Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning. This is Senate Natural Resources Energy, and it is Thursday, February 26. We are starting the morning with a new draft, Defense two thirteen. The bill is soon to be formerly known as the Legative Smart Union Public Water Systems, still on topic, But they hope they don't need to. So welcome.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Morning. And we have a news wrapped. So this is draft 4.2. Is that right? Correct. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's really only that one change that ADS requested regarding cybersecurity council. So that is on by the way, it's my committee gave you the budget. Page three in section two, line 13, on the request of the secretary Security Advisory Council in May develop non binding guidance for public water systems regarding generally accepted cybersecurity practices, including the commission relevant to metering systems and customer data. Council may issue the guidance as part of its annual report and then any other outreach method utilized by the council specific and coloring power systems or other sort of infrastructure systems. It is not in the permitting section. Remember, it's not in 1675. It was moved to the secretary's authority under the program in 1672. It says it's May issue, and that was a discussion that the secretary made, yes, raised yesterday. I mean, it's whether it's gonna be discretionary, whether it's gonna be mandatory, whether the council will have flexibility in when and how they issue the guidance. Honestly, they think it's necessary, maybe the systems haven't changed or they've already issued new guidance. So it's a policy decision. I understand both perspectives, but that's anything new.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, the secretary wanted it to be May. I guess I would prefer that it be shall, but also understand that they want the flexibility to be able to do, or not. So I also did get a chance to chat with the commissioner secretary this morning, and one of the things that she said to me was, If we leave it as made, it doesn't happen, you can come back and change it to a show. So I was like, I know. Yeah, that doesn't, yeah. Then that makes me money. Yeah. Yeah. Other. What wasn't part of the argument? It's,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's, you know

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any thoughts to those? No. Okay. You know, already says that it's an online thing. So, I mean, it's already Ms. Mikoshi. This would be the secretary of the ENR asking for it, and presumably if she asked for it, there's a reason that she's asking for it. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the council can also publish it as part of their report, likely without the request. Correct. Yes. The secretary of resources.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. So they could act on their own, but the Secretary of Natural Resources would have more sight because her agency oversees water systems. Yeah, I suppose so. If the little group is to move towards Shell, then I'll get to that. I had something like we need Senator Beck. Well, I mean, shouldn't take a vote on this anyway without him. We don't know when he's gonna be bad. I don't know who's gonna be.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I you know, what difference does it make? I mean, obviously, secretary Anne Watson and the secretary is saying that she'd rather have it in the discretion there. What what differences in there?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, think the difference is is that if the agency of natural resources secretary says, oh, we need this guidance because we're seeing that water systems don't know exactly how to deal with cybersecurity. So we need it, because she oversees water systems. So she's asking the cybersecurity council to do it. And if it's a may, they can say, No, we don't want to do it. If it's a shell, they have to issue the guidance. The guidance would be non binding, so, and it also could be changed the next year.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm. So I'm looking at it from the District one's you know, how many municipalities are actually gonna do this, right? And how many are gonna put the smart meters in?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, this isn't about whether to put the smart This meters is just guidance for how to protect water systems from cybersecurity attacks. So whether or not they deal with smart meters is not relevant to this paragraph. It's more about Including problem solving. Especially Yeah. It's funny. Yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Just to Mhmm. Whether it says shall or may be reversed sentence, would it make sense to say the council may issue the guidance, or with or without the request of the secretary, council may issue guidance? You could say something without the or

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on its own motion or upon its request of the secretary.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Counsel

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I Yeah. Right.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Because we don't want could read this to say that they could go they would have their questions, so I can do it.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you may need two different sentences because if you're gonna go with the shall you're gonna say on its own motion, the council may issue the guidance upon request of the secretary. Shall issue the guidance. Yeah. Mhmm.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that's a good distinction. Presumably the secretary is a good reason to ask. There's been a cybersecurity attack. That feels good watching. Okay. So not voting on this point yet. And I know we've had it for tomorrow. I

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think it is actually.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It is a 09:40. Yeah. So we'll we'll do it tomorrow. That works for me. And I think that means that we can move on to our other bill. You, $2.24. Okay. So we we did ask for some changes. Well, invited.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: If she fits her with From a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: weight room. From a weight room. Oh

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my gosh.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Special, especially specific girls into them. So, I think it makes sense to walk through the changes that we have asked for. Okay. And then we'll get to the last little bit that we've not talked about. Okay. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So Dan, migrating last council, peritoneum, It's in a definition of a five two six inspection station. It's clarifying as with the decontamination, they have to be located in a way to collect runoff or run run off surface waters for. Then on page three in the definition of decontamination service provider, you broke that out a little bit. You wanted to be clear that it could be a private entity or business or by a state agency, so it's owned or operated by a private entity or business or by a state agency, has access to electric power and hot water of over 140 degrees Fahrenheit, Resigned to remove or prevent the spread of the wildeucine species through the use of high pressure in hot water to dislocate it in a way. So that we've got that. Page six is the next change. This is the approval of decontamination service providers by AMR, so private business or a state agency shall not operate that decombination service provider without diversity and approval from the Secretary of Natural Resources. An applicant for approval shall apply in the form provided by the Secretary and shall submit information demonstrating that the proposed site provides provider satisfies them all in their criteria and such. Fourteen twenty three.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Let me see here. I mean, it's rather you haven't specified criteria for that, but I think that's

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the criteria is Sorry. In the definition. Page seven. I added section a related to signage. Remember, we were talking about signage and making it just part of when the secretary or commissioner is done to be doing new signage at access areas. There's actually already a requirement for a quiet nuisance signage. You will see that on page seven, line 17, They will place a sign of at least two feet by two feet in the size that states that the water is infected with a product nuisance and other person transporting. The nuisance in violation of fourteen fifty four may be subject to the panel so that the signage is leaked. So there's already that they're already doing that in the access area. So for decontamination, include on any signage posted under this section the requirements of section fourteen twenty four b regarding the operation and decontamination of.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do didn't we talk about that we would have asked them to do that when they updated the sign so it would cost them money?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And so that that is on On page 14. Oh. Line 17. When the agency is posting signage or replacing signage for this in the fishing access area rather than public point of access, the agency shall include information on the signage regarding requirements for the operation into contamination. So that is actually consistent with that that section I went to that said when they're posting according to those requirements, they're gonna put decontamination operation requirements for weight groups.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. That makes sense. Another question I have just from my is that on page three, I had written I like how you did that with the boat dealer thing, but I had written phase a requirement. Did we talk about phase in this in?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And it it is phase in. It's phased in

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Later in the bill? Yes. Okay. Is that a different effective date?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It's actually the implementation section.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. We can wait to get there if you want.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Actually, for for this one, it's it's the effective dates. It's the active date's effective on passage except that section of the operation, the companion of the contamination wave codes. They expect 01/01/2027, provided that ANRMA is initiating approval of decompandation service providers beginning on July 26. So they can start approving July 26, and then the operation deconcondation takes about January '27. You could also just get rid of that If everything else takes effect on passage and adjust the operation and decontamination, we expect January 2027. The problem is the approval of decontamination service provider is in the same section as on the ration of decontamination. So I just wanted clear up that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you you can't specify it's, like, section two

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could say it would be it would it would be something like, except that it tends is a fourteen twenty four b subsections a through c four and d through g.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think this way it matters there. My only hesitation is since we're talking about it, it needs be effective dates, that it's provided that the Secretary of Natural Resources may initiate approval of decontamination beginning July 1. I'm worried that that may sound like they don't, they could start it at that date, but then they don't have to. And then if they don't initiate that.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, why don't you say shall initiate a credibility combination providers?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. That'd be great. The main versus shell. Apple conversations with the. Yes. And in that, yeah, in that case

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm not.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Alright. I think you're back on page 17.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. We did 15.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 15, going on page 16, and position wide left access areas. First change is on page 15. I'm not coming in from you on the fire completion that Senator Bongartz pointed out yesterday was out, precluding the vessel's not registered upon launching, provided that the vessel complies with the requirements of section 14 fifteen-four regarding the control of required use of species in section fourteen twenty four b regarding the operation and decontamination of the wave boat.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Have another question. You know, earlier, I just find it. Paragraph. Is there anything else? There's a K paragraph. Oh, page 13. Line 12, the and annually, I had written add 2028 ineffective dates.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: work? Did that happen?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's in the implementation section right before the effective date.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I didn't see that section. Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you can

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Turn to page 26 going on to page 27. Because those those requirements are in the same section and subsection, I had to break it out into into an implementation and not an effective date. Got it. So the commissioner of motor vehicles shall provide for the designation of motorboats as wake votes and the designation of a home late or wake vote beginning on 01/01/2028. And then for the annual submission, compiled information regarding wake votes to the secretary of ANR, but that's 01/01/2020. They won't have the information to send annually until Oh, got the question.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yes, thank you. So in my conversation with the Fish and Wildlife Access folks and ANR, our DC, then they also recommend that we strike with the word and what we explore. Mhmm.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's first a policy decision, and that's because they are saying that their rule doesn't require decontamination of weight loss. Their rule their current role, team doesn't their current role regulates where weight boats are engaging in weight sports. And so to avoid the situation where a wakeboat isn't is allowed on a lake but is not operating in wake sport mode, would you continue to allow that? And they say they do allow that under the current rule. You can have a wake vote on on a lake where wake sports are prohibited, provided that you're not operating in a wake sport mode. And they that's a clarification that they ask for. That's partly policy decision. I don't think it's difficult to do with your language. You will still have that policy decision of whether or not to require decontamination of weight boats prior to entry. Mhmm. But I can do that if you No.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I just I I don't wanna throw it out there for the discussion.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, thank you for raising it. I think it is an issue that is worth looking into, where we're at in terms of this bill, my thought would be that that is something I think we could flag for the house. And I think it's a perfectly valid and lovely thing for them to look into. But I think if we were to try to change that at this point, we'd have to, because it's so much broader, I think we'd have to hear from more savers. So if it's okay with you, I will flag that. Yeah, that's fair.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So page 17. I don't know. Page go ahead. I think we're on page 17 now.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Another sorry, Michael. This

