Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good morning. This is Southern Natural Resources and Energy. It is Thursday, March 12, and we are starting the day looking at a new draft of S-one 138 book, Commercial Pace. Yeah, looking forward to it. If you have our relationship with counsel, you're welcome. I'll take out the obstacle, just say to counsel. I don't remember the last time I was here on this. So do you want track us through this version came from? Sure. So we had quite a bit of testimony on this. So as I understand it, this draft is based on the conversation that we had in this room, things that expressed an interest in, as well as the comments from Michael Yackey, who provided a number of edits. I think, well, maybe I'll leave it back. And Senator Hardy had it. And Senator Hardy? Yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I worked on the draft based on all the testimony we heard and gave Allen. Credit really goes you. It goes to Al. She did the graphic. She was my highlight in yellow. I did work with the others a little bit to make sure we had consistent terms throughout. Hopefully we got there, let me go with some things being further adjustments. So section one is still creating this new sub chapter three in 24 BSA chapter 87, commercial property is consumed energy. District's approval of legislative body. So this is section three thousand two and seventy five that's being tatted.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The subsection A, oh, flipped, so I flipped the first subsection with the second subsection, hopefully for better readability. The legislative body of town, city or incorporated village may vote to designate the municipality as a commercial property assessed to the energy district or a C PACE district. In the district, only those property owners who have entered into brand agreements with the municipality under Section three thousand two and seventy six of this title would be subject to a special assessment as set forth three thousand two and fifty five. In the sub chapter district means a commercial property assessed clean Energy District. Upon vote of approval by a majority of the legislative body of the municipality voting at a Tuesday morning meeting, the municipality shall allow for the imposition of special assessment to secure private financing for property owners, on page two, for projects related to renewable energy, or eligible projects related to energy efficiency as defined. Undertaken by owners of commercial or industrial buildings to a battery of really large companies, probably that's a long sentence. So the very small changes here are just that we've introduced the acronym of C PACE. This is all about commercial, this whole sub chapter. Instead of having a vote by the people in the municipality. This is a majority vote of the legislative body of the municipality as opposed to the citizens voting. Ben, I have one question. Sorry, Ellen, I didn't catch this before, but this, I think, where you'd said it would be the entire municipality, and I'm thinking it might be part of the municipality, like the enterprise zone or whatever. One of the zones that we talk about all the time, or even just a person. Or a person, you know, it could be part of a municipality. No. No? No, and if you want to make it that, you can, but that is a policy decision. Right, no, I know. Is that discussion to have, because I guess this is a question for the committee, whether we wanna make it so it could be part of a municipality, that they would just say this block or whatever. Now that we're talking about it, because if the municipality passes an ordinance that allows them to do this, then anyone in the municipality could have this type of loan. So I suppose the district is the whole municipality because that's who's eligible to have this kind of a loan, as opposed to like, we're approving this for this specific parcel. Correct. We wouldn't want to approve it parcel by parcel. Right. I would not suggest we'll diversify parcel. Do we want to say that they will designate just a part of the town? Oh, I see as the Seagate District. Because I think that that may have been how it originally was. As I was cleaning And up the lab, which I think I might have gotten it, but No, I don't think so. No, okay. No, and I've always found the Braze District to be a little confusing, but yeah. But it's, as far as I'm aware, residential piece, is

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: the entire town. Okay, so then

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it looks differently. That's fine. Okay. I have a question. Page one, line 12, this is a little state of point, but the phrase clean energy or clean energy district, I think that phrase can mean different things. It's not defined elsewhere. It's in the name of the program suitcase. Yes. And sometimes I'll use different things. But I guess I want to think about what that means. So the end of this very long sentence at the bottom being one of his page two, is listing what actually qualifies under that. Okay. So this is just the title. Okay. Yeah. All right, thank you. Yes. Okay, so on page two, line five, so as you see this chapter, these eligible projects are only for virtual or industrial buildings and that is defined here as means any building other than a residential building with fewer than five units. So five units and above under this definition is a commercial building. That apartment buildings. Yep. Great. And then the municipality that has adopted a special assessment made surgeon fee for providing service to a third party letter. Great. Section three thousand two and seventy six, written agreement, consent of the property owners, energy and state analysis, lender consent. So upon an affirmative vote made under the prior section and the performance of an analysis pursuant to the next section, an owner of a commercial or industrial building within the boundaries of a district may enter into a written agreement with the municipality that shall constitute the owner's consent to be subject to a special assessment. Each entry into an agreement may occur only after 01/01/2027. On line 12, previously it had said, I believe, energy analysis, and the list of analyses that have to be done starting in some second B and are slightly broader than energy, and also it's about water. So it just says analysis as required below. So prior to your entry into a written agreement, a property owner shall have an analysis performed that includes the following components: where energy or water usage improvements are proposed energy analysis by a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm, stated that an important post and qualified improvement that will either result in more efficient use or conservation of energy or water, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, or the addition of renewable sources of energy for water. Where renewable energy proposed, an engineering study showing the improvements are feasible. Where resilient improvements are proposed, certification by a licensed professional engineer stating that the qualified improvements will result in improved resilience and importance with local, state, or nationally recognized building standards. Or, for new construction, certification by a licensed professional engineer or engineering firm stating that the proposed qualification and proven qualified improvements will enable the project to exceed the energy efficiency or water efficiency or renewal energy or water usage requirements of the current building code. A written agreement shall provide that the length of time allowed for the property owner to rotate the assessment shall not exceed the life expectancy of the project. In instances where multiple projects have been installed, the length of time shall not exceed the average life time of all projects weighed by cost.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'm sorry. Yes, sir. I'm just back out of the page. I'm basically wondering. We really needed an engineering assessment involves cost. And you need that with the sort of product development or even engineering study for that?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's good question. I mean, that whole engineering study thing was in the original draft, and I just, the changes I made were to make the language consistent, but we didn't catch that concept in here. I mean, my sense is that it's, well, we could probably, we don't have enough time to hear more about that specifically, but I feel like we did hear from folks that because this is the kind of These are big projects that have There's Yeah, the they're commercial projects and there's an amount of risk that the bank is taking on to say, you know, is something that should pass on. Especially since this is standard for other states, I'm inclined to keep it, but. And I think the only thing I would add is that these four separate types of analyses, I believe were provided in the early testimony from Amanda CMI. There is an existing energy analysis of parking in residential case, but it's sort of a it's a more narrow analysis. So I think it is related to what you were just saying, level of sophistication, but this is the policy choice. That turns out to be a barrier for all of these interesting to revisit. And I suspect there may be some amount of consumer protection built into that too. Having an analysis conducted will help ensure that there is a proper balance. But yeah, no, I know that's right. We did get testimony about that. There were in other states, I think specifically Florida, there was a lot of fraud companies, I said, It's all this thing and help you.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: The letter

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: probably got a requirement.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. All right, so to the bottom of page three into page four, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a lien under this section is a first and prior lien on the property subordinate only to a lien for property taxes from the date on which the notice of special assessment is reported until the assessment of interest for penalty is paid. And it runs the land, not portion of the assessment under the assessed contact that is not in due shall not be accelerated or extinguished by foreclosure of a property tax lien or any other foreclosure. In the event, oh sorry, a question here. So

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: this seat based loan would be only behind the tax lien ahead of a mortgage

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on the properties. Yes, yes. But the base would give permission to let that happen and the permission is later in the draft. Just the consent. Okay. I'm still here. Yeah. Line seven on page four. In the event of a foreclosure action, all payments on an assessment under the sub chapter that are due and unpaid as of the date the action is filed, and all payments on the assessment that become due after that date, and that accrue up to and including the date, title of the property is transferred to the mortgage holder, the lienholder, or a third party that enforces the action shall be paid in order to transfer title to be transferred. The capital provider shall disclose to the participating property owners each of the following: the risks associated with participating in the program, including risks related to the failure of participating property owners to make payments and the risk of foreclosure, and the provisions of subsection B of this section that pertain to prepayment of the assessment. The notice of an agreement shall include at least each of the following: the name of the property owner's grantor onto page five the name of the municipality grantee the date of the agreement the legal description of the real property and access to the assessment is made pursuant to the agreement, the amount of the assessment as a period during which the assessment will be made on the property, a statement that the assessment will remain a lien on the property until paid in full or released, and the location at which the original agreement may be examined. Prior to entering into a written assessment contract, the property owner felt clean and furnished to the local government, a written statement executed by each holder of a mortgage or deed of trust on the property, securing indebtedness, in their sole and absolute discretion that consents to the assessment and indicates that the assessment does not constitute an event like defaults under the mortgage or deed of trust. The combined amount of the assessment plus any outstanding mortgage obligations for the property shall add us to 90% of the assessed value of the property. With respect to an agreement under this section, onto page six. The assessment to be agreed upon under the agreement when calculated as if they were for payment on a loan shall not violate my MDSA Sections 41A, 43, 44, and 46 through 50, and the maximum length of time for the owner to repay the assessment shall not exceed thirty years. For projects under Subchapter two of this section, there should be no penalty or premium for prepayment of the outstanding balance of an assessment under the subchapter if the balance is prepaid in full. Projects under this Subchapter three are not subject to these provisions, but shall be determined by the private agreement for financing of improvements. Property may be eligible for financing if otherwise qualified improvements were completed and operational not more than thirty six months prior to the submission of the application program. Waivers of the thirty six month requirement may be granted on the sole discretion of the program administrator. So, the bottom of page six, this is the section on the program administrator, which has changed over time, and I do have a question at the end. So, CFAES program administration, an entity that administers the commercial property assessment energy program, or CFAES program under the subchapter, will be referred to as a program administrator. In your prior drafts, there was agency reference, no agency is referenced, it's just an entity that would take this on. A May's candidate that has adopted a CFAES ordinance may, onto page seven, enter into a contract for an entity to serve as the program administrator and to administer the functions of the CFACE program for that municipality, or serve as the program administrator itself to administer the functions of the program, including entering into agreements with emerging property owners and jurisdiction and collect a CFACE assessments. Model documents and educational materials, the Department of Financial Regulation or a program administrator shall develop and provide to municipalities and model PACE ordinances, model PACE agreements and other model forms and documents that educational materials for use by municipalities, property owners, and capital providers for the implementation of programs. I went back and forth a little bit on line nine with shall versus may here. It is a little bit awkward that you are identifying the department or program administrator to issue these documents. You haven't fully identified who, if any, will be program administrators. So, I was reluctant to have the departments, make the department do this without having heard from them, but I think we're having them in today, and so we can ask them this. I mean, I don't know. This was in the original bill and I think it had the agency doing And it, whoever that so it seems awkward to have the program administrator doing it because they're the ones that are going to be administering it. So I wasn't sure if we could sign it too. This is why it's awkward like this. I mean, VLCT might be interested in or willing to do it, but we can't tell them to do it. Well, I think we should hear from DFR on this, but I agree this is a, I think we're gonna need some clarifying language just because as it is, I think if I'm DFR, it's not clear if I should be doing this or not. So, so opinion now and come back to it. I also have another question and it's here and in a couple places, we use the term ordinances. And what we're asking in the first page is that they just vote to designate a municipality. I don't know if that is actually technically considered an ordinance. So I'm not sure in municipal law, like if ordinance has a specific meaning. Just as followed by a select board isn't necessarily an ordinance. And I don't know if we want them to adopt an ordinance officially, or if we just want them to take a vote. I mean, I think we need to be consistent on that. They vote to designate a municipality through F, they vote to adopt an ordinance to designate a municipality potentially. This might be a tougher question. No, matters. It's inconsistent though. Okay. This could be enforceable. I don't know what kind of enforcement it would be. But I think it could be a resolution of a body and not an ordinance. Yeah. So if we want it to be an ordinance, we should state that that's what they have to do is adopt an ordinance. But adopting an ordinance is more, I mean, would know the bigger deal. Yeah, I mean, I'm recalling, there were rules around we were to change an ordinance, the process for doing that. Yeah. Think there's more public hearings and more stuff like that. Which meeting we want them to do, I don't know. We just need consistent. So they don't.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. They put them in morning.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And the way it's drafted right now is they would just put it on a morning like anything else, and they can go to do it. But then if that's what we want, then they need to take out the mention of ordinances, I think. My sense is to keep it simple. And so if they don't need an ordinance, let's go ahead and take it out. All right, it's on page seven. The program administrator, Staten Island 14. Given this is a little bit awkward perhaps being an entity, but it may enter into a contract with the CPACE municipality or the entity shall serve as the program administrator in the municipality and collect fees necessary to administer CPACE program. Other than the fulfillment of its obligations specified in the CPAs agreement, neither the program administrator nor municipality has any liability to a commercial property owner for or related to energy savings or resilience improvements finance of your PT Phase program. And then on to page eight, so this I need some help with. So only entities approved by the Department of Financial Regulation shall be eligible to serve as program administrators. The department shall approve at least three entities to serve as program administrators. Yeah, so this part was an attempt to try to have some government oversight of who could be programming administrators so that there wouldn't be just fly by night places doing it. It is to protect municipalities from taking advantage of. So that the chair and I thought DFR might be the right entity since there's a financial regulators, but we haven't heard from them yet, but I don't know if it's like a full approval process or if it's just, you know, these we find to be fine program administrators. I did flag this for them, so I think they may have some thoughts. I'm okay

