Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, there. Oh, it was in your lap. This is National Resources and Energy. It is Wednesday, March 18, and we are starting this morning with potential amendment to S-three 28. And we have our legislative council member this, Ellen welcome. Yay. Ellen Jankowski, Office of Legislative Council. So I'm here today on S-three 28, a proposed amendment to S-three 28. I do want to point out, it says Senator Watson moves for these amendments. Your committee is on possession of S3 28.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: in

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: We heard about it in Brooks yesterday, however we did not have possession as of yet. Okay, so it is not in this committee. And so this is an individual amendment. Additional members can sign on, but it won't be from the Senate Capital Resources Committee. So, there are a few instances of amendments, but it's basically three changes. One change to S328, as you saw, and then two new provisions. So, the first instance of amendment works together with the second instance of amendment and the effective dates. So this language in the first instance of amendment is based on the testimony you all received yesterday from the NRC. So it is about the definition of certified municipal sewer and water infrastructure. So it's putting in a temporary provision and then sunsetting that for a new provision in 2030. So on page one, amending 24 BSA 4,303, the definitions of area certified municipal sewer and water infrastructure means until 01/01/2030, an area where residential connections and expansions are available to a parcel or a portion of a parcel within 300 feet of municipal water and direct and indirectly charged wastewater systems, and not prohibited by an inch. So this is changing the distance that you all discussed yesterday in S-three 28. It's currently 2,000 feet, sustaining within 300 feet, and sunsetting this language for 01/01/2030. That then leads into the second instance of amendment for what happens after 01/01/2030. Section 8A is the same language about what would kick in in 2030. So, an area served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure means an area where residential connections and expansions are available to a parcel within a portion of a parcel within one quarter mile of a road with municipal water and directed indirect discharge wastewater systems that is mapped as an improved regional plan, in an improved regional plan as a downtown or village center, planned growth area, or village center, village area, and not prohibited by constraints. So this gets up the idea that once we have approved approved regional plan doesn't like the longer distance is probably fine. Though realistically speaking, quarter mile's awfully long way and or two, I should say 2,000 feet is an awfully long way. Quarter mile's somewhat better, but more realistically, we're just talking about a water connection. You're just going from the road to the house. 300 feet is perfectly reasonable. Any thoughts or There's also an effective date for this. So if you can't see, there's a effective date. So this first instance is what is to happen immediately. The second instance of a battery is to cap to 23. I mean, I'm tempted to just say 300 feet because that's what's, I think, sort of logical, but so

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So I got a couple of thoughts. Yeah. One is in the first instance, in the first page. Wouldn't we want this to appear in the exempted areas? Hopefully, It's a sort of part that you want to become, and in fact, the area is mapped. They're real term proxy. Designated.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I'm just thinking about how that interplays with the HOLM Act and how there's no, you know, the quadplexing by right, so to speak, isn't limited to the, interim area. Okay, sorry. And this is more or less, yeah, because my recollection is related to the duplexing barite, quadflexing barite. Yeah, yeah. We're looking at an amendment to S328 as proposed by Senator Watson. Yes. It is on your desk.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: Amendment to three twenty eight.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: To three twenty eight. Yeah, that was an o. Yeah. So that 2,000 feet, I think. Okay. I'll just say quickly in summary, the first instance and the second instance amendment are working together so that there's a temporary provision in the instance one until 2030. Instance two is what is going to take place after 2030. And there are two other amendments in this bill. The bottom of page three into page four, there are two different reports related to farm worker housing. So section 9A, it's being added farm worker housing report on for 01/15/2027. So the top of page three, the Vermont Housing Conservation Board shall update the farm worker housing needs assessment of 2021. Want to give background on this. Okay, so these two provisions about farm worker housing came at the request of couple of my constituents who are concerned about farm worker housing. One of them who's been an advocate for decades on this issue and it's on its own awards about it, and you may have talked to him early, he works for orchards. He wanted to have an update and ask if we could do an update of a report that the HCV did in 2021 about farmworker housing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's a really good report. So we just asked for an update, what's not a complete new report, sort of like, hey, it's five years or by then six years, can you give us an update? And then the second one is how asking the lawyer to do a report back to us about how to lower barriers to farm worker housing. I've heard from a number of constituents who are trying to build farm worker housing on their farm and have been having issues with it because it's not considered farming, it's considered housing. So it's not exempt. So just trying to get some information on how we can accommodate farm worker housing better through the process. So that's what these two, they're, they remind us. Gee, what's each quidder in the

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: next two fifty's? Because we have because you have it pulled out now. You have to be building.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: There was I think that there are some instances. There was one specific case in my district that is it's triggered because it is under an existing It's in an area that has an existing Act two fifty permit. And so that's triggering it. But then I think also there are, like with a lot of this, there's a lot of speculation about what's going to happen rather than, so having a report that says, if you're trying to build just three houses and, you know, near your barn, you're going to be fine. And kind of having the information out there, I think would be better specific to kind of parkour housing because it's come up a bunch of times for me. So that's what this report is. And it might just be explanatory. So Should I read do you want me to read the next? Sure, yeah. So, because I wanted to know if my language actually addressed that.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So on 04/15/2027, so I will flag the LERB is doing a lot of other things by then. Yeah. The LERB shall submit a report recommending ways to remove barriers under Penn SA Chapter 151, which is Act two fifty, to the construction of farm worker housing, and then who they submit to reports to. So is the barrier a permit? Is that what you're referring to? Like just- Not necessarily. I mean, it's Maybe it's just like work. Maybe you put it in terms of the positive instead of the negative, like seem to have to accommodate foster or something. Well, I think there is also an element of what you were saying about, or somewhere between what Senator Byrnes and Senator Byrnes were saying about, that if there is no pre existing Act 15 permanent, you're only building one house, it's just in tier two, it shouldn't trigger Act of 15. Right. And so there, it feels like there's also an element of, you know, please lay out for us how these things interact. Just tell us about how this works, or because like I said, there's a lot of misinformation out there. Yeah. And I've heard it, and then