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was in session nine that they noted, and you can probably fix it somewhere.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page fourteen, nine, fourteen, and fifteen that they have to be operating according to requirements of 10 gs.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's the demon.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. You took it. Okay. All right. Three for three, Michael. He's good.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, 17. So first, line eight, the Commissioner of Additional Wiley shall allow the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation to post product nuisance signs and access areas pursuant to that requirement where they already are posting product nuisance inspection signs, but also now with seven, which is moldy about the operation of the decontamination wake ups. Page 17 on 12 through 15, the system building say a fishing area may be used by crews of the product nuisance inspection station in order to allow for the implementation of requirements of section fourteen fifty four. It's no longer about decontamination of the makeboats. Remember, this product nuisance inspection stations are not decontamination service providers. Moving down on page 17 line 21, there have been and the bills introduced, it said that there was a conflict between uses and the concept that pointed out, the current rule of federal rules says hair appearance, and I hadn't changed that term.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So can we go, Ben Sure. To e one? I I had a note in this too, and this title for inspection oh, I'm sorry. I was saying regarding the inspection and cleaning of vessels.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Sure. Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I I tried to to reference that authority on page 17 line 15 Mhmm. Where it's inspection and the removal of a product use of species. Mhmm.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't know if that addresses your concern. Oh, so is what's in 14 54 just about if I feel like I should be back in 14

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's 50 it's inspection, and then when they have identified the species, they're still in the middle. Pretty pretty

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: good. Okay. So,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: what happened if you just went to

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the cleaning? So Alright. You could do that cleaning of the Well,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: cleaning cleaning of of the cleaning the aquatic species. Not No. No. Really? Polish the muscle. So

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have a full course in here. So let me pull that up and I can read in a language.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: My reason for bringing that up is just because, I mean, do we want to make sure that we're allowing not just the inspection, but also the removal or the cleaning aspect that's rather set.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a requirement. Person transporting a vessel to or from a water jowl prior to blocking the vessel, without leaving water, inspect the vessel, without a vehicle transporting vessel to trailer and other equipment, and shut our movement properly and dispose of any aquatic plants and aquatic dependent parts of the aquatic species. And then when needing the water and prior to transport away from the area where the dust left the water, they shall drain the dust trail and other equipment. I I would say that cleaning is not actually

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It's not the. Yeah. I kinda like the way it's with inspection and removal. The way removal. Yep. That's fine.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One potential is remove and properly disposed of here. That's the line between fourteen fifteen. So and the removal and proper disposal of Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 18. This is really just combines eight through 11 to remove the reference to a deep and patient service provider. And this is the directive or commissioner of Fish and Wildlife Collaborate, then we'll go state entity of the focus of staff recovery, and then maybe even a product inspection station at an access center. Remember, you're not going to put decontamination service providers at an access center. Okay. Alright. Moving on. Page 20. This is the priority of diffusing under the access area rule. Remember, you have authority to amend the Gionwaubai for rules, and so this is within your authority. So you're moving up ATVs and snowmobiles used for the purposes of ice fishing to under the first priority for angling, ice fishing, and the launching of any vessel. Because angling and ice fishing is already preferred priority, and access with snowmobiles and ATVs would be something that would fall under that. And then you added in place of the ATVs, now up in 4.1, approved required usage inspection stations as the fifth priority use throughout the implementations of the requirements of thirteen fifty four regarding inspection of the vessels and the removal of the product use of species on vessels. And I assume you're gonna say

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: removal of Proper disposal. Yep. I agree.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I put it as the fifth use. You potentially could put it as the fourth priority use over launching of all non motorized vessels. That is okay. We need your reference.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Can you say that one more time?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So remember, you are concerned about allowing the access the inspection stations to be as the first few priority uses because of the potential interference with the authorized use under the grants and the and the continuing grants. I I am I am uncertain of whether there are any grants for non motorized vessels.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I know there are grants for angling, ice fishing. I know there are grants for hunting, and I know there are grants for access for outdoor motor boats. So because of my uncertainty, put it as bad. Mhmm. But it's an uncertainty. If you wanted to assert that it's going to be looked for, I think you can do that with the caveat that I don't know if there would potentially be an interference of some of the necessities. I think we're in this form.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I agree. I think we wanna have communities and kayaks and robots and all those things to be able to use the access station. Does that have any other opinions about lease? Okay. I think it's fine. Great. Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then on page 24, you're in 15 parliaments. You didn't completely finish 15 parliaments, but the first thing you did is you asked for the removal of that municipal approval by the legislative body and that was done. But you asked that in the application for the fishing tournament that the applicant affirm that they have notified the municipality or municipalities in which the fishing tournament is going to be located, provided that that's only for the inland lakes. And so you will see page 24 lines 12, application to hold a fishing tournament on the waters of the state shall be submitted on a form issued by the commissioner. So just to know, waters of the state include Champlain, Banffram Agog, and Wallace Pond. So that's the application still for those waters of the state. Under the form, the Department shall require an applicant for a tournament on an inland lake to affirm that the legislative body of the municipality or municipalities has been notified of the post tournament. Our department has authorized to verify that an applicant by the legislative body of the municipality or municipality where the district is proposed. Then on the next page, line one through four, the department shall not issue that permit if the inland lake on which the tournament is proposed serves a public water system and sort of protection area where the inland lake prohibits fishing on the inland

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: lake. Is the source protection area

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It should probably say sort of protection area, Carmen.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. And is that

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. So it's a

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So it's a public water system and the Does it prohibited fission? Right. Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And is the source protection area permit is that is should we reference what

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that is,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: or is that a thing that people The source protection area of I mean, mentioned that yesterday because all I know is to be in there. Right. Because we had a source protection. So I don't, I mean, I don't know, maybe just,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: do you think

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's adding remembrance

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There there is.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Hash. Yeah. We're but it's a legal thing. It's not just something we make up. I mean, if we make it up, it becomes legal right now. I

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can cite the things that you require.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I do wanna go back to page 24, just the previous paragraph. It was raised to me that, particularly with some of these tournaments that are virtual or

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Multi lakes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, the multi There's some tournaments that happen on multiple lakes across the state. So, apparently like, the thought that was shared with me was that if we go with something like this, it would shut down multi lake tournaments. So I think the intention here is that if it's just on an individual lake, but because if I'm imagining if it's on multiple lakes, then you are not really worried about a congregation of people. It's sort of individual, it's spread out. But if it's happening on a specific lake, that may deem we're gonna make more sense. But I thought I'd at least share that concern with the committee.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So if I can ask, so what we're saying is that all they have to do is notify the municipality. Know, just slated. Yeah. And it has to be approved because not gonna take a month.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it's not a vacation.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a vacation. Yeah. But if it's gonna happen on every lake in Vermont, that's virtual. No.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: We make an assumption to virtual if she moves. I

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think part of the issue is what kind of notes. Mhmm. Does it have to be by mail? Mhmm. It can have to be by email, and be and and then others more than by the secretary. Email notice. Probably will not be as difficult as a mail notice.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sure. This is another one of these issues that I think could be worked out in the house if we wanted to just do it, but that's something. Well, I think that was a good point. Mean, if we specify the notification may be completed by email, then you can do a group email, but it still might be hard to find the email addresses of all the Slack words because not all of them have official emails, let's just say. Yeah, no.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't need it in this language. We don't specify how to know the kitchen matters. It's true. Right. Here we're- Slammed on it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Slammed on it. Mhmm. Right. I think Michael's point is if we say that it could be done by email, then it's easier to do it to multiple people. Sure. And so if it's a multi lake fishing tournament, just sending, you can still just send one email and be like, hey, we're doing this. We're putting a permit in for this.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Do we need

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: to specifically say in there the eligible forms

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of communication or do we just, considering the comment that I think Senator Watson received, I think it might be worthwhile to clarify.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm happy to do that. That's okay with others. And I mean, we feel like that addresses the multi lake issue? I think it helps. It would, just thinking about in terms of logistics, because you would have to get everybody's email. Exactly. And that, can be hard. That might be hard.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well, I'm just saying, like, I've never participated in a virtual fishing tournament, but I mean like does a virtual fishing tournament, is the word go out and say we're gonna have a virtual fishing tournament on Saturday, you can use any lake or pond in Vermont. Or do they say you have to go to one of these six? Or how does

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How does that work?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And what's the difference? If it is the former, what's the difference between that and just a bunch of people going out fishing? I know. And then you don't put a permit for it. Right. And you just need a fishing license, you know.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Because the direction I was thinking we would go is that it would just, we want the notification if it's just going to be on the one link, but then does that, maybe that doesn't suffice either. Do want people to have heads up. I mean, if they, if it's posted on a website somewhere, is that notification?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not directly, you know. Yeah. It's like it does, it is sufficient for public notification if you say so. Like A and R's permits or their notices on their website. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You know what, somebody wanted a fishing trip, you're out. Not really. They go out and invest.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Mhmm. You're