[Speaker 5]: with leaving

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this until we hear from them. Okay. Make sure that we come back to it. Yeah, and if you are requiring it to be an approved entity, you may want to restructure the social section. Just essentially in general school law. Yeah. The more detail you can provide me on how you want that to work, the better. Yeah. Yeah. Mean, this section was awkward from the beginning. Yeah. Fair enough. I mean, okay, it's good to know. And then this, on page eight is the last change, section two, Cox Cooperation of the District. So this is partially the language that already exists for the residential PACE. So owners of real property that have entered into an agreement with municipalities shall be obligated to cover the costs of operating the districts. A municipality may use other available funds to operate the district. A municipality may charge fees to cover the operation of the CFAES program under sub chapter three A and C chapter. For some reason, I thought you'd already said that or something. It's in the first section. Okay. So, but does it hurt to be redundant or is this different? I mean, think it does be redundant. I would probably take it out of the first section, but It's subsection DMPH2. Unless you're talking about different things here. Yeah. Line seven and eight. Yeah. So this is saying the municipality is in charge of payment. Yeah. This is saying oh, this is saying the municipality. Okay. Yeah, then let's take it out on page two. Subsection. I guess my question is charging poo, And my sense is it's, I would not want it to go to the borrower, but to the third party lender. Maybe it doesn't matter. Well, municipality is collecting the fees through the assessment. Yeah. So, I mean, I think they may also have authority. Oh, to charge the borrower? No, they're not charging the borrower a fee. They're charging the property owner. Okay. Guess I'm okay with it either way, not I'm saying it out loud. I'm good with taking it out of houses. Yeah. Mean, the. That's what yeah. Okay. Do you want me to read through the rest of it? Times 40. You know, think it would be useful just to refresh your memory. No, it's okay. We don't necessarily need to If you want to do a high level of what each of the rest of it is doing, that's fine. Section three is amending one of the existing residence pay sections to add CPAs. So this section three is property owners that have entered into agreement, enter into a private agreement for the installation and construction of the project. Section four is the municipality's liability. So on page nine, the municipality that entered into a written agreement with the property owner under CPACH shall not incur any indebtedness or otherwise financed projects with this chapter, or shall be liable for the failure of performance of the project or pledgeable, maybe credited with the municipality, which is slightly different than the regular written. Section five is the release of a lien. The municipality shall release the lien against a residential case or commercial case project when payment in full is made, and notice of the release of the petition will be filed with the clerk. Section six is collection of assessments for the lien. Language is added on page 10, so that receipt case, they shall be exempt from those provisions and with consent of the lender shall not be subordinate to all other liens on the property at the time of the lien to be assessed and is filed and modeled for records. And then section seven is exempting CPAs from the prepayment penalty requirements in chapter nine, section 46. I'm really not recalling seeing the lender consent on the mortgage. Is that in here? I mean, there's a language on page 10 as that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Show copies of mortgage, all of

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: them who's on the property. Getting assistance at the time, they're waiting for assistance. Yeah, that's a bit Good thing, yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is also some language, of course, there was language in 3276. That language on the top of page four has been rewritten. So I don't think

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Is this still relevant? Is this, looking at the language here on page 10, line 13 through 17, does this provide an opening for a subsequent loan to be placed ahead of a missing base?

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was not the intent. I'm not sure it says that in the court.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It shall not be subordinate to all these in the property at time when the assessment is filed. It seems like it needs an opening for a later borrowing to be placed ahead of the notice and fees. I mean, maybe that's okay. Don't know.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. We should actually ask who was in here if you'd

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: like to, but it's good.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this language that is on the top of page four, that's all highlighted, this was language that was suggested by that witness, Yavty, Cecilia said he was fine with it. I double checked on my notes. He was okay with that? He said he was okay with that. So if he comes back in, we should just ask him that by which on the top of page 40.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I guess in that situation the CPAs lender would have to acquiesce. You know down the road they decided to borrow against the property and they

[Speaker 6]: wanted to be ahead of the

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: CPACE loan, the CPACE lender would have to acquiesce.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's interesting to think that there's like this consent that could go both ways. Yeah. Once. But we should just double check on these two pairs fast and it shouldn't be. Right, I'm thinking I was trying to keep it consistent, but there was so many. Yeah, yep. Right, if we can figure out whether Mr. Julia needs that other paragraph back or if this works sufficiently for him, great. You know, the possibility is that if we pass this out, it goes to finance. To, he can add it back in finance potentially. Yeah, it will have to go to finance. So that works for me. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions or comments on this at this point?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so we're gonna move to Mr. Frank from Department of Financial Regulation. Welcome. Morning. Morning.

[Speaker 5]: Hi, for the record, Aaron Perrin's deputy commissioner for banking. So I understand there's a new draft of the bill. I haven't had a chance to review it. I know that the DFR is mentioned in my heart and we certainly want to help and consult in whatever ways we certainly can. So I guess maybe answering questions is the best

[Speaker 7]: way to start.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's great. Senator Rutland, do you want to jump in? Yeah, so you're familiar with the bill and the CPAs. You've been in already.

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: Ties by Gordon, but we've seen previous rounds. Okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: so what we were struggling with was the concept of municipality would work with a program administrator, or include work with a program administrator to administer the program and collect the money, and the program administrator could charge a fee for that. One of our concerns is making sure that those program administrators are legit program administrators. And so there's a section now in the development, I can show it to you, that would have you, the way it's drafted now, approving them, but it doesn't necessarily have to be approval process. It's sort of like we want you or somebody to vet them, to make sure they're not going to be taking advantage of municipalities.

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: Yeah, I mean, I think if DFR approving it, what criteria do we use, I think that would all want to be spelled out, so maybe more of a consultation process. Just looking at programs in other states in New Hampshire, they use their sort of media equivalent institution and we're capturing some business management authority. Connecticut uses Green Bank, essentially is a similar type of organization to watch us for the Green Bank. So we would be happy to consult and sort of try and determine that, but I don't know that we could give you different basic options.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mean, VIDA, we did have them in They would be interested in being a lender in this case. So they didn't want to be a program administrator. Got it. So that's why we were looking to you. Sure. But if you have a suggestion for that language, maybe just consult with municipalities to identify appropriate program administrators?

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: Yeah, that's a possible solution. Was sort of thinking more of like, maybe there are other organizations there, whether it's Efficiency Vermont or the Vermont Energy Investment Corporation that we could consolidate along with the data about who is best set up to administer the program.

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

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: I don't know what you actually need to administer the program. Yeah. There's a lot

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: of work that's telling you to get.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then the second part of it is, in the original bill, there was a section about creating model documents and educational materials. And it felt we were trying to figure out who should do that. And right now it's drafted to be either DFR or a program administrator with the penalties, but we weren't sure if a program administrator is the appropriate entity to develop these kinds of materials. Sure,

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: so I think in the residential program, DFR got really involved because we did have concerns about borrower finances and the ability to repay your mortgage and your assessment. With commercial transactions, we generally don't have those same types of concerns. You generally can have larger values for sophisticated borrowers. So I think we could probably be okay with more of a consultative role in that regard as well, with the third party administrator.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So do you think this whole section about developing this is even necessary?

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: It likely is not. I mean, I think typically these financing terms are going to be fairly competitive. You know, if the existing lienholder on the property gets word that you want to do this, maybe they will have a competing project to offer to that borrower as well. But it could also be removed. That's not implemented. Yeah, if you don't think it's My item.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is page seven, the paragraph being about the model documents and educational materials. We were concerned about who would do those. I mean, I think this was in the residential case because We're it was talking

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: about people losing their home, essentially. Right. A factory or warehouses, and different routes and policies. Yeah. It's fun

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to me. It's fun that you guys are okay with it. And that solves that problem. I'll

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: tell you that as I read the paragraph, the thought I had was having those would help somebody who was gonna understand how this works.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I was

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: thinking about it for different reasons then.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think a lot of this material exists. So if somebody wants to do this, they're gonna send them information anyway. But your point is, I'll take it.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: My thought wasn't with the

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: main goal of this. It wasn't secondary to the math.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. So for the top of page eight, if we changed it to something more like the Department of Financial Regulation shall consult with other states, appropriate stakeholders and experts to determine entities that could serve as programming screeners.

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: Yeah, I think we would be more comfortable with a consultative nature than certain demand or requirement.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But if a municipality contacted you and said, Hey, we're going to do this in PACE program, can we recommend as a program administrator? That's where we want you to be able to say, Oh yeah, we've consulted with these people here. Here's a list of what we think would be okay. That's kind of

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: what Got it. Got it. Yeah. I mean, it's not specifically what we do. I was thinking more along the lines of we would consult with those Vermont organizations like VITA or the other corporations that I mentioned in terms of who would be best suited or who might be able to get involved that way. I think you're probably gonna run into problems if it's just, if a lender could also be the program administrator.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Think potential problems. Did we put in here, did we put a prohibition of the lender being the program administrator? I think we said. I don't think so. I don't remember hearing it. Okay, I intended to put that in here, that a lender can't serve as a program administrator. Yeah. That's what I was asking. And they do both. I was like, ah, yeah. So

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: we'll add that. Yeah, I mean, you know, I know, I understand you'll probably be greatest of finance, so we can certainly continue to think about that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: particular loss. Okay, that would be helpful. Well, I had another conversation about this, wondering, recognizing that this is sort of a new thing for you all. I guess you were involved in residential pay, so it's not totally new, but wondering if having some kind of like an RFI process would be useful to sort of solicit who is out there and what their qualifications are and going from there. Can you imagine it like an RFI?

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: I think if there was a set of criteria that were established within the bill that said, this is what we'd like to

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: be done with it, could

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: probably use to that. I just don't think it's ideal, but

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I kind of feel like that might be something we suggest to the house too, As that's a lot to write now to figure So we might be like, you might want to think about this more with the funding on the bill. They'll have a lot of time. Love that. Okay. Okay. Well, it's good to know that there's like a potential future for that.

[Deputy Commissioner for Banking, Department of Financial Regulation (name uncertain)]: Sure, sure. I mean, I think, like I said, we want to be as helpful as possible just to make sure that we're staying still with the requirements. Sure.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. I will come up with some language for this part. And then I do have We were trying to make sure that the language that was added for this language at the top of page four and the existing language here is sufficient to protect the mortgage, the first borrower. So it's here. So we're gonna ask Castelios to go on it to get your thoughts.

[Speaker 5]: I I thought not just my understanding of how you intended to set up a program, so the senior auditor would be in first, then there would be this assessment. Mhmm. And it would save the land due to the foreclosure, and then it is, this is not prior, does not get a prior status to the city.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is that what that says though? I wanna make combined with this. I'm wondering if this undermines it.

[Speaker 5]: I don't know. I'm not an attorney, so I prefer that to our staff.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: If you all could just take a look more closely at the bill. Sure. Because we will have it'll go to finance so we can do amendments there, but just to make sure that it's working, the way it's supposed to work. Okay, thank you. Okay. Great, any other questions at this moment from Mr. France? Okay, thank you so much, really appreciate it. And so now we're going to move on to Mr. Henbrook from BLDT. Welcome.

