule for tier three has to identify which criterion would apply, would not, right, would not, would would not, okay. So, yeah, was gonna say, you could, yeah, you can do that. Intuitively, think of it as the inverse of that, but I mean, I suppose you do it first.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, and Ellen looked at the draft of this language as well, so that's a question for her.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't see why I think that'd be okay. Sure.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: But this is like, so what this has is, in the tier three rule, the learner would say impact on schools is not required for review for this permit and here's why. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, they'd have to explain it. I imagine there'd have to be some flushing out of specific kinds of situations.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Sure. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I mean, I also don't see why under this language they couldn't say development development of units of housing less than five in tier three don't meet these criteria to be reviewed. But development of units more than x do, right? The point is, we think they should have discretion and not every single type of development should be required to have a full active 50 permit review, especially if we're not going to include things like, especially if we are including things like utilities or road improvements, municipal road improvements. Like, do we need archaeological review on a rockland ditch for storm water management that is 50 feet, know, one to 50 feet from this side of an existing municipal road? Probably not. I think the board also thinks probably not. So they should have the clear discretion in the law is what we support. You heard compelling testimony, which I won't repeat from the chamber and from the commissioner. We also support all of the temporary exemptions being extended to 2030. We're not bringing forward the PHP change, but have no opposition to what either the administration or the chamber put forward regarding PHP's in page

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: percent of units would be affordable.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: 20% of the units are affordable at a low AMI. Think it's 80% AMI is the old definition.

[Alex Farrell (Commissioner, Department of Housing and Community Development)]: In rental apartment construction.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's fifteen years. Yes.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, so that's not our idea, but seeing our reason to oppose it, the PHP worked well for many years statewide prior to ACRM '81. But yeah, extends to 2030. It provides certainty for builders and property owners. It is aligned with the state's already adopted housing goal, which is set for 2030. And I included a map here of Fulchester because they are a community in Chitney County with eligible FLU, so their FLUs are 1B eligible, and they have decided not to opt in to 1B. And so the minute any exemption goes away, then there is no housing exemptions for Act two fifty in the community of Goldchester. So that's my point. If you two align the housing exemptions, which are working, they're working really well, they're producing a lot of housing, we have not gotten complaints from municipalities about the temporary exemptions. If you put your map from 2,030, that allows the sort of maximum opportunity statewide in these dense already developed areas serviced by water and sewer for as much housing as possible to happen before 2030, at which point, Colchester will not be one lead and there will not be Act two fifty extensions for housing and the other committees around eight ish for the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: panel that have made that decision.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So I'm suggesting a change to Section two, which is the section that addresses active duty permit enforcement in Tier 1A, but I thought it would be of value to share with the committee what we heard from municipal planners in Tier 1A. So I asked a number of them to review the language in S-three 25, And there's really two categories of communities that would be affected by this language in different ways. One is a community that has Act two fifty permitted projects actively in construction or expected to be in redevelopment in the near term. That's a category A. Category B is a tier 1A community that has Act two fifty permitted development not expected to be redeveloped. Like, it's been built, it's being used for its intended purpose, and it's expected to be that way for a long time. So the language that you have, the 1A communities, which arguably are maybe the more important to consider, said it's good or it's great. That was their feedback. The communities in category B that are not expecting currently permitted Act two fifty developments to go through a redevelopment process, they were like, well, maybe there are Act two fifty permit conditions. It could be true that there's an Act two fifty permit condition that we want to be enforced. And should there be additional language to clarify how that happens? But then they said, but maybe it doesn't matter because our municipal zoning is still in effect. We can still enforce our municipal permit. So if there's a permit condition that the parking lot can only be used till midnight or whatever, they could still enforce their municipal permit regardless of what the state is doing in terms of enforcement.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: What about giving them the option to give them up, say they may? One person did say saying may. Okay, because then in town could hold on to the ones they want to enforce, and then they could send the ones they don't want, Hitler. Yeah. I don't know. I think

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: it would have been that suggestion because one person said it, and I'm like, one with minority. But one planner who's great and very smart did suggest. Yeah. Great, very smart planner. Yeah. Whatever that is. So sorry, any questions about that? I know it's like weird. You've heard a lot about it. You've heard a lot of things I think about this provision. So we do, this is the number one concern of tear free toothpaste. Yeah. Basically, the same suggestions. We also suggest moving the I put Add 1A, but I was like, why didn't I just think of all municipal permits? So I've been happily agreed, made it municipal appeals report. And we agree that the oversight should