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: wanting a fishing trip.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, it was going be everywhere. I mean, could say something like, for multi lake or statewide fishing tournaments, public notification posted on the Department of Fish and Wildlife website is sufficient or some website is sufficient. So there's every lake in Vermont, they just posted it and said, doing this fishing derby. Presumably they do that anyways, but don't they want people to go fish? Yeah. Well, I'm also, that work in that because we've also got this other part on line seventeen and eighteen, where the department is authorized to verify that the applicant notified legislative body. So I assume that is the department talking to municipalities.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That could be a moment. But it doesn't say they have to, it's just that they're not It's

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: true.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I I know. Think just for the sake of practicality, it's okay with me if we just do it as a posting on a website for multiple lakes. What website though? Do we have to specify that or just

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would recommend

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Fish and Wildlife. But that means that fish and wildlife as opposed to, because, you know, not just not anybody can go something there. Mhmm.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You said ten or more weeks. Instead of? Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What was that?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Ten or more weeks. Ten.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's ten. Just

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean that number. Yeah. So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So where do we end up? We end up posting it?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think you're still clarifying those, Tammy, by email. Okay. But you're providing that the proposed permit is on 10 or more lakes. That notice from the Department of Fish and Wildlife website of the application

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: where the tournament is sufficient to meet the notice to municipalities. Sounds good, okay. When Mike pointed out that it sounds boring.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So I'm at the Vermont Department Department of Fish and and Wildlife Wildlife website website,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: which I'm very good at saying,

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and there is a page where you can see all of the upcoming fish interprets.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: There you go. Okay, okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that tangents. -On

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page 25, there's that definition of what an inland lake is. It's all natural inland lakes, ponds, glodges, and reservoirs within the territorial limits of Vermont, moving the impoundments of the Connecticut River within the territorial limits of Vermont upstream to the perspired and navigation. I don't know if you've seen like the Comford Reservoir, it's fishable, it's technically part of the Connecticut River, but it crosses the state boundary into Vermont, so you could probably, I would assume, want to allow fishing on that, and so we're gonna shoot tournaments on that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Where are we? I'm sorry.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page 25, lines five through nine. And then he clarifies that an inland lake does not mean Champlain, Memphremagog, or Wallace Pond, those are all the international or transboundary waters. Right? It's up in the Northeast Kingdom. It is, I think, between, like, April and Canaan. And if You can, like and you can see pretty clearly the houses on the other side of Canada.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You can see Canada? Yeah. Can't see Russia. But it's the border. It's on the border.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. It's Loch Wallace on the other side of the border. It's Wallace. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Love it. How about five lakes instead of 10 lakes? 10 seems like a lot. Since the department already post this. That's fine. I mean, it's just we're making random numbers. Because there could be multiple municipalities. It should end up being like 50 municipalities. Yeah. Sounds good.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then you have those, that language that you haven't addressed yet. It's on page 26. It's not highlighted because it hasn't changed since the last draft. It's line seven through 18. Correct. If the commissioner approves a fishing tournament that serves a public drinking water source for municipality, the commission shall require the applicant to reimburse the municipality for the cost municipality occurs, ensuring that the drinking water source is not contaminated, that the municipality owns or controls all the lands or not surrounding water.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: If there's a fishing tournament held, we have this conversation about insurance. Because I would think that if a fishing tournament does damage, then they, in any way, like, racks a dock or contaminates the water because they spill out the gasoline or something, then the fishing tournament would be liable for that damage anyway, right, under?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if the attorney for a fishing tournament, I have a disclaimer that claims a liability for gross negligence or recklessness by the participant.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So then it would be on the individual handler who spilled the gasoline or broke the dock. I'm just thinking, like, is this necessary? Because if there's damage done and the municipality can prove that the damage was because of the tournament, then wouldn't the tournament be liable for it?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking up insurance requirements right now.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, so this is I see this as separate from damage in the with the instance of the municipality feeling the need to patrol their boundaries so that, you know, trespassing didn't happen. So because that was part of ensuring that the drinking water source was not contaminated.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't think the statute requires insurance. I think it's it's basically just a best practice. You know, you're going to be in organizing an event, you will probably want and you're going to be probably financing it some way. You're gonna want a general liability insurance policy. Mhmm. I can confirm with the department if they actually require it as part of the application, but I don't see that on their website or how we're not sufficient for them. But

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that wouldn't address what your concern is. But one question that I have is, so like if you have say a marathon or some other kind of event, I'm trying to think of like how that arrangement works. I mean, does the, I imagine that it's usually the marathon that requests the extra protection.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, marathons, it's often permitted by municipality or municipalities. Those municipalities is condition of issuing permanent.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I see. Insurance. So like as a part of their granting a permit, they might say, and we're going to charge you a little bit more for the extra, know, controlling that needs to happen.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There might be a staffing agreement or cost agreement.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that would happen in this case if they're not getting permit from the municipality.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If they're directly not getting it from municipality, and it's what the you know? I don't see that type of condition in the requirement is posted for fishing parliaments and their parliaments FAQs. Looking at their application, there's no mention of the organizer getting insurance.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm. Mhmm. But

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I have had conversations or emails with the person that oversees departments, and I can email and then ask if insurance is required. Even

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: if insurance is required, yours is broader than just damages, like, well, just the cost of maybe having additional security or something like that. Yeah. But, well, it's interesting that like if, I'm just playing this out a little bit, if there was a liability insurance policy and then contamination didn't happen, would that insurance cover, I mean, that would be an incredibly expensive policy if they had to cover potential contamination to the water system.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Depends on what the policy covers, but, yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, typically, anything that's related to water Mhmm.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Insurance. Yeah. Right. Right. Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the most general liability policies will have what's called pollution exclusion clause.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that certain types of of contamination are not covered, and you will bring the layer to cover the issue underneath that policy.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm. Mhmm. Shouldn't

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't know. I don't if we had anybody come to us from DFW or a municipality and say, we want these earnings to be insured?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think what we have heard is from municipalities who want their costs covered. So we heard from Barry that they had to use overtime to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: sort of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: do security around the pond where the fishing tournament was supposed to be, and they wanted to get reimbursed for the cost to the city for that. So I brought up insurance because I was thinking, would insurance cover that kind of thing? But, so I think there are two separate issues, is the insurance viability if there's damage done versus the cost of extra personnel or whatever.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's just an invoice, didn't I just invoice? Yeah. So this

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was a question of can a city charge the fishing tournament the cost of the extra security or whatever they have to, like they would in some other event that

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is happening. Yeah, I would say yes. But I don't know if it's done through insurance.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. I don't I don't know if it's on through insurance either. So, I mean

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so, I'm not just have some?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, there's two different issues here. Mhmm. So what is the reimbursement? Mhmm. And the And the insurance, I don't know. Well We have to find out how much and but I I I I don't know. That's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: one of the, I mean, any suggested changes to this paragraph then? I heard you use the phrase like a reasonable cost, which

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I think it's Well, no, think it's probably fine. So it doesn't have to be completely owned.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: No. It does. So that's at the end of it's like lines line 12.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, this is an issue I have to figure out through bill. This Yeah. It is, you know, a of people have to put you in your drinking water. Mhmm. It's the drinking water from the municipality and business department is various various happens to them all the way around. I've been thinking about this the whole time, but we should be thinking about the rookie farm.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Then we get into the complications of what do you do with Lake Chamfleet or multiple

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or we just can't use tiny staff

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would love to hear it.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Of course.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, it does feel like a small step towards thinking about a different set of requirements for treatment and resource treatment. That's kind of a new idea for us, so for Vermont. Okay. Any other, any objections to keeping it or suggestions on modifying?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm okay with me. Okay. Alright.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's eighty twenty six on the thirteenth or eighteenth. I I will say that I do think some rewriting's done here because you previously said applications are gonna be on the form that's issued by the commissioner for when they notify the municipality. I didn't change it because you hadn't reviewed this language yet, so there's gonna be some rewriting involved. But the the the specific substantive requirement is the form shall require the applicant to identify an access point to Waters for participants in the tournament, and if the access point is not a product right away, whether the applicant's secure permission to use the graduated towards the proposed ordinance.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sound okay? Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Then

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we already looked at implementation for repo registrations, and you've already looked at the investment dates.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You've got to be made in.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So if you look at to the top of the page, the third paragraph, isn't this going to encourage municipalities to say no fishing? Like, very allows fishing now, like, on

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the shore. So if you tie it to the permit no. I think I probably lost it. The oh, no. I didn't. It's a public water system permit. Those are those public water supplies that are serving drinking water for a certain number of people on the roof. And it's part one of the conditions is the source protection area, and that source protection area can have it's effectively conditions for the use of that area. Okay. So if in a permit issued under tenancy, say, 1675, the conditions of the permit limit or prohibited fishing in the source protection area. So it's something that ANR is going to issue, it's not something that the municipality, they might apply for it, but it's a and r goal of premium.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's not just up to the municipality to decide.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. No. That has I was just parsing, like, somebody's scanning on the side of fishing, like, digging a lot of fish, but it's the, over the water and gasoline and everything that goes with it. That's a different so I didn't wanna just encourage, like, area to say no fishing at all because then then that will be competitive. So Depends on what conditions are.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. Alright. I guess, style is gone, which is no votes. Just pushing through. So so here's the actual condition authority that any owner would have that they could, as part of the public water system terminates, provide the boat person owning or controlling the system adequately control and protect the public water source and source protection area. So that if there's a prohibition on fishing, it's part of that condition that would be where the department would be

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: prohibited. Okay. It was just that

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: That was not a big rabbit hole. Only a foot deep.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Just clarification on the agenda. Yes. So we had a possible vote on 02/13 today. Mhmm. Can we vote on that today?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think that we have time today. So you you gotta go make some edits.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I would we're going some time.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's fair. Tomorrow, can we add

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: SB24?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What they do with the draft?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that okay? That's great. And so if we can fit in both tomorrow, that'd be great. Be amazing. Thank you. Yeah, so good. You, we'll have you draft for both of these ready for tomorrow. Amazing. Okay, thank you. Okay. So we are Yes, sure. So we are going to switch gears now to S138, commercial case. But I do have a question. We are joined virtually right now. Thank Michael. Joined virtually by Jennifer Conveda, welcome.