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: For the record, John Hanford, director of government relations at the Vermont Legacies Account. In fact, can we brief? We reviewed this and have no concerns. I will say that our attorneys reviewed it on draft 3.1. So 4.1 that I just looked at now, don't

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: think there was many changes to the municipal section

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: of ours that would be the one caveat because this is self executing, it counts the side if they want to do this. You know, they'll take that risk if they feel it's worth it and there's other options. And it seems like the way to support the key business in their municipality, know, don't think many municipalities will use this, but if there's one and it supports a valuable business then that's worth having this support. Yeah, so

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that's sort of all we have to say. Yeah, amazing. We're making sure that the municipality is not also the lender. Right. Yep. That there is not their

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: full faith in credit. Yep. Okay. They're protected with the liability the way to recoup this if it goes wrong.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And they can charge providing this service. Exactly. I just added you into DFR with consultants. Okay, great. Any

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, just as we've worked on this, whole time I've been looking at this, had in the back of my mind, this is only really gonna work if the week kind of gets behind it and helps municipalities that should have it?

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: Yeah, mean, I can't admit that we're gonna

[Speaker 6]: have a program around it.

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: We certainly have our enhanced pool right now with

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the CHIP

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: program and then providing technical assistance administration, and that's something that the majority of municipalities are engaging with us on. We had our first workshop, I think we had almost 200 people out of them.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'm gonna deal with you.

[Speaker 7]: So, but

[Speaker 6]: you know things change and

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: you know, there could be, if there's great interest in this and we find ourselves in a role that could be helpful, know, we definitely can look into that. Okay,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: super. Well, you so much.

[VLCT representative (Vermont League of Cities and Towns)]: You're welcome.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so we see the- Lost. Lost, sorry. Just cut counsel, and we're not able to start- ten. Till ten, but any, before we might take a break, and he's back, was out. Any thoughts on this draft before we switch gears? Just to recap, I mean, I have the Well, we're going to add that the lender should not also be the program administrator. We're going to check on whether or not we need to add any further language on like the lender, the mortgage holder consent, or if this language works. We're going to get rid of on page two, that paragraph C. Yep. It's repetitive. We're going to clean up the ordinance mentions. Yep. We're going to get rid of paragraph B on page seven. Yep. Okay. Yeah, yeah. And And then do the paragraph key on the top of page again. Yeah, we're reworking that. I can give you this. I have all that news workouts, Keith. What I have is, you guys tell me if you should put some. The Department of Financial Regulation shall consult with relevant stakeholders, including the LCT, MEDA, Efficiency, Vermont, C PACE programs in other states, and C PACE programs in other states to identify appropriate program administrators to identify appropriate entities to serve as program administrators or something like that. So getting rid of this sort of approval, it's really just identifying that consulting with lot of people. Okay. More chill. Does that sound okay? Yes. That sounds great. Okay. Think I have a call if you can. I think I have. Okay. Okay. Super. Thank you. I think we're good with this document then. And we're running a little bit. We've got five minutes at this point. I'm supposed to be just jump in a little bit early, if that's all right. Okay. So, unless folks would like, people like a break? Which is too fast.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, let's do it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: We're gonna break at 10:30. So, we got, yeah, we switched ten.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, see what you think. Yep. So, okay, great. So if we keep going now and this draft is significant, it's doubled what yesterday's draft was. Okay. We'll need the time. We'll what? We'll need the time. Okay. Thank you. Well, let's do it. We're always 28 pages.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You're heavier.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Anyway, thank you. Bye. The best in your eyes. Well, before I make things, I want to thank both Senator and her team for working on that and draft for us to see if he's disagreeing.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: You're going look for time

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: on my calendar tomorrow to vote it out. Yes. Eleven? Yes. Eleven tomorrow for 01:38. Yep. That's what I Yes. Is that okay? And then tomorrow for this one, we have ten. It's about ten. I don't know. Right now it's hard to do that, but 03:25, we have tomorrow. Yeah. Okay. And I will probably be bouncing back and forth tomorrow between here and Saturday, if I have a bell on. Okay. Yeah. Okay. And maybe somewhere else too. Great. It's nice to be wanted now. Okay, 03/25, draft 3.1. The changes from yesterday's draft are highlighted in yellow. And yes, there was either markup yesterday, and so there are all new sections starting with section 12 that are the regional planning process that you went through yesterday. So S-three 25 draft 3.1, the first change is on page three.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this was, this is the interim exemption for housing, for priority housing projects and having the language relating to those housing projects being built in the flood plains and river quarters match the other language. So you, can, the exemption shall not apply to areas within the river corridor or floodplains, except those areas that contain preexisting development, for an area suitable for infill as defined in the AR rules on river corridors and flood hazard areas. This was the part where we deleted sort of the remainder of this side of the evidence. Section that kept going. Okay. So on page three, the next section, section three, is the definition of priority housing project. You asked for some language that was easier to read. So the definition of priority housing project means an area located on attractive lands, this is exclusively of a mixed income housing or mixed use, any combination thereof, and is located entirely within a downtown, new town center, growth center designated neighborhood area, or within an area mapped as eligible, sorry, mapped as eligible. Oh yeah, this isn't edited because I've switched it out. It's more an ambient for Bongartz. Or within an area mapped as eligible for tier one B area status and is not currently approved for tier one A, tier one B area status. I am also proposing to straighten out the next sentence because it is To get tier 1B or garden area, do have to already have zoning. So I don't think that adds anything here. Yep. Good? Okay. All right, the next changes are on page seven, and this is section five, the section on tier three rulemaking. So, I'm going to read the whole paragraph just because I read it last night and added some extra verbs. So the board shall consult with ANR to adopt rules to implement tier three. It is the intent of the General Assembly that we rule to identify critical natural resources for protection. The Board shall review the definition of Tier three area, determine the critical natural resources that shall be included in Tier three, giving due consideration to river corridors and water streams, habitat connectors of statewide significance, riparian areas, Class A waters, natural communities, determine any additional critical natural resources that should be added to the Tribulation, Include measures to ensure that no municipality or region is disproportionately impacted by Tier three. And then the new language we are proposing was determine which criteria under Act two fifty should be part of the Tier three review, and determine how to define these boundaries. Does that capture what you were There's additional language on the next page. Let's Is this the rule making authority? This paragraph. I thought we talked about not putting it in the making part. Is that the next paragraph? Well, was very unclear to me where you all think. So you were discussed, they're currently going through a process that involves the AP-two 40 resources and subsection B as a whole stakeholder group on which they're working on this whole thing through. So I kind of assumed you wanted the conversation to be part of the stakeholder process. They hadn't determined which criteria they want. They don't currently have authority to do that without a statutory change. And then on the next page I can post that they report back to you with that determination. Okay. So if you don't want to hear you, you can. Okay. So this is not actually about rule making, it's more like a conversation. It's more like it's a part of their review. They're not actually making these rules So on line five, the sentence starts, the board shall, and then it's a whole list of things that they have to do. So I added this here, if you do not want it here, it doesn't have to be here. On the next, so further down, the board shall file a final proposed rule, so this is line 17, with the sign of period stating an LSAR on or before 12/31/2027, the board shall file the rule with LTARR, or after the board files the rule with LTARR, it shall submit a report describing the rules and issues reviewed under this section that the House and Senate can release on page eight. And then on our report is on fifteen-twenty twenty six, the Board shall also submit a report to those committees recommending necessary changes to how 6,086 criteria should be administered for permits issued in interior grade areas. Yeah, I was under the impression, and I would prefer that it not be in the opening session, because Both you and the board think that they, before they can make rules on this, they have to go, we would have to do statutory changes. So having them start to go make rules on something that we need statutory changes on, I don't think it's a good process. And so that was where I thought we had landed that they would submit a report outside of their planning process saying, these are the ways that we think we need to change statute in order to allow us to use a limited number of criteria. My sense is that, so I agree. I also have a question for you Ellen on page seven where we've got the determine which criteria that if I'm understanding you correctly, this is not actually rule making authority. This is just making a determination about which should be a part. Unless I'm wrong. Is this rule making authority or is this not rulemaking authority? Section 22 establishes a stakeholder process that the board needs to go through to basically flesh out the entire tier two process, much of which will end up in the rule. You are deferring them submitting and adopting any rules on this until 12/31/2027. In December 2026, you are asking them to report back for asking for statutory changes. The ask for statutory changes is a year before they are allowed to adopt or able to adopt rules. So, I think regarding about a distinction of difference here, I guess I'm wondering if you don't want them to be using the existing stakeholder process they already have for this entire part of the program. Well, I guess my confusion is section 22, bottom of page six, is titled Tier three goal making. And so that's, this is embedded in that section of Tier three goal making. It doesn't, like is there where, I mean, and this is obviously not in this draft, it's somewhere else, but the whole stakeholder process language. Just in the asterisk. It's in the asterisk. Yeah. Yeah, so it's not here. Okay, yeah. So that, I think that's why it's unclear to me. And I mean, I guess this works then. If it just, when I read it, it looks like it's part of the goal making process. It will be part of the goal making process because you're But they have a full year more of that. I get that, I get that. So what you then would be asking for those next year for me to amend this section, which I guess you could do. I guess I'm okay with it either way. I'm okay with taking it out of here as long as we have the topic language about come back with birth. And I wonder if we want to be even more prescriptive about recommendations regarding potential statutory changes think it works. Leaving it? Because it's just a part of the stakeholder process? Okay. As long as that's what it's doing.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's a signal to the board that's what

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: we're looking for. Then it's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: at least make sure it shows up that report on top of the meeting. Okay. So Do you

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have any other opinions, Senator Best?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I forget getting this stuff.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, leave it. And I also want to make sure that this says determine which criteria. I would think that depending on what kind of project it is in tier three, there could be different criteria that they would say, like, oh, we're not going to do all 11, we'll do seven of them for this type of project, or in this project, we would do four of them because it's a different project. So I think that, I mean, maybe this covers it, I don't know. It just confuses me the way it's embedded in this part of this. I'm wondering if we, just to get at what you were suggesting here, something like which criteria should be part of tier three review based on project captures or some kind of further caveat. If not, we can keep it.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Point is well taken because it may not be the same for a material review. In fact, Yeah.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So determine how your criteria Yeah. May be applied.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. And under what service and under what service. Yeah. Yeah. So you could employ this as per term which regularly you say, so it should be part of true and only one. Well, some work with pattern of what circumstances you

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can also see. Yes. And also look at the language, the new language in section six. Going come back to this in a moment. So we did, I guess, also note the proposal on page eight for viewing a similar thing to the road jurisdictional trigger. So this is language that was proposed by Vayner C that I think Oh yes, for a similar, yep. So this is a standalone sessional provision. So on 01/15/2027, the board shall provide the general assembly with recommendations or statutory changes consistent with the intent of the road rule that would give the board authority to adopt rules establishing a process to limit the criteria that apply to road development pursuant to the section. Yeah, like that language better. I do too. I wonder if we could use that, but for the tier threes in the top page. So what do you want me to do?

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What if we had something in the tier three section that said, so on report 01/15/2027, the needs of board shall provide general selling recommendations for statutory changes consistent with the intent of, but here referenced. Sorry. Do you want me to take it out of section five and put to your screen also in section six? I mean, maybe, it also seems to me that we should have these reports back at the same time. Yep. And they could be one report about the road rule and tier three and using a process to limit criteria. I like this language and I think it's clearer than the other language. So maybe if we just add to line nine, reference also to tier three. And take out the new language in section five, all of the new languages between five. Except I think we did I thought maybe we landed on keeping the language on page seven with the addition of and under which circumstances?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Because it's part of the following process.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If it's part of the stakeholder, if this is truly part of the stakeholder process, then sure. You can keep that and get rid of this language on top of page eight. Yep. And then just add. Yep. Add tier three to section six. Great. Are you feeling clear about that, Ellen? Yes. Okay. Will you send me what you wrote this page? Oh, yeah, I've crossed it out. I thought we were, I thought Seth or is Senator Bongartz like the way it was, but

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I can You just add and under what service is.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And under what service is at the end of that. Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I think we want that in section six as well.

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Development process to the amendment. Correct. Yeah. And under what circumstances? To where? Somewhere online, like the prime 10 of Beijing. Because there's a shot, so I don't even wanna have

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Mhmm. Exactly. That The garden shatters. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Yes. Fully agree. Sounds good. Great, let's keep going. Section seven on the bottom of page eight is the change ANR requested, so it strikes the reference to the greater speeches as part of the Tier 1A zone requirements. Okay? Well, I'm good with that. Okay. All right, on page nine, section eight, this is a proposal from me. Okay. Because I was confused by yesterday's conversation. So in section 8.4 BSA forty four sixty, this is the municipality taking permit conditions out of active duty permits and putting them into municipal permits.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it could be rewritten potentially a bit more, line 10, the appropriate municipal panel reviewing a municipal permit or permit amendment pursuant to this subsection shall include conditions contained within a permit previously issued under Act two fifty so that the conditions may be enforced as part of the municipal permit unless the panel determines that the permit conditions pertain to any of the following. You should receive a few other proposed pieces of language on this section, rewriting multiple parts of it. And I do not think that that needs to happen. I think you could make different policy choices in this section if you like, but if you're looking just for clarity, I think that clause has some clarity.