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'm like, no, I don't

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: think that would, I don't think it would apply, and then people don't need me. So, you know, if they can do sort of, this is how farm worker housing would be impacted because it's a specific issue that there's concerns.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Maybe we'll just have a say that really are affecting that. But something like, or articulating the waves that former courthouse is or is not impacted by f two fifty. And it's definitely this Mhmm. The waves that are down. So we won't do it for county rooms or, you know, I heard some hospitals say they want to build housing for their nurses and their employees. You know, that would be if you do

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: it for a warmer, you're not gonna look for everybody else. I think the farm worker housing is a different situation than that because it's specific to building housing on a farm. And One is a big issue just in general, like farm worker housing is in really terrible shape at most places in the state. And there has been some efforts to prevent, but they have problem. So I think that there's a sort of assumption out there that because that's smart worker housing, unlike most housing, but unlike the places like hospital housing, which we'll probably want to be near a hospital, which is usually the downtown sector, farm housing is probably in tier two out in the farm lands. And so it's not in the exempt areas. So there's an assumption that it's gonna be harder to bill. And I don't think that's necessarily the case, but I think it would be helpful to have some of difficulties. We've looked into this and

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: these are the

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: One further question on that. So does chapter one, if you want to include the tiers, Like it does, so it would include tier three, for example, because that's another concern that I've heard is like, how does tier three on my farm affect my ability to Exactly. Rent a So tier two, I think mostly, but to the extent that there's tier three on farmland. So what, maybe it's a report on the impact and, I'm thinking of the right words here. Once Senator Bongartz said, I wrote down the ways farm worker housing is impacted by Act two fifty, and to the extent that it is impacted, they make recommendations for how to encourage or foster

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: farm work. Yeah, but we also wanted to, yeah, that's why it's a report. Yeah. And maybe we should call it on farmhousing. For farm workers. Oh sure. On farm workers. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Then to Alan's point about invest older to do a lot of things, maybe we, I don't know what date is a better date, but we'll give them more time. Especially since the VHCb report, we could also, we could actually reference the VHCb report, say, you know, look at this report, but

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: we just

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: asked for it.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I wonder if this is more of a VHCb broadband in consultation with them.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I think the reason I think the LERB is the SEC is because they're the ones that oversee I-two 50. So it could be the LERB in consultation with VHCP.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, he's got this submitted to CHEM.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I can picture that. And then, I mean, having an updated report would be helpful, but I could picture just saying in consultation with the HCV and then eliminate the updated report. Just so you know, I have let, the HCV and the learner know about this package. So hoping to have them in later this week, but. I do think updating the 2021 report is something. Yeah. Having the HCP to that. And then we can do the second thing in consultation with BHC. And then we could do it, I don't know, September or December 27. You know the dates better than what they have to do. Well, that is I don't think meetings are a

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: thing. Mhmm. Mhmm. It could be,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: like, five pages or it's not even better. Think was everything that's

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: required before the medicals.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, I mean, on the one hand, it's all in statute. But on the other hand, they may have a list compiled of this Well, they have market to make a list. I

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: don't have a list, though, but at one eighty one had at least four courts for them to do. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: all the rules go, there's a whole rule breaking process, the re eventually coded. And you included separate reporting requirements back to the general. Yeah, rules as well. Just to check-in, Senator Beck, how are you feeling about all this?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'm fine, I think what you're saying makes sense. Think my hospital regarding where they are, they're not they have a manager looking to develop for housing it is adjacent to the hospital it is I think 1B not two I think it makes a lot of sense Yeah, pharma for cussing is different. I think it is different. It's almost always on-site. Know, a lot of times they don't have transportation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Exactly. Yes, it is. But it's not permitted that way if they're building a house. But if they're only building one house or renovating something that's already there, it should trigger activity. Well, and it makes me think about the exemptions that we forward to farming in general from 1950. Know this doesn't I have don't want to take

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: it to the Supreme Court's fine, I'm interested in the election. Sure, sure. But the challenge with the building something that has fallen for a year and then it's housing. Yeah. Which on the way, you know, maybe depending. But but Yeah. The this is always the challenge. It's like we need anytime you use fast forward side or last towards the moment, lasts and then you're still laughing.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, and so I just wanted to make sure you all know that I'm not working on this. So Michael Grady and Sophie, so that in my office have worked on these issues. If you would like to hear about this issue in general, you should hear from other people than me. Other than

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I don't know how to describe the report then. Yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: mean, don't think we need to get into all of this right now. I think it's more just asking for a report so we have clarity. Sure. Okay. Did you get the language that Senator Bongartz? So what I have is that the board shall report on ways housing for farm workers on farms is impacted by Act two fifty.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And to the extent that it is, how we can foster some sort of different Yeah. If you want both of them on. Mhmm. By the way, it is or is not. Yeah. Maybe we say if. To the extent that it is and to the extent that it is. What changed what what changes statute of the rule? I mean, sentence or something.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Alex.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: What changes in statute or rule might the board recommend? I guess we should say statute. What changes in statute might the board recommend?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. I was appreciating the idea of staggering the, yeah, CV report and we'll be due January 1528. So it's another year. That's it. Any other thoughts on that? During '28. Okay. Super. We are running well and no schedule. Any other thoughts on this before we leave it for now? We're going to switch gears. So, we're going to be hearing about a different bill that's end on SB23, the miscellaneous Ag bill. There's one or possibly two parts of that that pertain to our jurisdiction. And then we're going to go back to this language and hear from Raleigh's cities and towns and one of the planning directors, we're here from a planning director from sales. And then just looking at the rest of the week, just so everybody's aware, tomorrow we're going to be hearing from the Public Utility Commission on a report that they did on something called single plants for solar. This is getting a little bit of a jumpstart on a topic that I, it's coming to us. It's not in your solar, but. Oh, okay. Sorry, can I Can we ask So, is a You do not have possession of three twenty eight? True. It sounds like I'm bringing you a new draft. Yes. You do not vote on this because it is not something your committee, I mean, you can depend if you wish, but the committee that this bill would be affected, it's a matter of what the effect may be, can struggle on it. You want to decide that now, but it does sound like I'm coming back with Yeah, that would be great. Okay. Okay. Thank you. So we'll try to get you back on this schedule We'll see. Sure. Okay. Yes. See if we can see your group. Okay. Jumping back to when you get ahead of schedule. So trying to get a little bit of information. It's a background for this single plan issue. So that's tomorrow. And then again, a little bit more about 03:23 from the Landis Review Board. We do have VACB coming in anyway on Friday. They actually wanted to come talk to us about