[Jennifer Emmons Butler (Chief Legal Officer, VEDA)]: Hi, thanks. I know we're expecting our CEO Joan Goldstein. I just saw her. Thought she might be having trouble connecting, but she should be on any minute.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, well, I think it's probably worth taking a few minutes then to wait for her if you're anticipating she's going to be joining. So let's take a little break until you all are ready. Thank you.

[Jennifer Emmons Butler (Chief Legal Officer, VEDA)]: Great, thanks, Lameen.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Hi. Good morning. How are you?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good. How are you? Good. Good. We had taken a short break, and so once the crew is back together, then we will jump in.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Alright. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning, this is Center of Natural Resources and Energy coming back from a break and we are jumping into S-one hundred thirty eight, which is about commercial pace and yes, and we're joined by some folks from Vida. Welcome, so glad that you're here.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Thank you. So happy to be here. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Excellent. I've not testified before this committee before, so just a little bit about VITA. Vermont Economic Development Authority has been established by the legislature fifty two years ago and we are the lender for economic development in the state. We have a loan portfolio of about $280,000,000 30% of that is to agricultural businesses and small business energy and sort of hospitality. These are the major components of our portfolio. Just wanted to give you that. Also I'm joined by Jennifer Emmons Butler, our Chief Counsel. We looked at your draft legislation and hopefully I'm looking at the most recent one I don't know if there have been changes to it, but. We were intrigued by the idea of see pace on with the idea that this could lead to further economic development in the state and you know wise choices for businesses and property owners throughout. Bear in mind that this is after two weeks of learning on the topic so we're by no means an expert, but from our take and I did send a bit of a letter that we composed about our 2¢ on how we think this could work and why this would be interesting. The committee has that, I think.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I'm going to just double check here. Haven't found it on the website. Okay. Did she send it to me? Yes, I think so, but I can. Okay. If it's here.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: If not, I could share screen if that's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: better.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Sure.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Am I allowed to? One minute,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: six minute.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You're about to be.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Here you go.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Share.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Alright. Let's see. Do you see what I'm looking at? Yes. Okay. Oh.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I don't. Not

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: sure what happened to it, but. Okay, do you are you seeing the memo that has Vita letterhead. Yes. Great so The first thing we were thinking about is townwide vote. The way we understand.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Better when you had just one page up it's now it's hard to see. Oh.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's just got a bit small.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Let's see. I could Oh, is that too big?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: No. No, that's great. Good? Is Okay. So

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: the first thing that we noticed was our understanding of this is that this would not be municipal debt, that this would be debt between a property owner and a particular lender. So we didn't understand the townwide vote, and we thought that that might be a barrier, and instead, perhaps a resolution by the municipal legislative body might be a better way to conduct it only because the townwide vote, it either have to be a special election or would have to wait for town meeting, and so that would be an impediment to folks who want to make improvements and projects. We were thinking that if you did it where this legislation gives any town the right, but not the obligation to create an assessment. This way, if a particular property owner went to their select board of city council, the select board of city council would have the right to say no, they don't really want to do this. So I think that was our view, I'm sure VLCT may have another point of view and they should probably weigh in. We did speak to New Hampshire and they had a town wide vote in their original legislation, but they're now seeking an amendment to that requirement. They my understanding is they have a pipeline of transactions that could go through, but the town wide vote was an impediment. Other bullet here opt out is kind of just what I talked about, so I don't need to reiterate that. The other thing we noticed was it did say that it said just commercial buildings. We want to make sure that five or more units, those are usually five or more resident units and residential construction. Those are in the definition of commercial property in the banking industry, those are standard commercial assets so. And this sector represents a significant area of need for energy efficiency upgrades and creation of housing in general, so we thought it should expressly state that this would be applicable to buildings with five or more residential units. Anything to do with loan limits and loan size and leverage, we're thinking that's really between the private lender and the borrower, and that since you're requiring consent from the existing mortgage holder, which is a very important feature that provides a pretty sufficient check on over leverage. And so we thought that would be redundant to have a particular thing we did. I mean, if we do want some sort of a limit, it should be tax assessed value, probably appraised value would be the more commercial acceptable and understandable valuation. New Hampshire, for example, has a 35% LTV based on the appraisal value of the property for the projects that are eligible for suitcase.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Sorry, I wanted to just make sure I've got that, so it should be you're thinking that it ought to be on the appraised value rather than the assessed value.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Absolutely yeah appraised value if you have to do that sort of safeguard. Otherwise, we're thinking you may not need to have specific loan limits. It'll be between the lender and the borrower. But if you need to, then it should be appraised. That was kind of our view.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: The standards we just thought it should be clarified to ensure projects meet or exceed the required performance standards. And again granular financial financing details should be omitted from the bill text They're strictly contractual between private lender and property owner. We were so the clarification of priority and just stop me from going too fast, but like this, I mean, we understand about the priority lean. It's just that some of the language in here is confusing and I think it's because it's referring back to residential pace. So we were just thinking that just explicitly state that the lean is junior to municipal property taxes. You know we're just just make that abundantly clear later on in this document we do say well, maybe referring back to residential pace, maybe this should stand alone on its own two feet, because it is so different. And then we just had an open question like where HOA liens would stand in this.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Want Okay, to that's an interesting question. We do have a question in the room.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: don't know where our language stands. We've had some confusing testimony lately, so I'm not sure which version of the bill you're looking at, but we did get testimony from the Bankers Association about making sure that the primary lender and also VIDA, if you're a secondary lender, would come ahead of this new loan. And maybe that happens with the permission situation, but do you agree that that should be included in the language?

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah, I think the Vermont Bankers Association, the testimony was about making sure that whatever current lenders that have a senior lien that they agree that they consent to being subordinated. And that's a very important feature. Otherwise, this probably wouldn't have much take up and the bankers would be upset about that. So yeah, and we're in that as well. Also just so that you know, VIDA usually takes us subordinated.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: it would it we would want that ability to have that consent as well.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so it's just consent is not explicitly stating it.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Exactly it's like leave it up to that to that mortgage holder. Yeah, the interest and prepayment, the existing exemptions are sufficient and including additional language in the RPS section can separate from the exemption is confusing. So these were just our kind of opinions about how the language stood. Again, you know, we understand that this is exempt from the residential PACE thing, but the language just felt confusing. And then we thought very strongly that the bill explicitly allows municipalities to delegate billing collection and enforcement responsibilities to a third party, but it should be done or could be done without legislating the administration role or naming a particular agency. And I know that you've received testimony and people pointing out that Vita should do, Vita would much rather be a lender because that's what we do. That's our mission and practice. And then at the end, we just have our overall opinion about could it stand on its own and not have these provisions woven into the existing R PACE? It just would eliminate some of that confusion that I noted in the lean priority and enforcement section.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So yes, go ahead. So your recommendation about not naming a particular agency, If there's no agency, state agency or quasi state agency or whatever it is that's in charge of it, then each municipality would have to contract with an outside private entity to do the billing, etcetera. And guess, maybe this is an unfounded fear, I don't know, but just concerned about that sort of oversight and regulation of it to make sure that municipalities, particularly the smaller municipalities that don't have a lot of staff or sophistication are not, I want to make sure they're protected and that there's a sufficient amount of oversight. And do you feel like them just contracting with whomever would be sufficient.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah. Yeah. So I understand that the fear of that. I think that in practice, I think what has happened, like on the RPA side, like I think Efficiency Vermont was appointed it and they did all this upfront work and then there was very little take up. I think our view is sort of, well, let's see how this let's see how the what the demand is like. Let's see what the, how this will be received and whether or not there's use and there's always time to go back to then appoint someone to do it. Our view is the same thing. Like we could never sign up to do something like that without knowing what the appetite is and in actuality what the issues are. Now maybe VLCT might feel differently. I don't know. It is a quasi regulatory role, I guess, in terms of making sure everything's right. So perhaps a state agency is more relevant. But again, I think the fear is that there's going be all this upfront work and then there may not be that much take up. So that was kind of our practical approach. First, we were thinking, maybe it should be a pilot. Well, in actuality, it is a pilot in a way because they'd be enabled, but they'd still have to approve of particular property owner and the lender would still have to approve that this made financial sense that the borrower was, you know, capable of paying this, you know, assessment. So, that that was kind of our thought. I understand your fear, but maybe we need some experience under our belt of actually having this enabled and see what the activity is and what some of the points are. And, yeah, and then see about whether a statewide administrator, like in other words, I don't think the administration role is going to make or break whether or not people use this.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. It's more from my perspective of protecting the municipality from getting taken for a ride kind of thing.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Right. No, I understand.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It's made me wonder about the role of DFR in all and of wondering if there is usefulness in having DFR recognize a set of third parties that are approved perhaps to act in that role as the administrator, then that's another layer. That's a possibility. It just seems that in financial programs, well regulated financial programs tend to be better, safer, I don't know. But I don't want to do something that would make it less easy for people to use, but yeah. Okay, Thank you. Let's keep going.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Yeah. That was the end of our comments on this. So, yeah, happy to answer any other questions around our commentary. Yeah I mean we think this is interesting, we have an energy lending area which has slowed down a bit because of the lack of tax credits on solar, but we do have funding mechanisms from the federal government that would allow us to perhaps lend in this area, so we are excited about this prospect.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's great. That's great. Yeah. I guess I do have some questions about part of your commentary. I'm just looking at it on the screen here. So yeah, you could scroll down to, let's see, because you can keep It's alright. I think it was the, yes, was the lean priority and enforcement portion. I think I may just need to I'm interested in you mentioned that some of the language is confusing, and so I'm just wondering if you could speak a little more about this section and as we're looking to make it clearer what it is that you'd be looking for, think I think maybe I just need this section one more time.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: I'm going to ask Jennifer, I think she could just speak to that, or maybe we should put up that section so that everyone could see what we're talking about.