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

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Any thoughts on that? No, I

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: think it's kind of early.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Where is the language that oh, it's just so bottom of page 10 taking out this saying that they will shall enforce existing that. Okay. Yeah. And so that is still struck. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. On page 11. Oh, I do want to flag. I think you did not give me any direction on sections nine and eleven. Think we're taking it out. Taking it out. Okay. And then in section 10, the effective dates. You have landed on 01/01/2028 for both tier three at the road jurisdictions. True. Sounds about consistent. Substitute. Yep, that's what they asked for. It's true. There are no changes in section 11. I think you might hear more about that. Okay. Yes. And then section 12, on page 12, the language starts adding the language you all walked through yesterday from the ATA and the LERD. So I did not, I just highlighted the section heading because all of this is new from the prior draft, but I incorporated what you all asked for yesterday. So section 12 is amending the regional plan adoption process and creating this new process for non minor amendments to be adopted. So on page 12, subsection B is adding that the board shall coordinate with state agencies and the community investment board, which is part of the designation program to the tax credits. Subsection C, the regional planning commission shall hold two or more public hearings within the region after a public notice on any proposed plan. And here it is straightening amendment. That's because you're creating a new process for amendment in Subdivision 10. I went through 40 Three-forty 8 last night, and I don't know if I lined up all of the pieces for your new proposal that So if you could check five people in the room, because I think we didn't take all of theirs, just to be fair. Correct. Yes, so part of their proposal is changing the amendment adoption process. The first change of which is here, currently there's two or more public hearings, and later they're doing a sort of a shorter process with just one four board meeting. And so I think they were looking to make sure that the other references to amendment, if you're adopting that selection, which you did yesterday, if you're adopting that process, 4,340 is a very long statute. And so I went through and I wasn't entirely sure if I understood the proposal. So if now the people who are proposing it could check and you all as well, I want to make sure I captured all the references that you did approve. But part of it is because they asked to conform the rest of the statute and I was making judgment calls. Okay. Yes. So, there are no changes on page 13. I did add the language for subsection J to point out that there is this existing process that was created for minor plan amendments, but now the language in subsection M is for not And that starts on page 14. Minor amendments are fewer than 10 acres in size. So on page 14, regional plan amendments, non minor future land use map amendments, and tier one lead bearing status requests. Regional plans may be reviewed from time to time and may be amended in light of the new developments and changed conditions affecting the region. Non minor future land use map amendments shall be processed as part of a regional plan amendment. Tier 1B area status request may be made separate from regional plan approval and amendment process. And so the process is to amend the Regional Plan, which may include a non minor future land use map amendment, a Regional Plan cushion shall hold one public hearing least fifteen days in advance of the hearing. The RPC shall provide notice to the public notice of the public hearing to parties listed in 4348C1 and the Land AGP Board. The public hearing notice shall include a description of changes to the plan, including non higher amendments to future land use maps or any changes to tier 1B status. On page 15, after adoption of the Regional Plan Amendment, the Regional Planning Commission shall submit a request to the board for affirmative determination of Regional Plan compliance for the Regional Plan Amendment. Standalone requests for Tier 1B status shall be submitted to the Board after the public hearing required under Subsection A. The Board shall hold a public hearing within thirty days after receiving the request for permitted determination of Regional Plan Amendment compliance or approval of Tier 1B ERIC status. The Board shall issue its determination within thirty days after the hearing. Adoption of a Regional Plan Amendment, non minor future land use map amendment, or a Tier 1B status request or amendment shall not change the expiration date of the regional plan. Good, sounds good. Alright. Section 13 is amending 4348A 12, which are the land use categories for the regional plans. On page 16, the first change is in the subsection 12 intro language, which is adding that the categories shall be consistent with the smart growth principles in chapter 139 of this title. Later in this bill, the smart growth principles are added to the definition section of 139, so they are there now. Okay. You just put them in. Okay. No. Sorry. Yes. I'm moving quickly because I am going to the chlamydia if necessary. Then there are changes in the downtown and village center area category. Have added language on line 13 on page 16. Municipalities may have more than one center, including planned new or emerging centers that anchor planned growth or village areas. It is the intent that every town in Vermont may have at least one village center in which additional housing units are supported.

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: have, I'm still sorry about this. But if you don't mind, you can come back.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Okay. In planned growth areas on page 17, the references to new town centers downtowns and village centers are struck, as are, that they should generally meet the growth, the SMART principles because the entire section needs to meet the SMART Growth principles. Oh, I But that is not Did I get added? Yes. Which Well, the references aren't good at the beginning, which is Yes. On line nine, RowNet three on page 17. Can you confirm what you decided here? I think You're on seventeen. Yes, seventeen. Either playing rodeo or because it's rodeo at nine and rodeo at three. I think I strive is, but is should not be stressed. Within walking distance do you change to the area is generally multimodal connections. Okay. Yes, question?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: This is a big difference because multi ovals you can have a much bigger area than you can have this one more. So we just have to be really aware of what we're doing there.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well if you don't want to change it we don't have any notes in mind. Okay. Okay. But as you heard yesterday, New Town Center and Road Center are sure staring at lot of third parties. Yes. Further down on page 17, the area provides opportunity for development, infill development and redevelopment that is needed to meet the regional and municipal housing targets that meet the present and future needs of a diversity of social and income groups of community. And needs should be meet, targets that meet. Yep. Further down the bottom, the attention of striking the quotes around big streets. Did you look that up? Yeah. Any other place that doesn't have posts.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: So we're getting rid of the quotes.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Because now I know it's a real thing. It's real, turns out. Somewhere that is a good joke. It's people who really care about this. It does also strike here, establish pedestrian access directly to Downtown Village Avenue, Texas. Should

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: not take that out.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, isn't it, it's all subject to the country streets anyway, which is which it was redone. That's why I was trying to No. I don't know if that's the reason. Oh, really? Okay. Because that that is not what I mean. Well, I don't I don't know if that's the reason.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: But the best social, we talked about this. He he is, but he's he's checking his I think it's just swap to be more system moving. We're talking about the moving forward as opposed to walking. If we're talking about walking, it probably makes sense to do them.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I don't know.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm fine with leaving indoors. Pretty much Okay. Yes. Stash or whatever or whatever. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, but it's a little bit weird. So page 18, village areas The proposed of a cohesive mix of residential, civic, religious, commercial, or mixed use buildings arranged along the main street and intersecting streets that are within walking distance for the residents who live within and surrounding the downtown center or village center. It strikes existing, that they include existing village designations or similar area statewide. Yeah. I'm having this moment of feeling like, right, because right now we're just doing like consensus stuff. We might have some more conversations about these in a little bit. Okay, so let's keep going. For the data, page 18, municipality has either public water or wastewater, and no public water or wastewater is available. Have soils adequate for wastewater disposal, and opportunity for in real development or new development for built in groves, the development of housing to meet some of regional and municipal housing targets. He tried to come in, but he didn't. I'm okay with it if you are. No change is in subdivision F, enterprise areas, because you didn't, you requested no change there. Right. In rural contribution, the last six sentences are struck about mapping and tier three. Yeah. I mean, this was, we talked through this Yep. So, And you didn't think this was part D. Well, I think it's an awkward question. So the language appears both here. I've highlighted in D, it's because I didn't make you ask for a choice. It appears in both the process where the regional plan is being developed, and this is about areas eligible for designation, and that has to happen as part of the regional plan process. And then I did strike it later in the bill from the Community Investment Board, even though I didn't think it was relevant to identifying the areas that the LERB and the Community Investment Board would be looking at. So if you don't want it in cold places, I guess I think it should go in the regional plan section because they will be mapping them. I can hear other arguments on that because it's complicated a little bit. Page 20, this is the new language you asked for. Any regional or municipal plan due to expire in 2026 shall have its expiration date extended until 12/31/2026. Great, thank you. So the rest of this is where we ended yesterday and I was unclear It sounded like you weren't prepared to add all of this, however, it is easier for me to delete things than draft things today. So I have included things in sections 15 through 18 that you may want to take out because I was slightly unclear. I will say I made two editorial changes on page 21. I striked states designated for both downtown and neighborhood because we're not actually calling them state designated anywhere else. But otherwise, then the Smart Growth Principles are added, and then there is some changes in the Downtown and Village Center section, including striking the exclusions redundant language. And then I have a small, silly typo. On page 25, there is a silly typo. It is highlighted on line 18. In the statutes as published, row number three and four appear on the same line, and it has caused confusion in places. We have fixed it on our website, but we have to officially have it republish, so that's a small thing the department asked about, so that is there. Otherwise, I think I have to go, but if you do not want these last few things because you didn't actually discuss them yesterday, but they were in back to his proposal, you can let me know. Well, think, I'm not sure if we, I think we've thought we ought to hear more about them. I mean, we did talk about it, but I think we were going to hear more and we're going hear more today. And so some of my notes, as I was leaving said yes, some of my notes said yes and no. And so that's why I said yes, you can delete them. Okay. Okay. So the committee is not necessarily committing to them. I have a lot to do today. Not your sit. This is an interesting question. One possibility, question for the group, might be useful for us to meet at five today or four. I have a traditional retention committee in. What time is that? I think they're going to change it actually to So five to we can't meet any finance.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm sure.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We could meet early tomorrow. Meet early tomorrow. I will make this work. I will make it work. What time do we think folks can meet tomorrow morning?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Whatever. Do you want to I'll be here 06:00.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not even gonna do that. I'm just the proposed thing I'm definitely not in favor of, because if there's anything you're not decided on, you could take it out, you could vote out the bill and have a floor amendment if you needed to add something after, because I don't know how many hours are actually going to be available for me to draft. Okay, noted. Nonetheless, are you available tomorrow at eight do you think? At eight, yes. Okay. Yes. Eight? I am not available until at least 05:30 today. Okay. Okay. It seems like after is not great today. Eight tomorrow, though, could make that. Okay. Let's aim for eight, 8AM tomorrow. And what do we have on the agenda? It's, it's Ellen. So 8AM.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Make it work.

[Ellen (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know how it's gonna work yet. Okay. I think we are, because we only have, Mr. Grady from 10:30 until, 11:15, we have to transition and we're going to jump back to, 03:25 for the later part of the webinar. But for now, we need to jump to 02:24.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Welcome. Need a minute to just transition. Unless of course people would like to take a break. This is fishing. I think we can take a two minute break if people could really keep it to two minutes and keep going. Okay. Take a break as you need to. Yeah. Fair enough. I'm sorry. I was gonna go 224.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: 91. I didn't make any. Before

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: we jump in, I could just ask you, Mr. Delix, to look at the latest version of 138 and see if you think the language, particularly on page four, works for the lender consent, or do we need to add a lender consent paragraph back in? It didn't get taken out. I think it didn't get taken out. I can talk to them all. Okay.

[Speaker 7]: About me first. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Very good. Thank you. Okay. I the

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: input secretary yesterday. Yes. And you were gonna discuss how to address those issues today.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Though, just before we had any of that, we didn't go Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Nine point one. Yes. We had nine point one.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. So we could take a look at that first.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And then go to Mr. You have thoughts on how to address secretary's concerns, we can take

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I do have thoughts.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Maybe let's look at the draft, the change that we made already, and then go to your thoughts on how to address secretary's concerns.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: The change that you made already, it's on page 25, it would grow because we my area was in addressing Senator Beck's concern about that last sentence subdivision three Yeah. About when the drinking water divisions could require conditions on a 50 tournament firm. So that was rewritten, so it says that drinking water and groundwater defenses may require any fishing permit. Issued for an inland lake that serves as a source or above water system conditions required. It's not as or prohibition. Period. And definitely, I think that's been appreciated. Thank

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you. So you're okay with that one?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, that's fine.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super, thank you. Okay, with that, let's talk about the secretary's letter and concerns. Mr. Green, do you have some thoughts?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Sure, so just working through the secretary specific, we've, you know, listed concerns. I think it will be very easy to change their adjustable weight loads versus wage sports issue, we would require adding a definition of wage sports. There is a question of whether or not you want the weight load definition to now be the ballast, whatever they are calling it. The ballast is best draft. I I think you can make conforming revisions throughout the language and move it from. There is a question of whether or not you wanna keep a home registration and So basically, goes with that? Because that's more about the weight boat designating itself or as a weight driven and designating a whole weight.