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: May 28. She'll be. Oh, Okay. We can fit in that. Can you talk to

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Is she available right now? She can. Well, sure. So on this particular tablet? Yeah, on screen 23. Actually, let's take a quick break. Sure. Let's take a quick break. Yes. Okay. So good morning again, the Senate of National Resources and Energy, we are coming back from break, and we are joking into a different bill, S-three 23, which is the miscellaneous agriculture bill. We would love to invite our legislative council, Mr. Sherman, welcome.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: Good morning. Good morning.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I don't have the Zoom link. We don't share the Zoom part, we just talk about it. It doesn't matter.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You can do it either.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, we'll just talk about it. And so we are discussing Senate Bill three twenty three, that related to miscellaneous that are called for subtext.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And so

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: this is a big

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: bill, and so I will do a 10,000 foot overview of this bill for this committee.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, we're really only interested in the first that applies to our jurisdiction. Okay. So I'm particularly interested in section four and I think also, like what I'm just looking at is section five as well. Well, we can talk about section four

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: because that would be Ellen's section. So I will switch over.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Alex, Okay. Have to the Office of Legislative Council. Yes, so Bradley has been leaving three twenty three this whole time, but there are a couple it is really a miscellaneous bill for agriculture, so there's a couple of other things in it. So section four on page

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Ruth, are you in that middle?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No. We are looking at Looking

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: at draft 4.1. Okay. I'll make sure it was an amendment that was

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: S-three 23, So, thank you. Yeah, so page eight and to page nine. So this is an amendment to the Act two fifty exemption for accessory on-site businesses. That was created in Act 181. You may recall that an accessory on farm business is not farming, but it is a commercial activity that is taking place on a farm. For almost a decade, there has been provisions protecting these types of businesses in municipal zoning, and then in Act twenty eighty one, we created an Act two fifty exemption for them. And so the existing language is that no Act two fifty permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory out of our business. And there are two distinct types of accessory out of our business in the statute. There are the sale, storage, processing, preparation of products grown on a farm, and there are also farm events and activities. So the Act of Victory Exemption covers the preparation for processing of products so long as more than 50% of the total annual sales are from products grown on that farm. So there is a requirement for this exemption to apply to the farmer who is doing this processing, a value added processing, 50% currently needs to come from that farm. So blueberry jam, if you're making blueberry jam, half the blueberries you're using need to come from your farm, but then you can also use blueberries from your other farm. The proposed amendment here is on page nine, adding a different parameter to be followed. So, or, instead of 50% of the total annual sales, or not more than $250,000 adjusted for inflation in total annual sales for donated crops of the process, prepared to process product, comes from farms, comes from products not produced from the farm where the business is located. So instead of doing a percentage of how much comes from another farm, it's doing a dollar amount cap on how much can come from another farm based on and there's an inflation adjustment. And then there's also the language about it could also be equivalent of donated crops, which I'm not entirely sure I understand.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Anything more you want to say?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'll stop there. In general, I feel okay about this, though I do have some questions, I, having had this flag for me earlier, nearly raged this before, but like reading it again, this question is coming back up for me, which is, we don't need a phrase, do we need a phrase that's something like, whichever is more or whichever is less? I think that is a choice you could make. It doesn't have that currently. Because I think as long as you don't say whichever is more or whichever is less, I like as long as it qualifies either, then it qualifies. Right? And I think that's fine. Any thoughts from committee?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So this is the perennial question about what really what really is a one for our business Mhmm. And what isn't. It's 250,000. So there's a lot of sales. There's a lot of.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: There. A lot of.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So I don't it's the first time since. So We

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: don't to make a decision today. So Bill is still in finance. And they go to approach. Yeah. Happy to chat further about this, but I wanna make sure that we understand how this functions. Because I think my first reading of it was that they were making less than $250,000 but it is $250,000 of of stuff from not your farms.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yes. So that's

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Which is, it is a lot.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: This is driving a truck promotion of one of our business. So that would be a quarter million of selling stuff that will not produce on

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: your file. Right.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So probably the decision