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: be in

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: DHCD. They are our municipal planning partners that are a subdivision of state government. But that's where the community support the municipal planning grants and the experts who support citizen planners in municipalities are, they're in DHCB. We agreed to add Lettsville Homes, which had some policy expertise in this area, also suggests including the Land Access Opportunity Board. They have been included in most of the most if not all of the ACRA meeting one reports and stakeholder groups so far are definitely qualified and would add a different perspective. It's important. And clear direction, that this is not to just study appeals, how many there are, what the content of an appeal is, how long it takes, what it costs to do it. Our members feel they know that information, and we don't need to see another report about it. We would like explicit legislative direction that this report is to consider and potentially make recommendations related to permitting approvals, administrative permits, and other types of pathway by right opportunities, such as form based code, such as model code. I mean, I don't know if you've basically saying administrative permitting is, like, the topic. Underneath that is model code, form based code, pre approved architectural designs, that's like the flowchart. So that's why I may suggest that. Yeah, I was wondering,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: because you mentioned this earlier, I was thinking about this, does housing by right need like pre approved housing, and if that might be a better

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Housing by right means a couple of things. Yeah, what It does it mean? Means different things, particularly in different states, because in most states there is no statewide permitting regime, right?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: And

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: so in Montana, they have a lot of municipal preconceptions that you can or you cannot allow this type of development or that. And so Montana almost creates housing by right or development by right in its preemption. That's like one. And then there's administrative permits where you're removing the discretion of the appropriate municipal panel, which in Vermont is most often the DRB, the Design Review Board. So an administrative permit basically says, this permit application meets, in an objective way, the requirements of the municipality so the permit is approved, and it's like a professional zoning administrator that looks at the permit, looks at the requirement of the local law, issues the permit, then you can say, in that case that it's an administrative permit, it has met the objective standard of law, it is not appealable. If you w the first part, if you just say this is an administrative, non discretionary decision, there was no discussion and open meeting, there was no back and forth, there were no changes to the design, it met the requirement, it was approved, that already eliminates the vast number of appeals. Burlington has adopted Formace Code, basically what they do for just their downtown. They have not had an appeal filed since 2017. So South Burlington did the same thing. They have had a few, including one really painful, many hundreds day appeal. So it's not perfect, but a lot of the problem goes away. If you say, additionally, through the state's authority, in these circumstances, it's not appealable at all, then of course, the municipal appeal goes away 100%. There's no opportunity to appeal it. And what we mean by subjective and not subjective, right now, zoning might say something like, The siding of the building must be a natural material in keeping with the other buildings in a two block radius. What an objective code would say, here are the 11 types of material you may side your building with. And so then the zoning administrator is like, well, is it This one says cedar shingle. Cedar shingle, check. Okay, they met that standard. So that's what we mean by

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: that. Yeah. I mean, is the term housing by right in statute or is it just not in the law?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: There's the by right provision in the Home Act. Oh,

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: yes. That's correct. And so we do use the word permanent use or by writing. However, the way that the Home Act language is written, a municipality can apply code, setback, roof pitch, number of egresses, but they have a permit. Yeah.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: And if it says you get nine, you get nine, it can't get whirl down.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. So if I recall the bi right part that was duplexing bi right, and then it was like a quad flexing aspect as well. Because I think I searched for the term duplex by right and statute didn't come up.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: What it says is that everywhere that in year round residential development is allowed and single family residents are allowed, then a

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: duplex must also be allowed. Okay, so just use the term. That's why I'm saying.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's a permitted use. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: So you want to send the volume slide?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, we only have a few more minutes. Okay. I wanted have, like, a little conversation with the committee before, but thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you again for taking the time. Really important. Yeah, absolutely. So, as I expressed as we were talking through this, I have not yet seen the recommended language changes from the Land Use Review Board, but I just wanted to check with you all. When we get those suggestions, my instinct is to get a new draft that has those changes that I think are a little bit more up to date, and then people can be reacting to that, or thoughts? Well, was thinking, I mean, are a few things that we just heard testimony on that are different than what the LERB is recommending, so I'm going to leave those out. I guess I would like to maybe go