[Jennifer Emmons Butler (Chief Legal Officer, VEDA)]: Yeah. If if I may, Jennifer Emin Butler, chief legal officer at Vida. I it was less confusing when we recognize that this was being woven into the R PACE section rather than its own. But I think throughout, there's so many references where there's a lot of time and energy spent trying to separate the two and separate how what the priorities mean and separate some of these, like the interest prepayment section, commercial terms from residential and consumer protection terms. So our first preference would be to have a separate if it's a separate section rather than subsection or have C PACE stand on its own and not have to weave those priorities together with R PACE. And I think that's why it looks confusing. It has this negative phrasing to make it clear that the priorities are different for residential than they are for commercial.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. That's helpful. So which might end up leading to language that is perhaps at least a little bit redundant, but at least it's sort of its own thing. It's not trying to fit commercial PACE into the residential PACE section. Correct, correct. Right. Okay, that's helpful.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great. Any other questions for Joan or Jen? Okay. Thank you. Really appreciate you taking the time, and glad that we got to connect on this final instance after delays. So any further questions or comments from the committee? Who's your last question? This is Ellen.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. It's been Ellen Washington District.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, for sure. Okay, thank you so much.

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: Thank you. Thanks very much. Thanks.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thanks for having

[Joan Goldstein (CEO, Vermont Economic Development Authority)]: us. Bye bye.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. This is true. Any thoughts or comments about what we just heard before we take breaks till eleven? What is the plan for the bill in terms of Yeah, trying to hear from some more people on this. So we need to hear from VLCT. We're going to hear Christina again.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is VLCT on it?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Not on this. Okay. No. And Especially with Michael Yockey's suggestions from the other day, do those make sense? That was one thing that we asked Chris Celia to look at his opinion about any of those. Because we haven't modified it since Michael Yapi has suggestions. So, and before we got a new draft, wanted to just hear from folks as to, you know, those suggestions were in line with what they thought would work. After we get that, then the thought is that we can get a new draft and refine it any further from there and then vote on it once we're back from break. So this may be one of the last planes to land. That's just so that we are sure that we're hearing from everybody.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Generally speaking, that might be his approach of making it less complicated and less ratings. It's free to borrow and wonder we don't need to overregulate that. That being said, we have to neutralize it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, but your suggestion of the program administrator, like approval by DFR might be a good one. So maybe check-in with DFR about what they think about that, because chat might ease some of my concerns. I just feel like there, things like this happen, there's money to be made and these organizations come in and are like, money, money, money. And I worry about our towns getting sure to take advantage of. And thank you for reminding me that DFAR is also on my list. I did briefly see them in the hallway the other day and I said, by the way, have a new draft and I'm going to want your, or not a new draft. We have predictions and I want your opinion. So alerted them to that. So they're on the list to get in.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: There's also been testimony, can I read you if I write? Okay. You just, were they joining in Veda or anything?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Do you

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: mean Veda? Yes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, it sounds like they were

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: excited about it, which is encouraging.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And that they were mostly interested in being a lender for this kind of situation, but it sounded like they had some suggested tweaks to make it easier for it to move forward, for it to work for developers. Think that's fair. Great. So that's the plan moving forward. So we'll continue to hear more about this as we can have people in. Okay. And otherwise not planning on asking for a new draft until we've heard from people, unless there are changes that we feel clear we want to make ahead of time. But it feels like there's not, I don't have a set of things that I'm like, oh yeah, we should just discuss space. Yeah, mean, I was starting to have a set of things. Okay. I need a little bit more time to use the show through the Dragonson. This testimony. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: we didn't have to be walking past tomorrow. Going to deal with this after break. That is blaming. Okay. Yep. I'm like, hopefully two or three other folks doing. Yeah, we have two fifteen, two twenty four and possibly two nineteen. Yeah, can put that as a- As a household vote. Yeah. And I can just give you guys a really quick preview on that. That's the energy navigator bill and public service department is doing a report that's related and they are willing to tap on recommendations about energy navigator programs onto their report and report back to us next year. That would, Efficiency Vermont was not interested in doing it. So it's more or less the same thing, but having public service department do it. And out and check who's ESD is coming in tomorrow to tell us that. So, can see it's fairly simple. It's just a report. They're already doing something, so. And we're going to have a draft that he's feeling good about, I think. We think. Yeah, see, there's some tweaks to it, but not much. Okay. Yeah. And then the question of whether or we want to give them anyone money. It's always the big thing. Okay. Any other thoughts? Okay, great. So we have Ellen scheduled for eleven, so we're going take a break until then.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so this is Senate

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: after the Resource and Energy coming back from a break and we are looking at S-three 25 updating Act 21. So all that we have for a draft is 1.2, which I think was the Only bear. Yeah. So the plan right now is to walk through this field as it exists, and as it maybe talk through the different pieces, what it's doing, are there changes that we want to see at this point? Right, okay. So I'm going to turn it over to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: our legislative council. Welcome. So S-three 25, draft 1.2 was dated February 10. Section one is an intent section. It says the General Assembly finds that Act 28 one-twenty four represented a substantial reconstruction of Vermont Land Use Review Framework. This act is intended to provide technical clarification, transitional certainty, and implementation alignment consistent with the intent of twenty twenty four acts of result number 181 without altering its underlying policy goals.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That still feels true to me in terms of the filter that we're using at this point for what this bill is trying to do.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright, section two is amending ten day SAIF-fifteen thousand one(three), the definition of development under Act two fifty. So first, on page one is Subdivision 12, which is the road jurisdictional trigger that was created as part of the Act of 01/1981. And on page two, it is amending the part of that definition that includes determining which roads will come under jurisdiction and any constructed after 07/01/2027. So it's pushing it out one year from July 2026. So we, I think,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: had testimony that suggested that it be 12/31/1927, and this is at least in part to get it out of the summer, which is fun to be. Yeah, that was the LERB recommendation, I believe. Although I wrote down 12/01/2027, but either one, so I think it matters. But that would be when the rule goes, or the statute, it's not

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a rule, right? It's not a rule.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's not a rule. It goes into effect. So anybody who would want to build a road in two, it would more than 800 feet, right, because that would trigger. Being around 100 feet or a company. Would need a permit after that, would need an add to 50 permit, correct?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We'll just be clear, this is the part of the statute that's saying, which roads built after 12/31/2027. Those can be eligible for jurisdiction for Act two thirty purposes. The effective date is at the end.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's a distinct amount of difference, the law is not You're also gonna change the effective date. Okay. Because there was this, I don't know, thing, the LCT testimony yesterday was more about like, oh, well, the middle of the summer doesn't matter. It's really, you know, about an apartment. But, that being said, I'm not moving this to go. I'm curious about how that interacts with the effective date for this, because this road is built after this date, but then for this section it wouldn't be effective later. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you have the option to, you can make a decision here if you wanted them to be the same date or a different date. I as Pat, they were the same date. No. Okay. So, oh yes. As passed, the date in the statute and the effective date were the same. So you can make them different dates if you'd like, but keeping them as the same works.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I'm a little bit confused. The effective date, just section nine at the end, I think it makes sense for the whole thing to just be effective on class initial, unless we come up with something else that needs to not. I think I'm fine with it as it is. The 12/20/3127.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, I'm being clear. Okay, that's not what you were talking about. Okay, because I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was thinking about effective dates at the end. You were thinking about something. Well, there's a lot of effective dates here because we have a

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: lot of different dates here. So on page nine, The original effective date in the act. So the original effective date in the act is in subsection two on line 10 into 11. So there was originally embedded in the statute saying roads constructed after 07/01/2026 may trigger jurisdiction. There's also a delayed effective date of the road rule in general to 07/01/2026 also. You could make the road rule effective on passage. It currently isn't in effect. I see we are also talking about this separately, which road will trigger the jersey.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Got you. Okay, so You can keep

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: them all consistent though. Think that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: we like, I think that makes more sense. I mean, practice, what's the difference? Is there