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

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And that's not about weight sports. So that is different from the limitations on wage quotes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So just to speak broadly about this, one possibility is that we take out the whole link rule just generally, but keep the registrations so that we have a sense of how many white votes there are and get a sense of where their home legs are. And that might be useful information for some future iteration. Particularly, I mean, I'll just say I'm very interested in the draft rule continuing to move forward. So I want to ensure that whatever we are doing that that is sufficiently addressed so that it can move forward.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the requirement

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: on p four, in order to operate a weight code, so the volume seven, person owns or controls that annually or by any, can buy a

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: phone or a wage vote.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And you could still keep that as part of the registration, the DMV's registration, because later on you require the registration form to identify whether or not it's a wait vote, and as I showed you the registration form they already designated if you're a houseboat or motorboat, etc, additional category. Right, in the additional category, and then they could report the ANR annually how many weight books there are because apparently nobody really knows. But that doesn't answer the question of when Wakewood is operating, whether or not they would have to provide proof of registration that they are on their home late. So that's a different question.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which is baked into the home link rule. So one possibility is that we could take that out. The

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: home link

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: rule. Right. Yes. Yes. But by having registration, we sort of set ourselves up for some future iteration of a home label.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So that would still identify home registration their Right. Whole

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep. I am okay with that if you all are okay with that. Sorry, he's jumping in. We're talking about trying- Okay, if you guys are okay. What we, just to catch up, we've talked about the very simple change that was already made to this draft, point one, what fishing terms and spelling. And so we're talking about how we address the secretary's concerns, such that the draft rule that's in process now would move forward. Okay. Talked about there's some simple changes that could be made for the weight boats versus weight sports. You feel comfortable, like you could make those edits.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. And then, so I think the most difficult part is how do we address the home plate rule. I just want to confirm with the secretary since she's here, if we were to keep the, provided that DMV is okay with the registration, if we were to remove the HomeLink rule part of it, that that would be helpful for you.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: It would address my concern. Do think it would be important

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to hear from DMV.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: I did touch base briefly with Commissioner Collier yesterday, just to flag for him that I was coming in. He had indicated that there is some cost associated with whatever, making that sort change in their forms, but that's as much as I know.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, that's helpful. Okay. Realize this is a sacrifice on our part to not go with the home late rule at this point, but I think that it's

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Bring the life book before.

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Why do we leave it in? And after we get the decontamination apparatus, take your help and registration, then we can move away.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Don't you have that?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I I I think that would still lead to the agency delaying their role meeting. And so that's part of the question. Do you want to say, you're going to go ahead with what you want because you're the supreme policymaker, and they're going to have to conform to you that the statute controls over the rule, or do you want to revise this so it's consistent with the department's rule so they continue to do their rule of nature? That's really the major kind of crux of the budget.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So, and I'm saying, let's eliminate the home rule requirements, keep the registration, and keep going and let the draft rule continue to move forward. Okay. So, yeah, I said, if you're are you concerned with the draft rule? Are you concerned with the not doing the You

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: don't Trying to get it straightened out. The issue is we won't have any contamination or radiates. There there are ways we have.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. But would would we still be doing I think it would ultimately not require decontamination between places as a part of what the homeland rule would do. But it's not that they could like, so as I understand it from the secretary's perspective, we don't have a lot of decontamination facilities now, there's not an approval process. Mean, this is a question that I have for you is like, could we start down the path of setting up an approval process for decontamination stations? You know, would that be a useful thing so we know this is what they are and they're approved? I mean, that's sort of a separate question. In draft rule. Yeah, is that in

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the For draft

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: the record, Julie Moore, ANR secretary, we have criteria in the draft rule about what adequate decontamination is. We don't necessarily have resources to create decontamination stations. There are a small number largely that have been purchased by the Lake Champlain Basin program and are distributed at different fishing access areas around the state, but it is not a robust network. P United really is based on the resources that have been made available to us through the basin program.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And are those, those are called stations or are they?

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Some of them are. I don't believe all of them meet the temperature requirements.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: They've exceeded my knowledge.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So that's why I'm saying people who are like, for now till we come up with a decontamination situation. Seems

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: like well, so the whole leg would require the decontamination, which they're

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, it's a process. Their rule. Well, let's talk about what's in your statute and then compare it to what's in there. So right now, on the page four, prior to entering Vermont, other than the weight of the home and prior to reentering the home late after the use, the person who owns or controls it needs to be decontaminated. Mhmm. And they are decontamination service provider. But the agency, DEC, is proposing before entering a water body, the wave boat was last launched at a different water body than the previous fourteen days. The wakeboat interior components including tension valves, pumps, bilge areas. The water containment shall be drained and flushed using low pressure hot water, 120 degrees Fahrenheit, three to five minutes of exterior components must be adequately addressed high pressure hot water 140 degrees Fahrenheit through perfection. So if you take away Home Lake, you kinda have to address what decontamination you want for a vessel entering, and this basically does that.

[Speaker 5]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: The question is fourteen days, any entrance,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: etcetera. So that might be sufficient.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. Or thirty is the specific. Yeah. But it's.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think what we're talking about is actually striking section.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, largely striking section. Yeah. Largely striking. Yeah. Then replacing it with in order to operate, in order to engage in wake sports on a lake, the lake has to be improved under four wake sports use under the use of water treatment.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: As we are in the criminal.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Current. And then prior to entering a water, a wake up what? What how how many days before entering another water must they decontaminate, and what does decontaminate mean? If you go with what the department is proposing, you probably don't need the definition of decontamination service provider. The question is, do you want them to be a true

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, are you suggesting that we duplicate what is in the rule in statute?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. Well, I'm proposing that you make a policy choice and that your policy choice will control because the authority that the department has exercised is delegated authority from you. So if you want something different, that's your corrupt. It's it's also about whether or not you wanna respond for certain various concerns about going forward with

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the department going forward with the decision.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Seems to me that, well, I'm open to other thoughts here, but it seems to me that if the rulemaking can move forward, I prefer that to happen rather than try to duplicate that with statute. Because I think even if we duplicate with statute, the rulemaking would stop. And I realize that statute is more, know, it's more controlling. I guess I, and as long as it goes into effect in time, one question I have is, do you have a sense of when the rule, if the rule making continues, when do you think it would be done by?

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Our goal has been to get to be in El Carr by the April. I can't swear up and down to that. We received 1,500 sets of comments. Many of them are form letters, but a couple 100 of them are unique.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We also got those emails. And

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: so we've like started the collating and organizing them process and then have to prepare a responsiveness summary that has to go through legal review. So there's a couple of steps, sort of our intention throughout has been to be an Alcartz.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, is it hard? I was just going to say if that's the case, then it seems like we could do some things to set up next session, like working within whatever the goals are and trying to come back to some of this. Yeah. So making it, kind of setting the stage for it, I mean, I don't know. Mhmm. Senator Myers Conflicting

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: advice from people involved. People I really put a lot into this. Yeah. But I I think this is the.

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

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: As much as I but a lot of thoughts about this part. Mhmm. But reality is

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm. But sort of like you were saying to

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Significant changes in the new building. The size of of the body water that you can actually operate away from. Mhmm. We've already got a little bit of Plus, it's trying to get it down and start to. I haven't seen it. And they pause a little bit. Correct? Is that correct?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: But I agree with Senator Booth, meaning we're talking about changes to rules, we're just dumb.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, so they're in the process. And so do we want to interrupt that process?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, I think we do.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You'd rather pause the results. Okay, well, let's note it. Let's keep talking through the secretary's concerns. And I'm still thinking that we are going to try to address them. So let's be going. Okay.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, that leads to decontamination whether or not you want to keep the agency as approving decontamination service providers and whether or not a vessel owner would need to show decontamination in order to be off the operating on the water. That's kind of the next step in that question. You take away home life, but do you still want a decontamination requirement before entering? What would that be? And then if there's a decontamination requirement, do you need to show proof of decontamination to allow the operator to your vessel?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And as I understand it, there are some requirements in the draft rule about decontamination.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: That's that fourteen day line, Marciela, just read to you.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yep. So if we took it, well, there's also this provision in here about A and R setting a process to certify decontamination stations. Wanna hear from the secretary. Do you have any further thoughts about, are you open to setting up a decontamination certification process?

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: So we already have a training program for, just looking at the notes I just shared, for aquatic nuisance inspection stations. So part of that already exists. Think I would want to go back to the team and see what they feel like fit their gaps. We prefer to build off what we already have as opposed to create a standalone requirement.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thoughts, yes?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Think it was in

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I the agree. I agree. And just

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: to be clear, I do think what we're proposing in the goal is intended to provide equivalent decontamination requirements compared to the whole legal. That was the intention was to reflect the desire for decontamination and the challenges with the whole plate.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. It's Well, we have no ability to decontamin unless you're on a missionary plane. There isn't the decontamination station out there but doesn't do anything that the polls are on one night. Know, who's going be responsible for for a decontamination?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Mhmm. Something to add to that? I don't want to interrupt you, but I do have a question for you as I'm trying to figure out, is there like something that could meet the goals you have? So what I think I'm hearing from you is your like big priority is that boats that go on a lake that's not their, what's currently considered their home lake get decontaminated. And that's your priority. That be day one. Yeah. So, so it's not so much that you don't want the rules to go forward. You just want to make sure that there's no Okay. Okay. And remember the rules process goes through a legislative committee, so there's still a possibility to change those. But is it possible if we try to put something in the bill that starts to lead to creating more decontamination stations, and that we task ANR with starting to design a program for doing that? I know that gives you but if we could start going down that path, even if it's not not gonna be this summer, I think we all know that.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Decontamination is part of the training that we currently provide. Right, but I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: think that Senator Williams' concern is like the actual physical places to do with the infrastructure. And we had talked about in the committee a lot about current boat dealers could potentially create a de con station so that if they're not on like Champlain, they're down in Bomassine or Dunmore, they can get decontaminated somewhere closer to that lake. Sure. Think that that's just the point of caution.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Course, of course, but as opposed to anything we might necessarily do in the off season without, we have the training materials and the information we're providing to the extent there is a decontamination station at an existing boat launch. We work with the greeters at that to boat make sure they know how to operate the equipment. Right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So beyond that. Well, think maybe guidelines or something, I'm trying here, or private providers, you know, a private boat dealer who might want to install one of these, because if they're between two legs where wake boats go, that might actually be a money thing for them. They could actually, after they install the stuff, they might actually get money. And I'm also hearing from you this concern about location. And so wondering about, if there would be an opportunity to look at where in the state would be opportune locations, like what regions ought to have one. Not to say that like, if we're going to, you know, one to be in that region, but like where should, where should they be to be most effective? Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I think what I'm saying is there some certain conditions that are met. Before we change the rules because right now they're okay on their own weight. We can either even if we said no more weight floors but we can't because I would change the the weight stores. So, there's gotta be decontamination. Somebody's gotta be responsive. And if ANR is gonna be it, then they should have the funding to provide that site because we have the conditions. We we have the laws. I saw

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yes. But if you want, but it's not our fault. Mhmm. Mhmm. You know, you can't move because they're not. Mm-mm. That's fine with me.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Then they go on

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: the way, all cycles. But be that as of May, you know, still go back to choice we have right now. It's it says, come in, be in place for the summer or the possibility of the school before we're making another one. And I think we need the certainty of what's the rules are to get us to this sooner. Do Do as much as we can.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Senator Beck, I'm curious for your thoughts on the locations, or is your concern the decontamination? No, my concern is

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: not to take that and solve. Yeah. My fear is that what would be doing to you know, we go from a I mean, I think if what I understand is the rules instead of talking about going from 100 acre tons and acre zone to a 100 acre zone. Mhmm. And now we've got weight boats on legs that can't Mhmm. You know, these are the weight sports. Mhmm. They have to travel. I mean, that's that's just hanging out for me. It's the it's supposed to go from 50 acre minimum to a 100 acre. Mhmm. That's that's what's happening.