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to Okay. Well, let's Yeah.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: We can chew on it. I think anybody who's in retail, diversification of product is terribly, being able to diversify product is terribly important, but we're also providing an incentive for so I think I mean, I know I have a farm standing in my area. They sell a whole pile of other stuff. But they also sell a whole pile of other stuff for other farmers that don't have farm supplies. Mhmm. So that's that's retail is outside of what they produce, but they're helping other farmers. Mhmm. So so Yeah. Yes. And I I can think of another place, the granny granny wings is a fire and it's I buy it in I already jarred up in in pickled.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So some relation? I put my weight in. Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So I can see the Oh, I see. $250,000. That comes from a farm? It's almost like Yeah. Mhmm. Not necessarily in Vermont, but I'm showing that Vermont bought it. Yes. Do they have to have could they feel like we have a stand that sells 250,000 or less, and that's not gonna be about the new thoughts on their own?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm gonna pin that for a second. I guess I'll answer it. The first sentence on page eight actually addresses that, and the amendment is in the second sentence. So there is an exemption for permanent or permanent amendment for accessory on Parmintas for the storage or sale of products, Right, so that is your farm stand. The second sentence is about if you're then doing value added, so preparation or processing of the products, so that's why I use JAM. So I think the farm stands are exempt, just selling crops, whether from your farm or you mix with other farms to, I think that is going to remain exempt under this, but for those businesses that are through value add, highs, jam, seltzer water. Processed. Processed. Now we're talking about the amount of other, the products grown somewhere else being added to your product, how much of that can be used to keep dating the exception?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Do they have to be grown products?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So they have to be, yes. Qualifying products are viticultural agricultural orchard crops. There is a list of them in the definition, so they are things that are grown or raised on a farm.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: What else? So I read the bill, was this part or parcel of the definition of the farm?

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. It is it uses the definition of the farm, but we're one step away in what are the value added things associated with the farm? So just so I'm clear, this reference on line 17 is to sale and storage. Okay. And then the reference on line 20 is to process or value added products? Yep. Okay. Well, so those are both the definition of qualifying product, and qualifying product is a unit of both sentences. So whether you can sell or store those products, and then whether you have to prepareprocess them.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: Okay. Yep.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: But this does not apply to events. Correct. Okay. Caramel is another classic example of this. The goat, we have goat milk, caramel in this state, and at a certain point, when you're Maybe we should bring some milk at their So they're actually a classic example of they went through the active veggie process because their kernel was so successful. They were using the milk at their goat goat farm, and I'm sorry, I'm being very specific here, but when their sales expanded, they needed to get milk from other goat farms, and they became a commercial entity to launderate a farm because at a certain point they needed more coats and they could keep up with Medicare cardinal. So there are examples of businesses who have gone through the equity process and continue to make their product. This is only a recent exemption, so it's trying to change the threshold at which these businesses can remain under a threshold to be exempt. I guess, think that this language is also saying that if you sell no more than $250,000 of this product, all that could have come from someone else's farm.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: So you could have a little standstill and handful of beers of corn and have 10 next to it. The vision that has kind of, yeah,

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're learning. We're learning here. Okay.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yes, ma'am. And they have to be definition of the bar first. Yes. The first charge person has to a rule of arm. Okay.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: To be continued, thank you. So that was section four. Okay. Moving on to section five. Yes, welcome.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: Good morning. Morning. I'm Kirk Heath, Closedon Council. I think you all know me as the tax attorney in the council. Section five six gets into current use and eligibility for current use. Page or line 17 on page nine starts with the definition for agricultural land, which is the definition that's used to determine what land is eligible to enroll as agricultural land in current use. The background here is if you have 25 or more acres, it's relatively easy to consider agricultural land to make the wrong current use. When a parcel is less than 25 acres, it becomes a little more difficult and there's three different ways that they can specifically qualify for the role. The first has been owned by a farmer as part of an overall farm unit. And Farmers to find here that's based off with farming. B, we'll just use that. We buy a farmer as part of the farmer's operation under a written lease for at least three years. So this is the scenario where someone has a parcel and they're laying their, laying a lease with their neighbor and they're laying their neighbor a K or whatever, and they're able to enroll their land because of that. And then there's C, which has to do with an annual gross income from the sale of farm tops. So to qualify for this one, a smaller parcel would need in one or two or three of five preceding years have at least $2,000 of annual gross income for the sale of farm crops for approximately 25 acres, and then a little bit more for larger parcels. So the proposal in S-three 23 here is to, in addition to the sale of farm crops under the subdivision was when qualified, also allow the equivalent value of donated farm crops. So this is a proposal I've seen in the last few years a couple of times, So when I recalled in the Senate back, they asked me to work with the tax department to sort of strengthen this up. We have some additional language to kind of put some rules around it.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Where did my name ask

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: me,

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: what are the limiting costs? Who donates flips? Well, it's defined here.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: This is, as far as I know, the first time with all these proposals that we've actually divided them. So and this is used right now in the bill, Estonia's farm fraud concept, she's in three different places. The first place it was used was here for the current use enrollment. So the definition is this is something that I worked with the tax department, the council of Gallup, it's something that they could administer. As far as what's used in other context, it's not necessarily going to be the tax department involved by the way. This was draft formative words and the tax department determined. So just, I would flag that. So identity department crops means charitable contributions of farm crops that are allowable in the 26 USC section 170 C. That's the federal law or the defines charitable contribution when it comes to getting the federal deduction. So the department's well acquainted with this. Vermont has its own personal income tax deduction, build them a small one that uses these definitions and partners used to it. In that definition it defines the kind of entities you can donate to, it defines or uses the same approach that IRS would take as far as in kind contribution. It's farm donating. Thought Arthold would grow the crops, they would donate crops. Okay, got it.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I was reading it as donating to the farm, crops to the farm. That's how good is. And

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: to build on that, organization I'm familiar with is the Central Vermont leaders, love them, they're amazing, but wondered if this language would allow, because they donate to a variety of organizations in Central Vermont. And so let's say one of them, and it's like the senior center, great, love that that happens. Could the senior center then claim, I mean, that's a public bill, so it's kind of not a great example, but could the receiving organization be construed to qualify for current use because they've received these donations?