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a practical difference? So you will see for rule, like for rule 8c, there's a slight difference between what the statute says and what the effective date is, and that is to give some notice that the statute is about to take effect, that the rules are being developed, but it hasn't taken it, but it will not be Here, I don't necessarily think there is a difference because there isn't necessarily a rule. There isn't necessarily the same timing issue. It is a policy choice though. I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: think it makes sense to keep them consistent. December, what did we say? December 1 or December of

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: certain terms? December 1.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's fine. That's, if you're, if you're okay with that, get that now swab over Christmas price and fill a lot of room.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So that was the road jurisdiction. On page two, next is the the temporary exemption for priority housing projects. Starting in slide seven, priority housing projects. This is until Here it's June '37, but it's the construction of the priority housing project or related subdivision located entirely within a downtown, neighborhood development area or birth center, areas with permanent zoning and subdivision miles added to EnVAPID downtown centers, village centers, village areas or planned growth areas, or within one half mile around its designated centers with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws served by public sewer, water services, or soils. This is no cap on the number of priority housing projects that can be built. You're looking at changes to how long that exemption lasts and then whether or not you're adding additional additions to this exception.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I do recall that we did have a suggestion to extend the priority housing projects beyond June 1. I feel like this is one that maybe there was some different dates about. I know this is where I need that chart where everybody had different dates. What's your date? I think there was

[Unidentified participant (likely Land Use Review Board staff)]: 07/01/2023.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: '23. '23. Okay. Yep. I said '23. I think there might have been some other suggestion of 12/31/1927. I mean, could be one where we just flag it and come back to it if you want to take more testimony on that. I think I was trying to find everybody's testimony, it's hard to find at all, but I think the LERB recommended that we kind of put everything on this, I think it was the LERB, all on the same dates that they thought would be easier for them and for other people. So that would be the December 27, or December 31, But 2020 also, especially for this, I already have one, I think maybe later better. I also have a couple other questions about this session, if it's Before

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we leave this, I would be open to making it

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: December 31 for the next draft, and then we can talk more about do we go to 2030 for priority housing projects or not. That's, I'm open to that discussion. Do you, you look like you're gonna say something?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. This is just, so I have 15 bills moving right now. I have not been able to watch any of your testimony. I don't know if this has already been said. This is just the interim exception for priority housing projects. The definition of priority housing, so there's this new language of adding on 15 to 17. I don't think it lines up with the actual definition of priority housing project, as Seth pointed out. So if you're looking to exclude that, you may also need to amend the definition of priority housing

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That was going be my question, was about the definition of priority project. Yeah. Okay. I'm not that interested in amending the definition of priority as a project So, at this if that means taking out that language, is fine.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All of this is policy considerations. You may need to change the priority housing project definition in the future regardless. Because designated downhounds growth centers will not exist anymore. And they were filming, all of them are shipping. And so you will have to address that at some point.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Muted. We try to do that in this film. Yeah. To make it, it feels like it fits the mission.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did you have something to add? Yeah, no, I mean, was basically I was going

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to ask what is the definition of priority housing? How does it compare with what's in here? And do we need to update it? So that was, yeah,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was reading your I know, a little bit.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Awesome. So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this concept of priority housing project was created in 2010 was sort of the first step of what you're doing here with all these housing exemptions, which was how to create an exemption for housing under Act two fifty, but housing that was determined by

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the legislature to be the

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: most desirable. So it was housing located in designated areas where at least 20% of the units were affordable for at least thirty years. And there's a definition of affordable. Sorry, it's fifteen years. Yeah, sorry. 20% of the units are affordable for at least fifteen years. So location, percentage of housing, and it means affordable and for a specified period. And then there was also a unit cap based on the size of the town at which they were going to be built. So it's actually kind of a long definition, but it spells out each of those things. And I can go into more detail if you'd like, but what this admission in your bill did when it was first put into effect in 01/1980, or actually, it's a beautiful Mac, removed the cap and then set in these designated areas until then. There's no cap on

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the number of priority housing projects that can be built and be exempt. As long as they're in? The specifications of these areas, yes. Okay. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it raises an interesting question because you also, in 01/1981, changed the designation program and the designations that are available, and then you've also created these long term housing exemptions. Acting 50 has had this standing exemption for affordable housing, and now you're creating a broad exemption for housing that doesn't have to be affordable.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Tier- In the the tier- Oh, tiers. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But tier one tier one A of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: what we don't have an affordability requirement. I see. It's just housing. You love it all. Okay. I do think we should update the definition prior to the outstanding bill to make it consistent with the stuff we're doing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: also just so, because this was confusing to have these just sort of add ons to priority housing. If we're gonna do add ons, we might as well just change the definition rather than add on in one section of the section. And then we can reference the definition.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So the other thing, remember, just go back to the ESI, priority housing projects, Once one a's and one b's are adopted, almost become it only gets sense. Mhmm. Because you can do it you can do it anyway. And so one suggestion yesterday was to increase the number of units in order to still give something for to encourage property housing projects, but that's a different that's part of the definition. But but right now, we're just gonna extend we probably wanna extend we can extend to what you said.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Next year, the twenty nineteen seventy eight.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. But then the definition is a different discussion.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I I think the definition, but I also think that extension might not be long enough or important. Well then, recalling too, we talked about that possibility of, for the places that don't, that have tier one eligible areas, if you don't opt in to even tier one B, do we want to move, oh, we need priority housing projects in place indefinitely. Yeah. So the what? Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So the people who don't have the funding, payroll and Right. And

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: so how does that work with this language? So if that's the case,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think what you would be doing, instead of amending the interim exemption, you would just be amending the underlying statute about private housing projects under defined, where they're located, and if there's any cap on

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the number of units that's exempt. I think

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that would just be part of the standard base because those, for the last decade and a half, they haven't. That is an exception for how events already existed. You probably don't need the temporary date. Those are policy considerations.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You also have to be careful, don't start making this too complicated.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: we Okay. Because we could just extend the date to '27 and work on the Policy definition. Yeah. We have power. Mhmm.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: my interest is to make those, these private housing projects go on into the future, even if somebody does not opt in to a tier one B area, that any objections? Well, so you're, you're saying we can just do next one year or are you open to?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, I'm definitely open to it. Okay. There's a lot to do.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, makes sense to me. So if I'm not sure what that means for this language exactly, but is that something that we can test you with?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you say again what you're Sure,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: so if there is a tier one A or B eligible area according to the FLU maps, and a municipality does not opt in that the priority housing project eligibility still stands. End date. Does that make sense?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And then me talking about we need to extend the existing statutory status through the next year and a half.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But doing that extension plus extending the areas to tier 1A and 1B permanently, does that prevent a gap? If we just go to December, will all of the plans and everything be approved and everything by then?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: They're right. They're approved by the end of this year and early next year.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And there won't, you know, this whole concept of stranded projects, there won't be a stranded project. It would be seamless.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: That's a fair that's a that's a great question. I don't know, so you're suggesting it might make sense to move even longer. I Call the 1B, the Mayes of 1B, taking over. But are

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: there things that municipalities have to do before they're actually in effect, even if they're approved? Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What? I feel like the planners may have some

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: of this back. I

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't I'm trying I'm trying to think of the overlap in real time, and

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I suspect the planners may have

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: some of this back already. But I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, could come back to this. Okay. That's fine with me. Let's put a pin in this one and come back to it. Though, now, can Yeah, go ahead.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because I think I know what I have to draft, but I'm trying to think of what the universe is of what's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: it, and I, it might, I don't know, but I think I know what draft. So if we have a draft, then we can ask people to react to that. Okay. Sending that through looks

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like. No,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because I think functionally what you're asking for, you're extending the interim exemption for a year and a half. I'm also going to amend the definition of priority housing project, and I think that that would have a slightly delayed effective date to coincide with the end of the interim extension. Yes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Are we ready to move on?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, page three. Section three. So section three is amending 61, the exemption section. And so there's quite, there's a number of different exemptions in this section. So the first thing though on page three that's changing is it's striking this language about the Land Use Review Board and the agency and federal resources having 42 enforce permits in the tier areas. So in Act 181, you said that in tier one A areas, The Act 50 permit is going to stay out of its property, but the permit conditions are being moved into the municipal permit. You took away the authority for the board and ANR to enforce the Act two fifty permits. This would undo that, leaving the board in AR enforcing those permits.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead. Okay, two things. The LERM had a different language that they suggested, but I can't find it. It's

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: hard to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: find their testimony on our website. I don't know, I can't remember what it is, so I don't remember if I liked it or not, but I just had noted that they had different language. Okay. And then I remember someone testifying, perhaps it was VLCTE, or I can't remember who I asked, about maybe there were some Act two fifty permits that the town might want to keep and old ones that they want to keep and enforce. And then that there are others that they wanted to give up and not have to deal with. And so there was a question, and I don't know exactly how I feel about this, but I wanted to bring it up. Is it possible that the town can say, These five we want to keep and these 10 we want to learn to deal with.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this language works in cooperation with the language that's in section five.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what was provided in ACL-one 181 is that in 04/1960, the municipality has the authority when they're doing a land use permit to review, and they have tier one, they will review the Act two fifty permit conditions, and there's criteria for which they should review those permit conditions and determine whether or not they're still relevant to what is on the site and then incorporate them into the municipal permit. Okay. And so therefore eliminating the Act two fifty criteria that are longer relevant. Okay. That is sort of what you have established in the statute. Okay. And that is what is in process that's in G on page seven and H, which works together with this language on page three, was that until a permit was amended, it wasn't requiring the municipality to go in and do amendments on everything right away. It was saying, okay, well, you're not maybe gonna amend every single permit, but we are functionally transitioning the authority over the Act 50 permits in that area to you because you're taking away the authority of the board to enforce them. That is a policy