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

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: could put that in there.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Be fewer lakes than having boats on them. Yeah. Or waste ports. Right. The boats could still be there.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: They can't operate in city. That's my problem. Mean, we put language in the statute making it 58 ribs instead of then that'd be

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

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to have more legs to be able to have wake sports on them, but you want the boats that are there to have it decontaminated. Is that

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Not more, the ones that are authorized right now.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: More than what the rule would result in. Yeah, among the existing rules. Existing, okay, existing number of lakes.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But that they have to be decontaminated and registered and have all the right be.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah, I mean, whether it's I mean, if a boat is doing wake sports, it's gonna move around, then they need to

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be teaching them. I don't

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: have any problem with that it's the cutting off these people but you know we heard the person relates to Iroquois for example you know he's done in big bottle.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, it's just Sure. Just not in Wake's words. No. Right. Okay. I'm gonna keep going. Okay. Let's keep

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So the next you kind of did Home Lake and decontamination standards on the secretary's list of issues, and you kind of did lake eligibility in the authorization framework because that's wake sports versus wake, it also raises Senator Beck's concern if you go from a wake sports zone, it has to be a minimum of 50 acres to a minimum of 100 acres, you are going to disqualify certain debates for use of baseboards, but that's what you just discussed. The next was this enforcement jurisdiction and penalty structure. I really tried hard to understand what this was about and I don't understand it because it says the existing enforcement framework under 10 BSA fourteen twenty four or fourteen fifty four agent 3377B. That's what the agency draft rule relies on. The language in the bill is the exact same language as 4454H. And it does create a dual enforcement system allowing for enforcement under DMV authority or under ANR authority, but that's what is already in statute for fourteen fifty four H. And then it says that there's some sort of disconnect between the maximum penalty underneath the rules would be 300 and the maximum underneath this would be 1,000. They are at the exact same penalty limits. It's a range from 300 to 1,000. Both of them have the exact same penalty limits. There is no specific $300 cap in statute or what I could find in the rule. What I think is being referenced is the judicial bureau waiver penalty, because when you go to the judicial bureau, there's a panel of three judges that sets what your waiver penalty is, and I think what they're saying is that the waiver penalty is $300 Well, this still needs to go to the judicial bureau to set that waiver penalty, but you are adding it in the same judicial bureau authority that you have for fourteen fifty four h. So I don't understand what this concern is.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: I will have to get the attorney's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: help. Yes, so judge Soni did come in to speak to this and so this was based on his recommendation. Right,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: and it basically is the language that Zaomi recommended, but it relies on the judicial bureau operating as the judicial bureau does. It's now the judicial bureau offense. The three judge panel has to figure out the waiver penalty, sets that penalty, and that's that. And even if it was inconsistent with what was in the rule or judicial bureau, you all get to set what the penalties are. So it would control.

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

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So I don't really understand this one.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is one that I it's I'm getting the sense that we could maybe leave it, get more feedback. This is not a prohibitive concern for you.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: No, as I said yesterday, for it I felt like were addressable. Was the first three Okay,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: and then five is really just about informing your product nuisance inspection station definition and potentially decontamination service provider definitions with what's in the rule. I don't think you can address the decontamination service provider question because you haven't decided what you were going to do with that, but you can conform product usage and start installation to do the rule. I don't think that would be difficult.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. I mean, I'm getting to do that. I think that seems like an obvious thing to do anyway.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's not listed, but was raised is on page 17 of the draft. There is a reference in the statutory authority for access areas to your product usements inspection stage and having a permit. That's a vestige of a previous draft where the department was permitting them, but it raises that question. The department wants the aquatic nuisance inspection stations to be permitted, which means that they would have to get approval, whereas I think some of the advocates want them just to be authorized activities. Last of them priority lists, still an authorized activity where a permit would not be required. That's a policy decision. I can get rid of a permit on page 17, line 20, or if you could go back to the department permitting the product nuisance inspection stations at access areas. I think that's really the question and I apologize for the confusion of not taking that reference to a permit out on page 17.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: Yes, but we feel strongly that permitting is necessary in order to have the, we have to maintain control as a condition of federal funding that is used to establish fishing access areas and creating, establishing as an authorized use means we are no longer in control and could be subject to review and fund clawback from the federal funding we rely on for fishing access.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't necessarily, I understand the agency's position. I don't agree with it because the physical, the control requirement needs physical control, physical control of the access area. I still believe the agency, the department would have physical control of the access area because the language says that if the authorized use conflicts with any proceeding priority use, then that authorized use needs to be removed. You still have physical control of the access area.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Great, our attorney is disagreeing. I understand. I understand.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: ARIS, so she's significant federal funding to the department that the state is unable, like to the tune of millions of dollars if we are found to be in violation of federal law. And I would urge you not to take that risk.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is something that we had talked through previously and agreed about. So if anybody is interested in changing their minds about that, that would be useful to know. Otherwise, since this is something that we had already talked through, I'm otherwise inclined to keep it at this moment. Sorry.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I agree you. Need to make sure that site is used for the the news.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, on pages twenty and twenty one, we when we're looking we look at the middle of page 20, starting four point zero, the authorized activities. Do you remember our conversation about the order of the activity? We were really careful to make sure that the priority fishing and hunting access were relevant boats were first, and then we put this down in 4.5.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what you, you either leave it as it is, and it's an authorized use, but it's the lasting priority list, the general priority list. Or on page 21, you move approved product usage inspection stations down to line 10 after permanent special uses, and then there's no just general authorization for the aquatic nuisance inspection station to use an access area. They will need a permit from the department. And that's that's how you can change this language. So it would be a permanent extension number. Yeah. But

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: either way, there was language you said on page 17 that would mean to Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. If you if you move it down on page 21 to line 10, the permanent special uses, you can keep the the language on page 17.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But if you don't and you leave it the way that it's drafted, now I need to take the reference to the permanent policy. Okay.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I need your acronym.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: My sense is to go with our previously discussed decision to keep it in the list, remove it from the permitted section. But if, I mean, would be good to know where people are at. I know where you are at, Senator Bongartz. I trust it, but council. Yep. And

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: say, line 10.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, move it to affirmative. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just concerned this bill, we've had all of us agreeing on anything and now we're like off the track and I don't want the bill to be a partisan bill. I wanted us solitude free on it and it's just kind of making me a little sad and I definitely trust our legislative council attorney, probably with my leg. I would, you know, not that I don't trust the secretary's attorneys, but I mean, I also, like, I was really happy that they were all great, and now I'm sad. So I don't I just want I wanna try to find something. You know, be like, okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: She didn't participate in that last night. I'm trying to follow-up. That's why we're having talking.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so Maybe what we can do It's too bad.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'll have make a deal. It's very sad.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So you have to be elsewhere. Is that correct? Like, write it out, basically. No.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought I'm right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Because one possibility is that we just take a break and, you know, see if we can, have some more conversations with the secretary. We didn't get to hear from Mr. Carpenter to check-in with some advocates. But unfortunately, we're also running out of time. Which I realize does not give you terribly clear direction. Guess the direction I would go for now is to make the changes necessary so that the whole making can go forward, keep the draft, keep it in the list for now. Happy to, you know, we can hear some more about that potentially tomorrow, but we've make a decision by tomorrow.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and where are you on decontamination? What do you wanna see decontamination?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: What I was hearing was that we're gonna rely on what's in the rule and not try to do something in addition in the bill.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Unless there was- I was just thinking, I was trying to find something that would address Senator Williams' concerns. Like, is there something we could do to start going down to the, or creating guidelines or map of where they would be necessary or something that the secretary could start doing in the interim and then maybe report back to us so that next session you could talk more about how do we do that. So I was just trying to address that. I'm not very

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: important or anything other. I brought that up at the beginning it was, I think I wasn't saying you.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So that's right. Think if we could create something like that, Michael, I know that's not tons of direction, but, you know, moving down that path with that wouldn't stop your whole thinking. But it if

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: you No. I I think well, I have a couple of options for you. I think instead of the decontamination language that's in there right now, you just directed department to adopt standards for decontamination of vessels, excluding wayboats prior to their entry into waters of the states.

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

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And that would allow the rule to go forward. In addition, you have the agency update its training to ensure that product use inspection stations or others who are conducting decontamination meet the standards for decontamination established by the secretary of federal law. And then you have them report back on a process where they will train people to do decontamination in all areas of the state.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that is almost there. I think one of the things that I'm hearing from Senator Williams is that the infrastructure of these entities, so it's more than just training.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: To identify sites with necessary or adequate infrastructure to do the contamination according to the standards.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. And it might be also I'm sorry. It's not every word. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Go ahead. So, no, you can't some of these access, like, you can't be entertained.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Well, it won't be the access sites. Right?

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

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: That's Right.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. So I think maybe also some nod to working with private vendors or entities that might be hostile sites. Yeah, because it could be, like I said, a Florida code dealer.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: We have one with the bomb siege ring, where there is Yeah,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you have a model for it already. It requires resources. I get it, I get it. I'm just trying to find those info that maybe we can add an appropriations section. Mr. Carpenter, did you want to add something?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, sorry, Chair Carpenter, Relations and Planning Committee. A suggestion might be, if folks look at page four, lines 14 through 17, and then onward, you have leave in the language that starts with prior to entering, and then the person who owns or controls the wakeboat shall decontaminate the wakeboat period. And then you strike the remainder of C. All language we have for proof of decontamination. And you have a sentence that says the commissioner of environmental conservation shall develop guidance regarding requirements for operation of deep contamination services and proof

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: of being given the machine. Sorry, he's back. I don't know if you've followed on on that.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Think that sort of solves what folks have, rather than putting it in statute, they ask the commissioner to go back and create guidance on how decontamination is going to work, including potentially locations. So the rule could move forward, it wouldn't be locked in statute, but it would be guidance that they could. You could put in a date that says come back to the committee next July 1 and talk to us about it. But it would move the decontamination process forward, but take out that entire section of C that deals with proof of decontamination, who can ask and who can't ask and things of that nature. Possibly

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: could also be solved by just providing reference to 10 BSA fourteen sixty one, which is the aquatic nuisance inspection station section of statute. We already do a lot of these things that are being described here.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is there any way to please encourage

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: you to look at that section of statute and see if it meets your interests?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay. You have one other issue that's on page 27. It's the secretary's concern, objection, the reliance on consent statement, I'll require the applicant for a foreign equity diversity in this society. Mhmm. The cost of the municipality of the and the laws of society. Is that needed? I I I think there is an overread of that language. I think your intent was that the applicant is going to be responsible for municipal costs of monitoring, which were at least to ensure that conditions of use of the water are satisfied and not for no contamination of Mhmm.

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

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: you don't think it's brings liability? I think the way that the agency was reading would I think it's an elderly, but I understand their position creates liability. I think if you change it to say the applicant shall be responsible for municipal cost monitoring, it's not that the commissioners require any applicants to do it and not the commissioners supposed to determine what is going to be the contamination of the water. But I think it narrows that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: That sounds like a fine change to me. So I wanna see the words, but think it gets at the constraints. Great. Just want to put a hint in that I'm feeling unsettled about this, the list versus permit issue. I'd like to have a couple more conversations about that. I mean,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I'm not part of it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You have this, your progress, but whatever. Okay. Okay. Thank you. To be continued. So we'll see if you draft tomorrow.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yes. Okay. I don't know what the ball Something

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you drafts. All right. I need to take like a private break. I'm worried that he could cheer ultimately like big concerns about their teeth, that it might get vetoed. I have to jeopardize this. I mean, this is Melanie. A dollar that's on anything. I just can't. Think it was a permanent use. No, it's okay. I'm just trying to work it out. Okay. Okay. So, we are switching gears yet again. We're trying to talk about back to SB 25. And we're going start with Mr. Pibbent, who was, we've been meeting to hear from for some time. So unless you would like to

[Speaker 7]: I didn't know if you had me or Nate first.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think you could go either way. Do you care? It doesn't matter with me.

[Speaker 7]: Okay. Perfect.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Thank you all.

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

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: My name is Corey Parent. I represent Let's Build Homes. I am gonna ask to share my screen here so we can with you guys.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It's all done, perfect. I'm well at the top of it.