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: No, no, it's the way that the donation works is it's substituting in for the sale of farm crops. So it's the parcels being used to grow farm crops. The parcel is what we're talking about, whether it's something can be enrolled as ag land. But instead of this proposal say, instead of selling up to $2,000 worth they could donate $2,000 worth in the court.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay, yes. How does that value? The way, when it would online, before we get to that, on line 11 on page 10, where the, we literally said, well, the equivalent value of the crops donated by the barn. We both read it to say something different.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: I don't know, read it fine. And the donated farm crops is a term we're creating.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You're right. Right. You're right. Yeah. You're So but then okay. So the other question. First, don't forget that. You're right. But how does it turn the value of the donated crops?

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: Same way under the tax laws, you donate food in any kind of attribution, it becomes valued. The organization has a role in vouching for the donation. We also have language here where the owner of the Enrolant Cultural land is eligible for enrollment due to farm crop donations for sale to subdivision we're talking about. Shall retain receipts for other proof of donation. The receipts for

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: other proof shall be available

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: for inspection and examination at any time upon the director of the Supreme Court of the GTR. It shall be preserved for a period of three years. Three years is the audit period for the department of message.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yep. Good.

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: So one other bit, and then we're I think we're done the input at least, is in addition to the charitable contribution definition, there's also provision here saying that our main legal organization is not related to the owner of the old land. That is something the department wanted so that a landowner could not create their own organization and then donate to Smith and then that be how they get into current use. So, know, I was impressed by the department and said, let's just not go there. That's fair.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: That's good planning ahead, just in case. Okay, any questions about the sections? I'm fine with these as well. Okay, Anything else that there had been a section in this bill that was taken out about football tapes. That's not something we need to consider. And then is there any other pieces of this bill that you all think might be in cross jurisdictional? Oh, spill so many people for farming is the first piece of the spill. Oh, okay. So I don't know if you're We should hear about it. Okay. There's a different version in the house that it will come over. Okay. Thank you. Interested. Completing. Duly bills. Yes.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The, federal council, the municipal regulation of agriculture and east in sections two and three. Some background from that is in section one, there was a Supreme Court case that gave municipalities the headache back of giving municipalities much more authority to regulate farming activity than was the assumption among the state. So sections two and three of this bill are meant to reestablish the status quo prior to this decision where municipalities cannot regulate agricultural activity unless certain circumstances are met. So in this situation, we're looking at section two on page two. This section limits, these are bylaws that are, excuse me, this section that limits municipalities regulated by bylaw. So under this chapter, a by law shall not regulate, and then it lists a handful of things here. What's being added are two things, the cultivation use of land for growing plants, and so forth for those purposes, The raising, feeding, or management of small backyard poultry flock, excluding roosters, and then sections The regular roosters. The regular roosters. And sections C and D of this bill try and establish what was the status quo, or what a lot of people thought was the status quo, and so farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria for the required agricultural practices rule and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices rule. And then section D in the next page is construction of farm structures is defined in the required different forms of practice. So what is that? We go on to page four, what is required agricultural practices? So essentially there are criteria set out in the required agricultural practices that's set out in this bill. And if a farming activity meets any one of these threshold criteria, they cannot be regulated, their farming activity cannot be regulated by municipal files. And so this bill sets out those criteria. The common ones are having a certain amount of income from the farm and having a certain land base and managing a certain number of ants. So we can kind of go through these, this bill requires that if you if you had gross annual income of 5,000 or more in a year, you'd be subject to the required agricultural practices that's up from 2,000. If you're preparing, tilling, and fertilizing, growing crops for sale or charitable donation on a farm that is no less than four contiguous acres in size, If you're raising beef in your managing livestock on a barn that is no less than four contiguous acres in size, and then it lists a number of livestock.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, I'm sorry, I need to Where are you now?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I am on page five.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So these two subsection c subsection d of the required ethical practices rule states that if you have no less than four continuous acres in size and you're growing crops or you're raising this number of animals, you would be subject to required agricultural practices. What that rule is is water quality standards for farms. Section six, or excuse me, the next page, page six, subsection E.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, I'm sorry, bring it up. So what, I just need to recap. So if you have a farm that is smaller than four acres, you're You're not subject to the rent.

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: You're not

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: subject to the

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: rules, right? Unless you meet the income criteria, which is if you're generating more than 2,000 under the current rule, 500 of the rules.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So if

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: you're less than four acres and over 5,000 the municipality cannot regulate.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So if you meet any one of these criteria, the municipality cannot regulate that baring entity. That regulation would fall to the agency of the average. So meeting any one of these criteria means that you are not subject to municipal regulation of agriculture. If you don't meet any of these municipal regulations, so I'll just put a regular

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: back.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: This is quite a list of animals, actually had to look up several of them.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is there anything that's not a

[Kirk Heath, Office of Legislative Counsel (Tax Attorney)]: meter that

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: remains? Well there's number 16 that says other livestock types combinations are focused on page six, the number 16 other livestock types combinations are numbers designated by the secretary based upon or resulting from impacts upon water quality. And so what the rule is really about is regulating activity, farming activity substantial enough to negatively affect waters of the state, and then without which we are required to regulate under federal approval of spread water quality. So the agency of the agrivolent has designed the required agricultural practices to say, okay, this is the threshold of farming to be able meet your goal in some way. This, up until this point, we've been talking about either money or up to four or more continuous acres, but what about less than four continuous acres? So the Agency of Agriculture is proposing amendments to this rule with respect to raising, feeding, or managing livestock on at least one and less than four contiguous acres, and you have sufficient land days for appropriate nutrient waste management. So a person can be subject to the required agriculture management practices if they fall in that period or in that range of acreage and they're raising livestock and they have a sufficient land base for nutrient waste management, they can be subject to the rules and the secretary has discretion to determine this after consultation with the appropriate municipal authority if the land base is adequate to properly manage the number of type of log advice on. The next section, section subsection F, if you're raising, feeding or managing livestock on less than one contiguous acre or on between one and four contiguous acres in a municipality that lacks ordinances or bylaws to regulate livestock, the secretary can make the determination after opportunity for hearing that the livestock are causing significant adverse water quality impacts and required agricultural practices shouldn't be followed. And so this gives that situations where a person has a much smaller land base, is raising animals, and the Secretary of Agriculture is made aware of a problem and determines that there's a