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: decision. This proposal is to sort

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of back up and say, no, the state agency should enforce unless and until the municipality has full control over the permit condition.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But if they go up to the LERB and the LERB enforces, how does the municipality get authority again? The LERB is in control of them. Does the municipality just say to the LERB, we're ready to amend this one and we want to make it as part of the municipal permit?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it would happen practically more that when someone, the property owners, was seeking to change, they couldn't change their property or change their permit, they would go to the municipality and say, We're under your jurisdiction, we have this existing active duty permit, can you take our permit conditions and just be under

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the municipality? Oh, okay. And the LERB would have to then allow that? Yeah. Because that I think that was a I was I thought I was hearing a difference of like who controls, but if the municipality has the option of taking it, if there's an amendment and

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then Yes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's how it's supposed to be working. Okay. So, I do have some notes from the letter of testimony, which, and I'm not sure, like looking at my notes now, I'm like, I don't really know really value it. But, because they, we're looking at section three, but it connects to section five. Yes. They wanted to set the strikeout of slide 16 through 20. And then I have something up, they said they have more nuance language, but then on page eight, they wanted to strike out of age, but remove the word not. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going need you to clarify your use of stat here because my, what, go ahead. What does So, that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the proposed language would remove the language that says, however, name of the board of the agency of natural resources shall enforce the permit, etcetera, that's crossed out. They want to leave it in instead of crossing out.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They do not want to cross out.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: They do not want to cross it. Okay. Right. Am I using the word correct? No. Oh, interesting. My understanding though.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, thank you.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, I'm learning every day. Don't know what the right way is. Just let's talk about that after. So, I'm gonna cross that note. Okay. And then, but I'm saying this is like, this is what they wanted, but I don't. I have to say no. I don't know why. Exactly, and so, and then on bottom page eight, you have that they Right, well, age. They want to leave age except for profit, the word not, on line 19. Right. So that is saying that the municipality enforces permits that been trans whose conditions have been transferred. There might be a better way writing that rather than just crossing out a knot. But it sort of clarifies what you just explained, I think, that once the permit is transferred and amended, then the municipality has control over it.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That could be very clear that if

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: you take the knot out, it actually makes those sorts of positive and it's in the negative. It is what we've to battle shall enforce any existing issue under 10 BSA 151 that has had its permit transferred to the school. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. There was also something about the clarifying that if a municipality gives up, its tier one says that the enforcement has to go back to the learn for enforcement. I think that, I'm thinking about the language at the bottom of three, Like unless the designation is revoked where municipality has not taken breathing last action. So I think that would cover that situation. I'm saying a lot of things.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I'm still thinking about something else. I apologize. I'm just going to clarify that language feels unnecessary. That clarification to A feels unnecessary because the point being that the, or as it

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was originally drafted, was that was just the municipality would enforce their permit, which

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: has now incorporated the conditions from activity that's the only conditions that are relevant. But that would be extending. So I guess I would need to think about that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, you get it. We're trying to accomplish.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Well, I think to a, let's move on and I will review the testimony because I'm not sure, I also would need to, is there a language impacting anyone that does that? I'm gonna, I'll just stop and move on to the

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: top because I don't think.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: What they want is to say that you can be 1A, you don't have any enforcement obligation, the court will continue to enforce the permit litigation unless the permit had been amended by the municipality code, we can take some the paper. That's the goal. So the amendment triggers the transfer of enforcement. So it trickles in, it trickles in As the

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: they come up organically.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Does that help clarify? Sure. I think Okay. That's the intent. We keep going then? Yes, you got it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna rewatch it. There's a lot of different

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Page four.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Inner topic. This is an exemption. Is don't think it is technically, it's not one of the interim housing exemptions, but it is an exemption that has a sunset. So, sunset can BB is for exemptions for one accessory model unit per property. And so this one originally was until 07/01/2028, which is different than the other interim exemptions. And similar to the one below it CC, which is an exemption for converting a commercial structure to 25 to 49 units or fewer of housing.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And these are both in any tier?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Anywhere. They're not tied to the tiers

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: of the middle. Okay, so it could be anywhere. Is there, because this is just for accessory dwelling units and thinking about the logic of like aligning it with other dates. I can't remember if we've had testimony on this. Oh, sorry. I'm going to go to Michigan. All of the dates,

[Unidentified participant (likely Land Use Review Board staff)]: those exemptions with sunset and the actual inter exemptions, we just said 07/01/2030, just so that they're

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you weren't consistent.

[Unidentified participant (likely Land Use Review Board staff)]: We just wanted to predict, so everyone knew they're all the same expiration date.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: July 1?

[Unidentified participant (likely Land Use Review Board staff)]: 2030. Yeah. July is 2017.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This uses the awesome word, Acordenin. I am so open to it. I am wondering about how it's something I want to revisit just to get a little bit, this is not a thing that we've had a lot of testimony on. Thank you for your consistency. That's helpful. If we change it to largely, is there other opinions about changing it to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: death row? I I don't have a problem because these are this is not controversial. Yeah. Extended through whatever curve we can extend exemptions.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was just like, I don't know if this matters, but the sort of question of middle of the summer building, So we could do 01/01/2030. That sounds great. And then do them all consistently on that date instead. No, it's not quite as long. It's in the middle of the picture. The seasonality matters. I mean, don't know if it matters, but I've heard that argument and other things, so maybe it matters here.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: We also don't forever.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: What?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: We also don't want want to to extend forever. The degrees of, I would be. Right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then, especially since this is the same section, would have, think I would just want that to match CC, make that on 01/01/2020 Yeah. Have a question on CC. I have a note, I circled construction of improvements, and I have a note for tweak for pre Act two fifty structures. There was some issue about buildings that were built before Act two fifty, so they don't have an existing Act two fifty permit. If somebody wanted to convert those to housing, there was some issue with that. I don't remember if it was that. Do they need a permit or do they not need a permit? I don't remember. The note I have for this is add new permits.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We would have to get that two fifty four, but I think.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this is an exemption. So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: this is saying, no, they wouldn't. But I also have a note that Janet will have language on this.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Janet has written something a little strange because it says that if you have an active duty permit, you don't need a permit to convert, but if it's predated Active 50, you could.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, because this, I think it's because it says term amendment. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. Does that imply there's an existing permit, but if the building was built before Act two fifty, there would be no permit Oh, to yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So this was actually pretty narrow. Yeah. Okay. Because when read with the rest of all these housing exemptions, Will something trigger active duty by virtue of building 30 units of housing? Probably not. This is specifically about the conversion of commercial structures. I believe, Addison, this might have been specific requests. Is, does this predate back when 'eighty one was a simple act? This actually might, so

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: this, I do think this

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was actually specific as it was drafted that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: way on purpose. If you would

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like the changes, no permanent method, have to be, or no permit, you've had

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to be done as well.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I think this was in

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the Home Act, not Act 181,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and was about specifically converting a commercial structure that already had Act 50 permits.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Was it like an old school or a old factory that's being deferred as a property? So that is, you have the examples, yeah. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is an honorable reason in general, yes, because it's not to be an act because the amendment to such a permit that probably describes a mill or something it is a little unusual in general. Yeah. And I do think that's why I had a sunset, because perhaps you should be revisiting if it's working and if you need to make it a Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right, because if it's something that was built in 1965, maybe it should be looked at again because it's,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, we have to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: do other permits like health and safety and all that. Right.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the rest of the housing exemptions also say no permanent or permanent abandonment.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So maybe just change this to no permit or permit amendment like it says in BB. And then extend it to 01/01/2030 and not worry about it. That sounds weird. For consistency, I appreciate that.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. All right, so next is the section on Introvert Causing Conceptions. So the first one in DD Subdivision 1, This is an exemption, so until 01/01/2028, no permanent permanent amendment is required for the subdivision for or the construction of housing projects and mixed use development, with 75 units or fewer within a Newtown Center, Brooks Center, neighborhood development area certified sewer, water, or soils. So this is 75 units in Newtown Centre and Brooks Centre's neighborhood development.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we did get this morning that the intention here is There was a desire to go to 2,030 for this one. Yeah, we have that number too. So we can make it consistent 01/01/2030.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And I have a note here that the rationale was that you need to continue the audit reporting status because it will take a while for the data to get up and running.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what, yeah, I wrote 2030 and or a year after adopting 1A. Yeah, it's an easier fix to just say 2030. Can I ask, it's Ellen, the adding the language subdivision for the construction of mixed use of development? What is the practical implication, do you know, of that in the application? So this exemption was only for construction of housing units. It was not for mixed use development.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mixed use development does contain housing units. And there, some subdivision of land can also trigger active 50 based on

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: number of

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: laws. Is there a definition for mixed use development? There is a definition of mixed use development. Is the construction of full mixed income housing and the construction of space for any combination of retail, office, services, artisan, and recreational and community facilities, provided that at least 40% of the gross or area of the buildings involved is mixed income housing. It does not include industrial use. So in a mixed use building, 40% has to be housing, the rest can be commercial.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So this is a pretty big extension of definition of what can not hear. You have any thoughts?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, I think it's fine because everything was one. The excuse was actually not eaten.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You're okay with it? Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm wondering about adding a reference to that definition. This the definition. I mean, kind of feel like,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but this is the Aggregation definition. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: On