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: We're not, this is a long slideshow, I'm not going give you all the slides. I think you're the first four, but there's more reading if you're interested in the topic. We're just coming to speak generally, we're supportive of everything that you're doing in the bill. Our interest is really in section 11 on the study in the Teals language. Again, Moreau came to you earlier this session, all this is going be everybody that has informed the Rutland District today, really to look at how we can limit appeals in tier one areas with discretionary review, so we'll provide

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: some language on how we think

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: a study could go to get, instead of being broad and look at all appeals, but how do we avoid appeals in the first place in certain areas? We think with the excitement around the O2 homes and other things, this would be a good movement to get us to point where we can come in next year and implement something. Our worry is if we don't do a study, that we go out to stakeholders and do something and come back with it next year, the legislature turned around and says, well, you've done a study, but do we have, now we want to do a study of it, can we speed that up a year with the sense of urgency we have? So generally, rolling over a comprehensive solution to address permit appeals in areas targeted in housing growth. There's been multiple approaches talked about eight zero homes and then new city mandates potentially. We look at it as a root zones, I'll move quickly past that. We see that there's a growing interest, public interest in eight zero two homes. There's been a number of news articles on it. There's actually also new legislation at the federal level that is really looking at how to reduce they want more, they call it Road to Homes Act, it's nearing passage, but they're looking at how to do federal zoning reform that is looking at reducing appeals or getting faster. They're looking at either buy right or limiting discretionary review. And there's actually proposals out there that are starting to catch a little bit of steam that would allow municipalities who adopt this pull down x number of dollars per unit bill once they do that. And we could kind of put ourselves at the forefront if that were to pass at the federal level. That

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: was your question. And

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: Vermonters want action, we actually just commissioned a poll, which a lot of these slides that I'm not going go over with you show our poll results and what Vermonters want on housing, but your own review. So ultimately what we're asking for to be included in 3.2 is instead of an appeals reform, generally focused on a report specifically on the opportunity for reducing the negative impacts of discretionary review in tier one areas. We see that as charging the Department of Housing and Community Development, understanding LERB did want the study and saw the discussion here about the legislative study with completing a report by 01/15/2027 that identifies options for expanding the implementation of eight zero two Homes program, evaluates whether the state should create a Vermont model code to assist municipalities seeking or place discretionary review with cleared objective standards, assess the potential value of the federal right to build zone legislation and steps the state can maximize that value. And then consider what financial incentives and pending assistance the state can offer municipalities seeking flow and discretion review, and then recommend legislative action if any is needed at that point. And then include us in that study committee work included in the original one, let's build homes. And all of this is with a target of doing some kind of implementation 27. Obviously, we we got to build a lot of homes to meet need and it's a top priority for Vermonters. We're here to kind of

[Speaker 5]: push that sense of urgency.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Have to answer any questions or

[Speaker 5]: thoughts on it?

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: And just quickly, if you guys can look at this, we go into more in-depth about what the right to build zone concept is, and then like I said, we get to our housing and the number of examples around the state where we've seen discretionary review limit either stop projects or limit the number of units built on a project. If we only have 8.5 acres in the downtown, we limit the number of units there when they're permitted for more of that negatively impacts other parts of our state too because now we have to build them somewhere else.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: We only did the by right provision. Did the by right provision a few years ago.

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: The four unit by right water and sewer? Yeah, and those are still getting appealed because municipalities are still, we know of a couple developers where those are getting appealed. Now they may be looking at parking or other, they're finding other ways to appeal those projects, but they are appealing.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I thought that was the point of quote unquote by right, which is not the right term.

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: So what if you guys did an act of 181 of the centers, correct, is permitted by right, four units or less, but a municipality maybe didn't like that, still send you to the DRB review hearing, and you know it's a permanent use because you're changing a use, you're doing that, they're making you go to the DRB, once you're at the DRB, then you open up, have, we send a letter to all the neighbors, they get to come in, we start a whole interested party process where I think what we see a root zone or something coming into is how do we get to administrative review? How do we, the study would uncover some of this stuff.

[Speaker 5]: How do we

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: not take the work that you did and actually make it truly by right or less likely to go to appeal?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Would you say that another word for by right would be like pre approved?

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: Preapproved, describe we just want to make

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: it describe our view. They don't mean the same thing.

[Speaker 6]: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Fair.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: The vibe language being said before, it can't trench it. Right? For the data of another external goods Wow. Yeah. It doesn't deal with the ability to kill other aspects.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: The board's meeting the verb? The

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: no. Sort of Doctor. So you're get rid the Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. So there's a difference between By right. Yeah. By right, it does not include neighbors being aware and, you know, that's true.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I see.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It doesn't preclude the DRB from shrinking it. You know, it says four, you got four, it can't cut it to two.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So if it's preapproved, then it's Absolutely. That's different in that it's maybe it doesn't go to the DRV at all.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, if it's a militant. And

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: we think we can get to an initial review with a concept, whatever, it may look why we're asking for a study team to get something that all the stakeholders agree to,

[Speaker 5]: that we can limit some

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: of these frivolous appeals on small, especially small projects, like the ones that

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: probably are

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: dead once they get appealed because the person's going to do it. But now they're like, I'm not doing it here, I'm not a developer, I just think there's one or two, one offs.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: In terms of the, I mean, course you had y'all in it, it's for build homes, but there are probably other stakeholders that would want to

[Speaker 5]: be in.

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: Yeah, we need support including the NRC and the planners and VLCT. We thought one thing missing from your current bill was from a housing voice. You had ELCG, you had those others. Just include us on that list. Got it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Good. And Because we did have an appeals report done, but it was really about up to 50 appeals, the sense is that this is

[Corey Parent (Let’s Build Homes)]: Yeah, if you look at the LERP and their municipal appeals, they actually have, may not sound like a lot, but about 22 municipal appeals a year in a three year stretch LERB looked like. And they actually said, how do we limit what gets appealed instead of kind of for municipal appeals? And so that's what we're trying to help solve that question within that report, narrow look at that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super, well any other questions for Mr. Chairman? No questions. Okay, super, thank you so much. Thank you very much. I agree to move. I don't know your last name.

[Speaker 6]: For Alex Farrell today. He has submitted testimony last night because it's in your folder on this issue and the study I think the thank you. So I'll let this kind of do the talking but just one thing I would add we agree with lots of homes on what they're looking to do but we feel that in S 267 it has some in there utilizing the eight zero two home designs, which will be completed towards the end of this year. The thing to note in that language is it's not effective until 07/01/2027. So we feel putting that language in would allow us to continue the work.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: We continue with the pilot communities that we're working with now. Then you guys would still have a chance to review it before anything, any our progress and where we're headed with this Bi Rite conversation, what the designs look like before it actually was implemented. So if you're that's where we think we could make this happen without a study if you're still eager for a study this memo also has language that we would recommend around that. And again, you have discretionary review versus speaking appeals.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And that's

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: a stable language.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I mean, have a sense of like, could we do both? Like how to make appeals?

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: Yes. Yeah. With the bio right language as well. I think that would set up a good timeline and it would allow action and study to happen.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I guess I mean like looking at both discretionary review and appeal sufficiency.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I think maybe to echo a little bit of Let's Go Hump, we feel like that

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: the appeals studies have happened.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: We have suggested language. Even for me to stop us? Not specific to that, but I think it's the issue's been looked at in many different ways. So we're more motivated to look at

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: how to reduce the number of other people versus other jobs.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: Maybe in that, it'd

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be great.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, there's one other thing that I wanted to be sure to ask you about, which is, I mean, I'm loving the eight zero two Homes pilots. I think that's fantastic. So two questions really. One is, I realize that this Well, I guess my question is it's a little bit adjacent to the report that you're suggesting here, But I think it could be baked into this because my understanding is that there's otherwise not, because it's your own initiative, which is great, but there's otherwise not a report back that's planned to the legislature about this is how it's going. And I will just say that that is my hesitation to just plow forward with, you know, making eight zero two homes, those pre approved designs statewide. So I want to know like how did those pilot projects go? Like what were the lessons learned? What were the details? And so I'm imagining asking you all for a report on how wet it was through communities as a way to set us up to look at some future.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: I think we would be open to that and what we were maybe trying to get at in this memo here of saying, because the implementation statewide would be another legislative session, we'd be more than willing

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: to come in and talk about that. So if we needed to

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: bake that into the two sixty seven language, think that's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the amendment. Well, my other question is about the eight zero two Palms blueprints. You have 10 of these now, and it's what I felt like I heard from questions that we asked from previous testimony was that there could be an opportunity for more kinds of designs. There's a need for different kinds of houses. Yes. And so it'd be great if we could get more designs. This is separate from the study, but I'm wondering about an appropriation section to this bill to ask for more designs.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: I don't know that I can agree to that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Oh, I understand.

[Nate (Agency of Commerce and Community Development/DHCD staff, for Commissioner Alex Farrell)]: Outside of the governor's budget and all that. Understood. But I understand what you're saying in that. I think there will be instances where different types of designs are needed in different variety of types of housing. I know you've mentioned multiple times in this committee. We would be opening to maybe if it's into the next session, figuring out how we can get work done. But I can't speak to the budget.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Any other questions or comments about this? Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, all right. Ms. Sullivan, welcome. Thank you. Megan Sullivan, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Rutland Junior Cars. Thank you for having me back again today.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Thank you all. I've done some really excellent work here, and I really appreciate how much you have dug into this. I think it's important to work on ours. As I said at the very start of the session, made this up. We supported the passage of 01/1981 and really view this as just important technical corrections that we should all expect after such a large bill passed two years ago to ensure that things are staying on track and Vermonters feel like they have opportunity in this process. So I'm not going to talk about all of the things that I think are great in this, but there's a lot in there if you have questions about it. But just wanted to flag a few things that we wanted to weigh in on. Gauge two, I'm gonna stay on line six, but it's really about the report that is being asked to be brought back on limiting criteria for the voting rule. Wait, they've made Sorry. Are you on draft 3.1? I think so. I hope it's on page two that that's

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: not on

[Speaker 6]: our report.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Oh, sorry. My servicer was down on page eight when I said page two. Let me go back to page two. Related to the report, though. Okay. So that the date being 2027. Okay. And I think it was mentioned that the report will come back December 2026, so that gives you a year. But realistically, your report is coming to you in January. You are then going to be acting on that report between January and worst case scenario, '20. That really needs six weeks, not a year. Oh, you think, so are you suggesting that this- So that it wouldn't, so it'd be, if we're, the road rule tier three were to be implemented at the end of twenty seventh, with the understanding that that would give you a year once the clerk has sent in their report on reducing criteria, right? So they've sent in their report reducing criteria at the '6, then you have a year left for rulemaking by 'twenty seven. Realistically, they may send in their report at the '6, but then there's going to be a full legislative process in which it is debated. Does that report make sense to the legislative body? Whatever they determine the reduced criteria should be. So realistically, they don't have then a year of rulemaking after they submit that report. They have whatever comes out of that legislative session. Turns out to be more like six So you have more like six months working, six months. So I would say pushing that out another six months. I know that it's hard to, for those that want to see this happen, which we are, you know, we support seeing this happen, giving that full year of rulemaking because rulemaking just daytime, especially if we're talking about reducing criteria. Yes, go ahead. This might be a question for Ellen, because this, there's that date on page two that says, Determining the length of any road starting December. That's where you're taught. That's what I And then you're referring to that language that we talked ad nauseam about earlier today about the pool thing and the reports. The report that we then determined was going to be January 1527, that's on page, section six, page eight, yes. Okay, but then also on page 11, where the effective dates happen, the effective date for the growth rule, among other things, is January. That's that one day in groups, think, that we need to be consistent, so that this is where the core question about what happens. So this, at the very least, this December needs to be January 1, If 20 not further my because of Megan's statement. I guess I would like one other place, which is the bottom seven, page seven. These are the rules. This is, I guess, the final proposed rule for tier three. Right? Right. Right. December 27, there needs

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: You plan to leave it and change it next year or we decide that's what we can say.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Well, see what you're saying. So like we have the time next year

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: to put it out. Also, it's something else. If there are gonna changes, decide then and not in the company, not keep pushing everything out. I mean, that's possible. I

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: think that at the very least, we need to change as a couple of page 10, a patch of top of page two to January. Yep. If not further, another page. Well, I've made my decision before. No, well, I think they should have more time. Yep. I think it's year that, so that year is more appropriately set at the end of next line of sales. And so either we do it now or next year when we're taking things up, realistically, they're going to need twelve months to go through renewals. So, I mean, I do hate to be honest, to set us into a pattern of like, and we're going do it again and then we're going to delay it again. So in a way I'd rather do it at one time, but I also hear your point. It happens like, well, you just delayed it last year. Now you're going delay it again this year. Is this ever going to happen? And people thought about it. Does that make sense? Yep. That's not above my- Okay, I know we're move Page five, I sure pick line 14. This is about whether or not, if the community chooses not to opt in to 1B, should the road rule apply in that mapped area? And maybe a compromise being that we, you choose to say, put this a 2030 date as the interim exemptions? I think I'm- So for those communities that we're saying they might need until 2030 to actually get it together to be able to apply for 1B, that they are not penalized with having the road rule applied in their village center, their growth area, while they're getting it together. So if that can't be an indefinite, that the rural rule doesn't apply to matched growth areas, that for those 1B eligible areas, that they have an interim exemption from the road rule until 2030, the same as the interim exemptions for know you heard, was Where, do you know where It's not in there, I'm like Yeah, was trying to find the right place that it could be in there. I found the spot where the January, for the January 2030 date for tier 1A. Yeah, yeah. That's sort of where I thought we could do that could have been. It's an interesting thought. Willing to talk about it. I kind of like it, because I think you and I had this conversation, I can't remember who