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: negative impact on water. And

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then that's it for the changes there, but essentially what this bill would do is to give, to change the realm of what the agency of agriculture code regulates and attempts to restore kind of the status quo up until the Supreme Court case came at the May, where municipalities lack the authority to regulate farming to be by buying a home.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: No,

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: yeah. The case did what? The is tapestry,

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: DRV and interview appeals. And essentially the case held that municipalities cannot regulate what the required agricultural practices are. So they can't regulate the water quality standards, things of that sort, how you're supposed to raise your animals in terms of mitigating impacts onto water quality. The Supreme Court said the restriction there is limited to that piece of Other kinds of farming activity, the municipalities can ring, and that's what the Supreme Court is saying. So at this point, municipalities are in a position where they can ring a lot of farming activity so long as they do not impact how a farmer addresses water quality issues.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Remind us the difference what's going on there between even less than four acres and over four acres.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So up until this point, most farms had to be over four acres to be regulated by the agency of agriculture unless you had income farming, a certain amount of farming income, or there's another provision that's been crossed out, rules to be crossed out, but filing a schedule ten forty F with the IRS is another way to be eligible based on income. And so up until current law says you have to have at least four acres being regulated by the agency of agriculture and they're proposing some different categories. One to four acres if you're raising livestock and you have an adequate land base to deal with waste and nutrient management, or you have less than one, or you have one in four, there's no bylaws, and you're causing water quality problems.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And what does this do, so basically it allows the aging tobacco pressure to regulate a little bit where

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it couldn't have regular It gives the agency of agriculture some authority to regulate farming activities that take place on smaller parcels of land that are critical for them.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And what is it too verbal and what are the sowing implications?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that means zoning implications will not apply to those forms. And so if there's a zoning implication that says that you can't raise things in a municipality, there is no such a metaphor, but if there's a municipality that says a can't raise space and then, but you meet your required agricultural practices that does a lot of you raise things and so that you could have things if you're regulated by the agency of agriculture. And so being exempt and the bylaws meet the bylaws bill of clients.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay, but if you're not recommended by the agency, can it be regulated by the government? That's correct.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, yes sir.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Is there a specific case that generated this?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. It is.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah,

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a parcel of land that is a person's home. A 0.51 acre parcel of land their growing cannabis does.

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

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And they've done, know, mine's on a farm, and I embraced the example.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's exactly right.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Basically they fell in between municipality and

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah that's exactly right. So what happened was that they became eligible for regulation by the agency of agriculture by meeting one of the rats requirements. They don't know which one, but they met the requirement, not the land base because it's only a half acre and it's in the city of Essex. But they met the rats and then when the rats applied that means they could farm their canned ducks even though the city had regulations saying you can't do that and that was the consequence. Okay. I have an obligation.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Well, we have to move on there. Anyway, just to take the temperature of the committee, I am fine with this version. Apparently we will see potentially another version of this coming over, but as it stands, I have no objection to that part. If we want to keep talking about section four about Social Security on farm business is happy to do that. Need to schedule, where our schedule's filling up. So again, see if I'll schedule a little bit of time to talk with them. Thank you. Okay, so we are going move back to 328 about this area served by water and sewer. We've had this commitment to discuss. So we have a couple of people to hear from. We're going to go to, Chip. Are you feeling like Yeah. This is your kind of inclination is to go to the LCC first and then go to Chip, but yeah, we just don't have a ton of time. So will welcome Ms. Welcome. Thank you. Take my box and pen.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: Good morning. For the record, I'm Samantha Sheehan, the Municipal Policy and Advocacy Specialist for the Vermont League of City and New Towns. Happy to discuss section eight of S-three 28 today. I want to quickly say the LCT have a position on the entire building we were just discussing in the Misleadie's Ag bill relating to the municipal authority over agriculture zoning and bylaw. Our position is not reflected in the Senate bill. We prefer the language moving in the House bill with recommended changes, and hopefully we'll

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: get to talk to you about that soon. And

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: if anyone has questions, happy to discuss outside of the year, provide you with materials and resources. On 03/28, I'm just going to talk about Section E. This bill also includes language pertaining to the elements of the municipal plan. That section, think Section one, it does reflect language that BLCT worked on with BACDA and was amended in, and so we support that. If anyone has questions, I could answer those. But I'm going to start with Section eight, which is a change to the definition of certified municipal sewer and water infrastructure. It's important to know that this is a change in Title 24 to a phrase, certified municipal sewer and water infrastructure, that was created in the HOME Act. You may remember Act 47, the HOME Act, it created a number of pretty substantial, what we call preemptions to municipal bylaw, basically saying that now under state law, a municipality must zone in this way if the criteria apply, the criteria being served by a sewer and water infrastructure. So I won't remember all of them off the top of my head. I think there were seven, but this was like EUs quads, so four units of housing per acre. There's density bonus for housing projects that meet an affordability criteria. There was a downward change in maximum, minimum parking requirements, so how many parking spaces per bedroom unit, and others. So, what? Two placids, right. Everywhere there's a single residential, there must be a duplex. So this change would, as drafted in the bill, not the amendment, would basically say that all of those preemptions would have to go out 2,000 feet past the end of the line. The vast majority of municipalities are now compliant with the Home Act, or were before it was adopted, that have zoning. There are about a dozen ish, maybe a little less now, that wish to be, but are waiting for a planner. So they're waiting for municipal planning grant, where they've received a municipal planning grant, and they're waiting in the work plan of their RPC for a planner to come assist them with making those changes in their local code. So please keep in mind that by changing the exemption, you're going to require many towns to update again if they have not defined a distance in their code already, local codes already. So that said, these are the VLCCs recommendations. Number one is that 2,000 feet is far too great a distance. I quickly was like, what's 2,000 feet from where we are right now? It's Willy Wands. So if that helps you love Willy on State Street. Really good