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: page five, the next interim exemption, subdivision 2A, until 01/01/2028, no permanent permanent amendment is required for the subdivision for the construction of housing and mixed use development, excuse me, with 50 or fewer units constructed on a tract of 10 acres or less located entirely within either a designated village center and within one quarter mile of its boundary with permanent zoning and subject to bylaws and served by sewer and water or soils, or areas of municipality that are within a census designated urbanized area code for 50,000 residents and within one quarter mile transit route.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think something that I need help with is how section is different, how two way is different than one. Sure. So one is 75 units, so

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's a larger exemption. Yep. And it's for Newtown centers. If you look at lines fifteen and sixteen. Oh, it's for the areas that it's? Yes. Okay. And

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a mouth?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And so, were sort of the larger designated areas, there was a larger exemption for number of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: units. In

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two, there's two different types of exemptions here. There's 50 units of housing in Village under Nuzoning and a quarter mile around that Village Center. And then there's also 50 units of housing per project in these urbanized areas on a transit route. That is exclusively Chendon County.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was gonna say, this is home No, no, it's not. Again, thinking that it makes sense to line up, I don't have a note on this one, but it seems to me that it would make sense to line it up with one in terms of 2,030. I have a note, but I don't know if it's relevant here, if I was looking for a white space to make a note. But I have next to this, one be eligible, allowing to opt in at any time, question mark. Oh, yeah. That is a different issue. Yeah, something I wrote in an important Yeah. But probably not here. It's because as interim housing executions. I'm not sure I know what you're talking about. I hope you want me to- Sure. Okay. My understanding is that right now is the time for communities to decide whether or not they want to try to opt in, whether they want to opt in to one league. And there's a sentiment that some communities are not opting in for a variety of reasons. And people want to give towns the ability to opt in later and maybe in between plans being updated. I don't know, let's pick my path. Middlebury says that we don't want to do 1B, but later in three years they've said, Oh, actually things have changed. We do want to do 1B, but it's after the time they can opt in. I think we want to make it

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so they can opt in later. And with

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a shorter process, because the current process is like six to eight months or something. Whereas, the whole

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: thing, given them that rather just as simple. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. So I think I do I do have proposed language on this. So then I'll just say, so in, I do think that was at least partially your intent in 6033. So it does say in 6033, a request for a tier one area may be made by the Regional Planning Commission separate from the Regional Plan approval process, and shall follow the process at forty three-forty eight. So this is for 1B, though. That's 1A, is it? No, it's not.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, thought you just said 1A. Oh, 6,033

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is the tier 1B statute. Oh. So I think perhaps that just needs to be

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: clarified further. Yeah, I think based on the testimony we've heard, people don't understand that. People don't think that's an option right now. Right. Yeah. So, I guess I will need to know what kind of process you want that to be. Can we, well, I'm gonna come back to it because I'm not sure, that is certainly the intent to clarify.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But the board felt moved around. Mhmm. Assumed what process.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I guess I would want to know, see the language about what the process is right now. I'm trying to remember if that lives in this draft. It's not.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not in the draft. Six thirty three, that was the last sentence of subsection A. And then it's the cross reference of 24 BSA and 40 three-forty eight. So I think doesn't, I mean, it directs that they follow the process of 40 three-forty eight, which is the notification and public notice for

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: public hearing. So how much of that you are seeking to streamlining for this? Think I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: really- So I'm recalling because Charlie Baker, when he came to testify, he just went through the PowerPoint with us of broad bullet points, but he also had language. I think I'm recalling that he did have some suggested language around this, which I didn't pass on. Yeah, so it was not just the opting into tier one B, it was also amending a regional plan. Because this, the 4348 is amending a regional plan. So there was also a suggestion that we have a simpler way to amend a regional plan.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I had it for, it was for small amendments. He said small amendments, I don't even know what that means, but small amendment.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, not like completely changing at all. For what it's worth, I did have on the schedule next Tuesday to have Charlie come and walk us through his suggested changes because we didn't actually get to that. So that might be something. Can we, when next time we do markup with Alan, can you invite all of the players to meet his only, only commissioner of Fairhold Mandy today? So it's helpful to have people in the room so we can ask them, what did you mean? Thank you for that. We're gonna be leaving chambers here. Oh, sorry. Yeah. I was thinking about it, but I was trying

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: to think about it, but the real issue is being tier one A or tier one B eligible, and that's what the process is for. And so then just deciding to opt in logic with other people. So that's what we're trying to get to. I wanna think about online by what we now are saying for the subdivision for for adding subdivision. I don't wanna think about that. Mhmm. That actually means and what that could translate to that we're not seeing. Mhmm.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: In both of them, in both because it's in both just coming back to 2A for now, page five, are we okay with changing and aligning it to 2030? It sounds like there's other things to look at there, but just for the purpose of an extra.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. All right, the bottom of page five, Subdivision 3 is the third income tax exemption. This one is until 06/01/2027. No permanent permanent amendment is required for, again, subdivision for or the construction of housing and mixed use development. And this is located entirely within downtown development districts with permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws, service sewer and water for soils that are adequate for wastewater disposal. This is no cap on the number of units that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: are exempted within the downtowns that have permanent tokens up in the of that one. And back to soils. And then 2030? I have like, then can we make it January? Ruth, do you need to consider about what gave them all these?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And you're already part

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: of her sigh. Okay. Great. And just acknowledging that we've got, we're starting to run out of time. That's all we need. So one possibility, because we're about to jump into tier three. Though I, for what it's worth, feel like, it was some, well actually, let's talk about maybe this section and we'll be done.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Page six, section four, this is the rule making section for tier three. So all this here though is just the date. So it says the board shall file final proposed rules with the Secretary of State and LCAR by 02/01/2026. That date has already passed. So it's pushed out to 2027.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So this one, I don't think we want to do till the third, two thousand and thirty, because we need them to make the rules. One thing I have written here, ability to limit criteria for review of minimal development. I think this was in tier three. It's just like tier three. Where are you looking at, ma'am? I'm looking at my notes. Oh, okay. It doesn't She's looking at K.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Of the language.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So you know the issue. Right? Do you?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think so. But you're look looking for ways to have the board limit change its jurisdiction in tier three. Well, not so

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: much jurisdiction. It's just saying that, for instance, if it's something that's triggered in tier three, even if it's small, something And so it's saying that probably it'll need to have impact in schools or impact on the services. It's really so it's a limited by two of the reasons for which tier three is put in place. Which is migration brought without that. So, it was to give them some rule making authority to not have to for every single private to or get do it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is where the Legislative Council is telling me they don't have the authority to They have to apply all of Act two fifty. They can't just apply part of Act two fifty. And even though some friends might think can just get checked off, this one doesn't apply. I think that it can potentially trip up people if the whole thing applies. So I think it's just as well to say, to give, well, as I was hearing it, to give the Land Use Review Board a rule making authority to determine which criteria of Act two fifty ought to apply, you know, certain conditions or which criteria is triggered. By criteria, mean, you know, habitat connector, headwaters or Natural resources. Yeah, the sensitive communities or something. Yeah, and so this is for minor development though, major development. So that was the thing. Like if somebody had a house in tier three and they wanted to subdivide and put an ADU on it or another house for their kid or something, that they, the LER could decide to just use three or four of the F250 criteria instead of what, 11?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Don't know. Which is really 30 or something.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, 32. So giving them the flexibility to do that is what?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is this a draft thing for a investor? Yes. Yes. We're trying to help you

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: understand So what we I think I need you to

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be very specific because there's nothing else in activity like this. And I would just, do you need to amend the statute or do you just want to put this in rulemaking? And you have wide authority here to be very as specific as you want to be or not. So sounds like you're doing it in rulemaking, which could work,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: but you would maybe want to be specific. Yeah, I think you're putting some guidelines. Also trying to remember if any of the suggestions that we've had, if they had, there was any specific language suggestions that I'm not remembering right now. But before we leave this, because we're at twelve, I did hear VLCT say February is a difficult month. So wondering if we can make, give tier three until 12/31/2016. Wait, what are you talking about? I'm sorry. The rules? Yeah. So the LCC doesn't make the rules, blurred us. Yeah, it just wouldn't when it landed, but even if that's one that is I'm gonna flag that, like

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we were talking about with the rule rule, this is actually a place where the rules, the rule making process is a different timeline than the effective date. You want to make sure, guess that as it was originally drafted, there was a lag between the rules being adopted and then the statutes take effect for time after to give people proper notice of what their rules actually are. Yeah. Okay. And so the effective date is in here. It's on page nine in section seven. So again, you can have different dates for these. Okay. Saginah doesn't people notice. Come back.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's fine to keep it as is. I would love to Well, we're going to have to keep walking through this. We're going to hear some other testimony about, like, with some recommended changes Tuesday, I'm hoping. So Not Tuesday. Not next. No, next Tuesdays. Yeah. So To be continued. And to this point, you probably have some kind of timeline that you created at some point. If you could, could you

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: update it for us? So we have a visual of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: where, how we're moving things. I think

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: somebody else maybe has made a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: timeline. Was

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at the chamber making timeline. The reviews are my number. Okay. So we can ask them.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we can have to. Yeah, I mean, it's fair. I don't want to give you more work. You have 15 bills to give me, but I would like a timeline to, so if you could ask some more to do a thousand. Yep. I don't know, they might have it. Okay, well we can ask you Julia for that. I suspect that some of the folks that are coming in may have some suggested language about the things that we've heard about, so that might