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: through

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: the draft with Alan and the LERB's suggestions and the suggestions we heard from others. And we do kind of like what we did this morning with the vision and wake books bill, where we all sort of talk about what we want to do. That's fair. There's, and I feel like there's enough agreement about most of the things. Yeah. So that feels doable. There's the dates, especially as we heard and had some discussion that's supposed to be had, The, I just want to make sure that, actually I'm thinking about the time, that we should ask somebody to make time off. Yeah, I mean, that would be helpful with timeline, but also just as we're trying to figure out the dates, it seems like there's some coalescing on the dates, but there were some differences that we heard today, and I asked about a few of them. So I guess I want clarity on where everybody is on the dates. Right, like how aligned are people on the dates. Yeah. Yeah. This seems fair. And maybe we just have this conversation with Alan, obviously, all these folks would be in front of you guys. Could be good. Okay, so that's helpful, just thinking about planning for next week. May camp. Right, yes. She's like, Weekend? Yeah, right. So one of the things that we'll prioritize there is having Ellen in to go through new jack with at least the majority. What I'm hearing is, some of the How about tomorrow, when we have that Ellen coming in to do the Act 181? Can you maybe redo this with her instead? Instead. Because- I suppose that it depends on what's the desire of the committee in terms of knowing what is the underlying bill. We can always do the underlying bill later too. Well, I mean, we already did some of it. I'm just wondering how much I'm with you at this point versus just going through this with her marking it up and talking about it.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: I mean, in terms

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: of efficiency, I'm game for that. You are as well. Do you have thoughts on this?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: No, I'm happy by the way. I think we want to make sure we have time.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Exactly, that's what I'm asking is having time. One of the things that I would Oh, sorry, long as I can I mean, nast all the questions that I always ask? One of the things that I would flag about this draft, feel like there have been a few things that people have brought up that are like, that feel like there is some consistency around that are not in this draft.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: As we

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: go through, want to make sure that we remember what those things are. Yeah. But then there's like the suggestions from Charlie Baker are, they're substantial and they're not in this draft. Right. So those from, VAPTA. Yeah. RPCs. So it may be that we can talk to about here get a And sense of what we want to there's a few pieces that maybe we'll remember that are not here that we want to add. And then I think looking at Charlie's suggestions, later, because there's a lot there. Yeah, mean, just seems like we have enough stuff that we should get another draft, but I'd rather it be us talking about it rather than just putting the LERVS language in. And then we can say, oh, we need to hear person, like get a tiny bit of testimony on rare, that kind of thing, and just that we're being reminded of what everybody needs.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Can put some kids in here, we only get from Charlie.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Had a lot.

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And a lot. There's something because the old person was happy on her.

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Can you post it on page?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I believe he sent, it must be, language changes. And I haven't,

[Todd (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know where they,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I feel like I need a chart on what did the LCT say, what

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think it'll be okay.

[Gwynn Zakov (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: You all sit where I can see you

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: come from. My favorite is Zika's favorite. Face is soft. I have you. That's how fast. Okay, and then actually, you know, I think we could also ask Ellen to come up with a timeline potentially. I'm just thinking about like, who can we ask to? Somebody said there is a timeline. Somebody did. Yes, go ahead. The ladies from Rutland has a timeline of everything that they were asked to do in 01/1981 and when everything is due. So that would be the ability to sort of have it execute what is this proposed timeline and power piece shifting things. I mean, includes everything. So you've got the wood products and lots of stuff in there. Okay. Maybe it's on their website. Well, I need to chat with them today anyway. So I'm open to switching the agenda or the plan for tomorrow to instead of it being a review of F-one 181, starting to dig into some of this language. Yeah. Sounds great. Any other thoughts, what's happened?

[Senator Seth Bongartz (Member)]: That's what we should do is have in front of us for that discussion, stuff from Charlie, stuff from today.

[Senator Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And the word. Yeah. Word.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, if we can get language suggestions specifically. I mean, I Jenny, what want notes. Happy have a representative in front. I mean, I know you've got to be here, but, like, there's nobody here from the work right now. Right. Right. We can ask. Nobody here from the back. There's nobody here from the back. Excuse my dad. Let me see. Okay. Sounds like a plan. My guess is that we won't get through all all of Probably not. But we'll we'll do what we can.