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thai food. Really good Thai food. Oh, it's like the middle. Yeah. Okay.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: From this door 2,000 feet down State Street is nearly to the corner of Main Street. So that's too far. We think 800 feet or less, 300 feet up in the amendment would be a significant improvement. So our first recommendation is to shorten the feet. Our second recommendation is to make a commensurate change in Title 10 relating to Act 181, because right now what this will do, so say it's 300 feet is the municipal exemption for the purpose of the Home Act, This says that if the sewer line ends at the state house, this is the end of the sewer line, and Willie Wands is 2,000 feet away and they want to build a multi use housing development there. Montpelier must in its zoning allow for that density up to 20 units and a floor density bonus, 40% density bonus if it's affordable. So the city of Montpelier must allow for that legally in their local zoning, but the tier one housing exemption for 50 units ends at the state house. It doesn't go the 2,000 feet to willing ones. So we think that the two regulations should speak to each other, and where the state is requiring higher density for the purpose of more housing, the state should also be allowing the option of Act two fifty exemption for housing on the scene, but using the same definition of served by municipal water and sewer, which is a criteria for tier 1A and tier 1B.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: So I want to, just on that point, because we need to, it's a check-in ahead of time. So I just wanted to say out loud that I think it makes sense to try to align these things. On that particular point, that's something that I don't think that we are going to be able to do in an amendment right now, but it's something that I think is worth flagging for the house. Okay. So, But the point is absolutely well taken.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: Okay. And then the third thing is just speaking specifically to the amendment language that's posted. Because this requires municipal public process beginning at the Planning Commission and going through all of the current Title 24 requirements for the adoption or amendment of by law, I really can't recommend the two dates and the two distances. It should be one. One date effective and one distance, because what you would basically be requiring the municipality to do is three separate bylaws under the law. When we know that that is a substantial capacity drain on local bodies and local staffs. So there's good logic to better defining this term, but these don't make us three zone a third. Okay. And that's all. Maybe that again, we'll see.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Why is it, I get why it would be two because there's two different dates in here, but why three?

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: Why is it updating? Think it barely did a home act update

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: after the Oh, okay. Yep. The

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: majority of municipalities have. Gotcha. Unless they were already compliant. Got you. That makes sense. Then I guess yeah. So on the effective date, this change is what can be permitted. I just want to make sure you understand that too. And then also at the municipal level, of like little known fact, but when you warn the zoning change for the required public hearing, then it also takes a match. So that's the time that a builder could go get their permit

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: under the new reg. So, and just so I am aware, so right now, as municipalities updated their bylaws to comply with the Home Act, they might have chosen their own distance or it might even vary because it's a map, right? So some of it might be 300 feet.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: It almost, might be it does vary by some. That's correct. Yeah. Right. Yeah.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. It seems, well, it's also, one of the things that I have been operating under the assumption of is that, if, if, part, you know, numeroit I is in effect that numerate, I'm sorry, if I'm saying it wrong. If roman numeral two is, or roman numeral two is, is it effective? Then one is not an effect. But I'm not sure that that's what the language I can sense. Anyway, would like to make it clear that if the municipality has chosen a distance, I want that to be what stands. Yes. Yes.

[Samantha Sheehan, Vermont League of Cities and Towns]: Yes. Right.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. But we should move on to Mr. Swire from St. August. Yes.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: You're in favor of the amendment that we're looking at.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're able to support it with the with those. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So moving on to Mr. Sawyer. Welcome.

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: Thank you, Senator Watson, and thanks for allowing me to join via Zoom. I'm Chip Sawyer. I'm the Director of Planning and Development for the City Of St. Albans, and I'm the Vice President for the Vermont Planners Association. And testimony does not reflect the official position of the entire Vermont Planners Association, but it does reflect some of the concerns that I've been hearing from our members that we spoken to as we discuss some of the legislation that's on slate for this session. I would start by saying that in both of my capacities, I also support what Sam just said. Assuming that a distance does need to be added to this provision in the definition of a water and sewer service area, I and a colleague were part of a conversation with Senate Economic Development last week where the 2,000 number was proposed. And, you know, we did not have the position to really process that and give any further context on it. But since then, in the days since, there has been a lot of alarm among members of the Vermont Planters Association that we've spoken to as well. So, if there does need to be a distance to further define what a water and sewer service area is, 2,000 or a quarter mile right now is too far. It seems a little too drastic for folks. We understand what the for the most part, we understand what the purpose of the amendment is. But I do want to just put in my 2¢ for the status quo, as unpopular as that might be. Act 47, with this creating the area defined the definition of an area served by water and sewer, It sort of put a flag in the ground that the areas that have received the public investment associated with water and sewer should contribute to solutions to the housing crisis by allowing certain residential allowances, including quadplex by right, at least five unit per acre density, and some parking provisions. And that has had a transformative effect across the state. As Sam has said, most municipalities have changed their zoning to reflect that understanding that these areas that have received this investment should allow these solutions to the housing crisis in zoning. And I think there's an argument that municipalities should be able to continue to interpret what they feel are their water and sewer service areas, where they intend to provide water and sewer, under the current definition as it was set by Act 47. I think that starting to apply a distance to it might well, certainly has led to some consternation among the folks that that I've been speaking to. I know that our understanding is that there are a couple situations out there where there's been disagreement or some initial misunderstanding between a municipality and a developer or landowner about whether or not they should be, or a portion of their property should be in this area served by water and sewer. And thus this solution is being proposed in the State House. It's also our understanding that these situations could have had a solution just by some further communication between the municipality and the landowner about what would work in that particular situation. I'll get right to our concerns. In my conversations, I'm starting to see that using this area served by water and sewer definition as a trigger for a statewide zoning mandate is starting to be misunderstood and confused on the ground as conflating zoning with the mechanism by which municipalities provide water and sewer connections and set their official water and sewer service areas. There are some similarities between how you zone part of your town and where you decide your water and sewer should go, but there are also some parts of both mechanisms that are not associated with each other. For instance, and sewer is based as much on capacity and natural resource concerns as it is where you want to see development in your town. And it's governed by a whole other section of the statute that's not in chapter 117. And there's we have heard of situations where communities now are reticent to extend water and sewer because of all the statewide zoning mandates that have now been associated with those water and sewer service areas. And I would just say, you know, many of us understand why this amendment has been proposed. We think there are other ways to solve the problems other than a statutory amendment. However, if it's going to happen, we do like I would, I would throw my hat in the ring with what Sam just said about bringing the distance down. However, I think that many communities have set their water and sewer service areas where these zoning provisions should also apply based on many other factors in their community and some of them have probably been even more ambitious than what's proposed in the amendment. I would just say might be good to let let the ramifications of Act 47 continue to play out on the ground before we make yet another change. I am also a little worried about just ensuring that if we do start to set a distance to where water and sewer currently exists, being linked to these provisions in Chapter 117, I think we need to make sure that as one community starts to extend its water and sewer, that the 2,000 quarter mile or 300 foot distance, as it extends into another municipality, you don't start to change, you don't start to apply the state mandate onto that municipality zoning as well. And I don't know if that's actually been thought through. And it could be figured out with an additional statutory change, of course, but I do want to just raise that issue as well, if we're going to make this change in the law in this section.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. That is very helpful. I don't want to cut you off if you have more that you want to add.