[Speaker 5]: I've talked to you about,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I just sent so many people. About the tier 1B mapped areas that aren't actually tier 1B yet, because they haven't done the things. Whether the road rule applies, and whoever it was, I think might've been Catherine. It was like, well, getting exempt from the road rule is supposed to be one of the carrots for doing mundane. If we take away that carrot, we might have fewer towns opting in because the carrot would be gone. But I think there are some towns that are still trying to get their act together to see if they want to do one of these. So maybe that. So they didn't have caret. After that, Yeah, you have your docs in a row and you get the drugs. So that's a lot of them. How are you feeling about that? Okay. All right, okay. Well, take a second. That's fine. Page eight, section six. Page eight. This is the study, not the study, this is the report back on the limited criteria. And we have just one way that I had been working on phrasing for it that I thrown out there, although I think you guys are getting really solid on the language, when Act two fifty is triggered solely due to the construction of a road in tier two or a colored natural resource in tier three. That's when the reduced criteria can be. That's when they should be thinking about the reduced criteria. So it's not for the strip mall, it's not for the large development, it is when it is triggered solely because of that construction of a roof. So it's three houses at the top of a road, or it is, right, where nothing else would trigger besides the length of the road, at all. That actually made it more near, it seems like. Well, think if that was what the intent was, to say it should be limited if those are the only triggers, right? If the road is the only trigger, if the natural resource is the only trigger, but not If there's seven other things that trigger it, then you're And to say, the learner's got to spend the next six months thinking about everything in the universe of development versus just what is the intent here? If these new criteria, these new triggers are the only triggers. Right, I kind of like that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Plus Think it through.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Okay.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Because it would be nine houses would trigger in multiple the trigger to get nine houses at the end of the end of Mhmm. Because it's dogs and barns and all the stuff that because this is intended to be thinking about wildlife and natural resources. So it's not just because a lot could happen before it would otherwise be triggered. So we have to just be careful about what we're actually doing that. But we're on the same page to the extent that we're thinking about how to put it to review. I'd rather think the Board brought our authority to think it through it, come back to us.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I think I agree with Senator Bongartz on the hear what you're trying to go for, but I think that the Board has a better scope of view. Yeah, that we're not thinking of them. I think they will include what you're talking about. Okay. Or they should. But also Yeah, was gonna say, make a note of it. And then we, when they come back with a report, we ask. Know. The abuser horn. I'll be like, let's go home and see the the agency I've talked about why we think that's necessary. I'm not sure I need to add anything, but we've afraid that this is about how to limit the appeals, which I also think will make appeals even faster if there's people are talking Sure, what do you want to It doesn't seem like it's a No, I don't think the title here is perfect. But I don't know if that's in what Yeah, in the suggested language. Yeah, there are suggestions on recommendations for how to reduce the negative impacts of discretionary review for residential development and considering a bunch of options, model code, incentives, assistance, to seek limited discretionary review. I I think I would want to maybe build that out a little bit, that's sort of where we're starting. I do think there's a need for that specific look at things that's very different than what has already mapped. So, check that. Okay, 16, page 16, page line 11, traditional and historic versus or historic. So I think the and is problematic, and I have two scenarios that is problematic. One is for a town like Billington, which does not have a historic center. It is a new center, and that it has been a challenge of interpretation of, well, can they have a center if it's not the end historic? And another example is a town like Brookfield that is trying to move their center out of the historic flooded area, and I think are running into really big challenges being told, says in historic, not or historic, so you're out of so that I think is why the or is critically important. Are

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: we in the up there? Don't be on the system. Laid to tax credits though?

[Speaker 5]: No.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah. This is just the yeah. And this is that this is that issue of it's on a. I agree. Right? I agree. We're past this. I've talked about having an initiative instead of rather

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: than Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I understand it. Just wanna make

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: sure we

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: have it's not as good as looking sprawl.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I I hear that, and I think our RPCs are very cognizant of when they're doing their mapping, that they're not a mapping sprawl, but I think they are also feeling hamstrung by this firm and poor communities that are really thinking ahead about climate change and the impacts that flooding has and needing to be that and done. So

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I totally get it. Yeah. Eat a lot of different pounds filled with sugar, so and but I'm not a true one.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Yes. I just think it has to be solved. Yep. It's and thinking about how we can separate that out potentially from the tax credit issues that they can be, we can have some different language to separate. One more. Walking distance, page 18. Sorry, before you move on to that, I think you were talking about page 16, slide 11. I'm also assuming that you're talking about page 16. That's just where I saw the work, Anne, should be I a traditional just know that there were some other places where historic came up and wherever it is, I think that's the challenge I see is, and I think those two towns are good examples of where to store and create challenge in the work that I'm doing. Okay, thank you. Sorry, go ahead. Page 18, walking distance, line six. A couple challenges with distance, and I don't know if walking distance is fine somewhere in statute. Walking,

[Speaker 7]: as

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: a term, is for able-bodied individuals. The difference between what an 85 year old can walk and an eighty twenty five year old body person can walk, how that's interpreted. I think multimodal recognizes that differently abled people have different ways of getting around, and the importance here that we're talking about sort of four centers and what that distance is. And I think multimodal is a good opportunity. There might be other ways to define that, but I do see walking distance as problematic terminology. And I don't know what the history of that firm instance statute, but. Yeah, I mean, we're almost planning about 50% of the state of Vermont, so, right, but like what we're seeing being mapped. I think there's a lot of fear about sprawl that it's not showing up in our mapping. And that's why we have Well, I guess I would also recognize, like, the walking distance does feel a bit squishy to me because I might be willing to walk miles, whereas other people may not be able to walk miles. You know, And either maybe there's a difference there in having a distance. Maybe it is multi model or maybe it's, you know, and particularly with planned growth areas, I mean, I'm thinking, honestly like, I'm thinking about Montpelier and, you know, I'm hoping for a planned growth area out of town that's connected by a bike path. Right. Is somebody willing to walk that whole distance? I mean, I have, I've done it. And people do, but everybody may not be. Right. So I think that's the road for me. Maybe if there comes way to get at that somehow.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: It's also maybe one of those things we need to, we should think through Yeah. The. Mhmm. Because it's don't need to fix everything. Mhmm. And, again, the is squishy.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: That's it. That's all I got. Thank you for all your heartburn. We've got to end here pretty quickly here, team, especially based on your comfort with the historic piece. Well, I think we might hear from Mr.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Baker tomorrow, and you think you have some language about this? About this very issue? Yes. If it's okay with all I may just incorporate Mr. Baker's language regarding historic, and we can, it's easier to chop rather than add. So I'm just thinking about for a new draft. In terms of the things that were brought up, dates, aligning the dates, at least making it January 28, I think we do need to make a decision about do we push tier three and roll out further to accommodate for rulemaking? Yeah, I mean, if they're reporting back to us in January 27, how long does it take? It's usually like a year or so. Sometimes it takes eighteen months. Yeah, mean, do think that's a very relevant concern and I'd rather not continue to push things out of recession. You will need certainty.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, six months.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, so add another six months to that. Yeah, and I think that somebody was concerned about it being in July, this is the billing season, but that actually, there was somebody else who countered that. Now I can't remember permitting, I was saying, yeah, it's not gonna actually be when they're building it.

[Julie Moore (Secretary, Agency of Natural Resources)]: It's on their cabinet. I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: am interested in adding an appropriations section to events. Thinking about ACCD, more blueprints for different types of housing for eight or two months. I kind of would like to see their first 10 before we spend the They're out, they exist. I thought they were not done with them yet.

[Speaker 6]: Not finalized. It'll be the fall.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, exactly. Before release, it's in public comment.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Let's put in board appropriations if you can find it better.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well, there's also, the other thing that's on my radar is thinking about, we talked about for tier three doing more outreach. So looking about an appropriation for the alert to do more outreach on tier three, especially if they had happened more time. This was one of the asks of the rural caucus to do more education. So that's the other consideration that I have with this. And to be fair, would certainly get taken out and reconsidered.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So I think that's part of your question. Really keep moving to one day of the two months, not wait for them to hear to do the next to take the app and help those green builders that need to be born and we've got to get give you the resources to keep them moving because a two months is I just think it's the future, it's the opportunity, and we don't want to come at it, not going to keep building for the next year, because it's not sufficient resources. That's fine.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Just, though, if we add money in appropriations to the bill, gets, you know, creates another stop. It creates more complications to the bill. Yeah. Well, I mean, sure, but there are a lot of other people on the committee. I just, you know, this is literally the first time we've mentioned appropriations bill. Like, the day before we pass it. And so that doesn't, it's never been part of the discussion. Fair enough. Yeah. So in addition to just thinking about the conversation we just had, thinking about the interim exemptions for road rule for one of the eligible areas. Again, my inclination is to include that and then we can always strike it in. It's easier to, again, to subtract. I like it. Okay. Yeah,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: want to think about it overnight. Okay. Yep. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think that was, I'm just thinking about like what direction am I giving to Alan. And the last part is about the, since the last part, let just check to make sure. On the walking distance versus multimodal, you've been saying that, you know, like we should wait to do anything. Other thoughts on that? Yes. Something. Oh, you wanna do it? You wanna just do what's

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: in the The reason the the walking is even in there is because the long the role could be both. I mean, it's also definition. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Was trying to think of an adjective that we could put in front of multilateral that would get to Senator Bongartz's concerns. Yeah. Because I I do I think Megan's point about it being not an inclusive term is a very good point. And I'd rather fix it now, but I also hear your concerns, Senator Bongartz. Is there like an adjective we could put in front of multimodal that doesn't mean like, oh, you could, you know, have a motorcycle between the two places and that's a mode and that's one of the multi modes we know. As soon as we get like a bus then it can be any distance. Exactly, I don't know what the, if anyone in the room has an adjective that works. Compact mode, that's

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: a good Compact thing. That's Compact. Compact mode. Compact. Compact because that's what we're trying to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: do. I can't remember what the, what page that's on, if that works. Compact page 17. Oh, that also say walking? Yeah, walking distance. Okay. Between the seventeen- Yeah, the way where I was looking at it was line six on page 18. Oh, yes. Yes. And it is again arranged along a mainstream and intersecting streets. Most feel like there's any distance, but I don't know what the distance should be. There's so many words to find in the statute. There's got to be some defined part that could correct. I like the word compact, but something about arranged on restraints that are, I'm going to change it to compact if you all are. I know. Unless there's a different words as you all are, or I have some might interpret that word. There's how it is interpreted by It would be very different across periods.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Well, point here, it's, but it was bad. Yeah. That's not a concept. That's what we've been talking about.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So yeah, I think in some way in replacing it with compact, and maybe Ellen, you can play around with it a little bit. And then the last part is about this report. I would love to get a report on the eight zero two Homes pilot projects. If that makes sense to do anything.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Could get there just by having them talk about it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, that's a possibility. Maybe it'd be nice to have something that people can look at to examine. Okay. I absolutely can't I was sitting here

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: thinking this is really necessary. Don't see

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: it. Mhmm.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Because the department's kind of trying to evolve the energy in ITO two columns. And I I just wanna make sure it's not gonna make work. And taken by.

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

[Speaker 6]: I think it could be part of I don't think it needs a separate

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it could be baked into this?

[Speaker 6]: If you wanted to bake it in here or if you're open bringing your two

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: sixty seven language in, it would be baked rather than a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: sentence. Okay. If it's okay with you, I'll try to bake that into this language from the, from DHCP. Wait, I'm confused. What, which, I have this, what other language are you baking it into? Oh, so was thinking replacing this whole report language with what's suggested by the departments. Okay. Which is at the bottom. Okay. Then baking into that, a report on eight zero two homes with the pilot. So adding E02 homes to this. Yeah. And changing the title of that. Yes. Or changing. Okay. And today, that is it. Phew. Oh my gosh, we are overtime. Thank you.