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: No, I think that's enough. That's enough. I'm happy to take any questions.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, it's raising this issue for me, you know, thinking about, you know, if it's quarter mile, if it's 2,000 feet, even if it's 300 feet, does that mean that a municipality would be obligated to stay at a pump station, if say that 300 feet was just straight uphill? Because that would be very problematic.

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: I think under current law you wouldn't, because like I said, this all exists in Chapter 117, and this definition of water and sewer service area has only been used to trigger some purely zoning related provisions that came out of Act 47. Now, the connection issue of where a municipality has to connect or how it chooses to connect is under a different chapter. I think it's chapter 101. But I have heard that people are starting to get confused. They are confusing the two operations, even though statute right now isn't forcing them to. And there is some worry about how communities are going to consider where their water and sewer service areas get extended because of that potential confusion.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, what it's also making me think honestly is that it should, I'm just going to float this idea, that it, in a way, it just needs to, this area served by water and sewer, if it's a municipal water and sewer system, it needs to just be defined by a municipality. And that there should otherwise not be a default because there's no one size fits all that could flex sufficiently. If you have a municipal water and sewer system, you have some level of sophistication. Yeah, then it just should depend on the site specific conditions. So you were going say something, Senator Bongartz?

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah, was thinking the same thing, kind of, that unintended consequences, you could end up with, there's a couple of unintended consequences. One is just that municipalities don't expand because in a way they're not in control. They expand. And the other is that to the extent, we had this example yesterday. If you want to run a line to what might be a center or an area that you want to serve, you don't wanna have necessarily sprawl along the way, you just don't do it because you're being forced to, you know, would, yeah, I was thinking the inevitable is gonna work, I'm really beginning to wonder this. In your point about, let this play out for a little while, it's just playing out. And if it turns out there's a real issue, because I'm not convinced there is, then we can deal with it. But I think the notion of just letting this go for few more years, given that we're just barely getting the whole act fully up and running, And some of this is probably like, you've heard of our waiting to even make the changes to comply with the Home Act. I think it makes sense just to leave well enough alone.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, so I am inclined to agree. My only hesitation there though is that does the language that's in Roman I confuse the situation as opposed to Roman at II, which says that the area is established by the municipality by ordinance. So by having these two ways to define the area, what I'm saying is that you should get rid of Roman at and just let the municipalities, if they've already gone through the process that would stand and if they don't have a process they should figure that out. You would be on board with that? Yes. Senator? Okay.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Are you okay with that? Yeah. Okay. Yes. I want to go over chip on it, yeah, basically.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, and does that sound good to you, Mr. Swire?

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: I think we somehow need to make sure municipalities understand

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: that where they intend water and sewer to be

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: provided needs

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: to have the allowances that came out of the HOME Act. But that they get to define where the area is. And I think there are a couple provisions in item II that say a municipality can run water

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: and sewer down a street, but if the parcels along that street are

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: in a conservation area, they get to say that's not

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: that's not subject to this. But

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I think otherwise,

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: community needs if you have water and sewer in the street and it's a regular residential zone, it needs to enjoy the HOME Act provisions.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: And then if they say, and also in the future we we think the provision is imminent five miles out that way, and

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: that becomes our water sewer service area, then they get to make that decision, and it's subject to the HOME Act provisions. But I think once you put in a statutory number, it actually changes the map on the municipality in one fell swoop. So, I'd

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: have to

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: look a little further to see if just removing I would do that.

[Senator Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It might be that it could.

[Chip Sawyer, City of St. Albans (Director of Planning & Development); Vice President, Vermont Planners Association]: Because II talks about that it being a municipally set area and the municipality can set the area.

[Senator Anne Watson (Chair)]: If that's in fact what it does, that would be, I think at this point, my preference. I'm going to, we're just checking in with the committee. We have to go, but I'm going to direct on to create a new version of the amendment to reflect the testimony we just heard. Okay. Thank you very much. Very grateful. So Thank we'll be grateful for your testimony. And with that, we will adjourn.