Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Good morning, Instant Energy Resources and Energy.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Give me back a break.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're joined by Angie

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Kelski, you'd like to say

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the council. We're going to start with a walkthrough I think we're going to look at the side by side comparison. I think that would be most useful to me, think. Hopefully you can put this as well, to see sort of what the house did to 03/25.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: From there, is what it's worth,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that is my priority today. With whatever time we have left, which is not very much, should we have time, we'll look at three twenty seven, which has the CPACE language, and then H. Seven seventy five, which some, which we took possession of, and has some language that pertinent our jurisdiction. Okay, take it away. I'll just take that to

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Office of Legislative Council. So last week, S. Three twenty five passed out of the House. This is an accolating to Regional Planning Act two fifty two jurisdiction. The House's proposed amendment is different than what you all passed. And so I have provided through a section by section summary of what the House passed as well as the side by side comparison. So their bill is in some ways very different and otherwise has similar language. So the changes are in yellow. So starting on page one, they don't have an intense section. You did. Okay. Good. Why?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It doesn't matter. Listen.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's good. It's It's It's all It's all Okay. I advise against it usually. Really? Yeah. Because there are many reasons something could pass and people have individual reasons. Perfect. Great. So next, what is new? The House, as I'm sure you've heard, is proposing this version to repeal sections nineteen and twenty one, as well as twenty two and twenty four of Act 181. Sections nineteen and twenty one have not yet taken effect, so this is the prospective repealed, and would be repealing them on July 1 so that they would never take effect. Those are the Roe jurisdiction trigger and the creation of tiers two and three. Then in the next block is about the effective dates related to these things, and so those sections that are being deleted, their effective dates are being removed. They are also, the effective date related to sections twelve and thirteen, which are criterion AC, those are the same as yours, so that's left as 01/01/2028. Good. Section 22 is being repealed of the Tier three rulemaking, which has already begun, that that would be repealed and stopped, as well as the existing Tier two area report. And I'll just point out, because it was framed as a report about how to be cleaner than tier two, the House has included a different report that incorporates a lot of the element, or some of the elements from what was already starting to be looked at. Makes sense. Next, your version had an extension of the you you changing the date relating to the Broad Rule that's being repealed, and you were extending the date for the Priority Housing Project exemption from 01/01/2027 to 2028. The house version does not include that, so that exemption still under the house version would end 01/01/2027.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think I'm seeing that. What is the part under Roman numeral III? That's the 2030, that's also removed? That's the vertical. Oh, that's the vertical. Thank you. Yep.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then on page three of the side by side, your section three, they have also not included WIPOVT changing the definition of priority five state projects. They're not making a change. The next section is amending PBS A 6,081, which is the exemption section of Act two fifty. The first language that starts on page three and goes into page four, this was one of the floor methods, which is not something that you all talked about directly, but this is adding an exemption for accessory on farm businesses that are for educational, recreational, and social events. And so you have talked about this in other bills. Currently there is a partial exemption for eco craft firm businesses, but it is specific to businesses that are for the sales, storage, preparation, and processing of products, not for events. Okay. Next, there are the interim housing related exemptions. The first two in your version on page four, subsection B. C, this is the accessory dwelling unit temporary exemption. You have pushed it back to January 30. The House has not included it, so that still stands at 07/01/2028.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This was an exemption? Yes. Okay.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next one, CC, it's also an Act two fifty exemption. This was for no permanent amendment for conversion of a commercial structure to 29 units of housing or fewer. The houses did not include this, so that stand at 07/01/2028. Next are the interim housing exemptions. Oh, am I spacing is off? The interim housing exemptions, your version had it going, pushing them out from 01/01/2030. You also had included for the Subdivision 4 and mixed use development in all of these. That house has left them, has removed the extra subdivision and mixed use development language, and also kept all of that 01/01/2020. Next, on page six, they also added language in Subdivision DD 2A, which is the 50 units of housing interim exemption. You have a floor amendment related to this language. They have it so that now it reads, To qualify for this, to qualify the housing project, including any land incidental to the use of the housing project, such as lawn, parking lots, driveways, leach fields, and accessory buildings shall be on 10 contiguous acres or less. You have struck, or the floor amendment had struck the 50 units being located on 10 acres or less.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I just want to make sure I'm understanding that one. Okay, so this is Yes, but it's so I'm pausing here because I just wanna make sure I'm understanding. So if the whole parcel is 20 units, not 20, it's 20 acres, but you are, your leach field, lawn, parking lot, driveway, etcetera. If that is 10 acres or less, then it still gets the exemption? No. Then it's Sorry, I think I'm

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: The whole thing has to the 10 acres or less. Yes. But the

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: parcel does have to be 10 acres or less. Right, I'm thinking about the difference between all of these things and the parcel.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's not how I would interpret it. I guess I would be curious if that's what the Land O'Shore board would say, but Act 50 doesn't matter. Use the word parcel, they track the plan.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. And so, generally speaking, Act

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: two fifty jurisdiction attaches to the whole parcel.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, right. Attaches to the whole parcel, but if it was basically involved in development or disturbed or whatever is 10 acres or less, then you're Yes. Okay.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you. Let's keep looking.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, so the same with the next exemption, there's still 28, twenty twenty eight and then getting rid of subdivision and mixed use development. Your version had a floor amendment for 50 units of housing located in areas that don't necessarily have zoning, as long as there's at least 20% of the units permeable, that has been This

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: was one where we secluded the definition of a urban housing project. All of it. Close. Or it's a similar language. Yeah.

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next for the changes you made to the tier three rulemaking. They have repealed this because they have gotten rid of tier three. And same with the other rulemaking provision you added. That's not there because they repealed chair three

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: and the rotor roll.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next, you have made a change to the tier 1A area requirements, striking the word rare. The House has not included that.

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next. So, we're on the

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: top of page nine. We're like the second box on page nine. That's the rare. Yep. Yep. Next

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on page nine is 24 BSC forty four sixty. Their section matches their section. This is about how to take over active equity permits until their cremations have been added to a useful permit.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: How is their version different

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: than Barbara Jane's? Not. Oh, is this Okay.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's no yet. The last box on page nine, the House added Criterion AC rule making. Those rules are currently due to LPAR for Criterion AC on 06/15/2026. They've pushed that back to 2027. That's not something we know. Correct. Next on page 10, section nine, that house added a public engagement plan section law provision. This section would appropriate $30,000 to the State Council Resources Conservation Council to develop a public engagement plan consulting with the Vermont Council on Rural Development and the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts. They shall look at designing a plan to gather statewide input from Vermonters on the risks of losing working land, both agricultural and forest land, and critical natural resources, if not already protected by current land use policy. So that would be due next January.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And is this in the place of that tier two report? No. Oh, okay. So there's, yes, a different

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. This is for them to develop a plan, not actually do public engagement, but to develop a plan that could be used for public engagement on issues around working plans and asset resources. Planning public engagement. Gotcha. All right, next on page 11, we've added a creation of a joint legislative environment oversight committee. So your version did not have anything like this, but this would be creating in statute a permanent joint legislative oversight committee on environmental permitting. And so it would have oversight over the Land Use Review Board and the Agency of Natural Resources permitting processes. The only authority that is given to this committee, so it's a committee made up of three house members and two senate members. They may be up to six times per year outside of sessions.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Tried to sneak that one. What's that? So they tried to sneak that and I

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't think anyone snuck in. They said repeatedly on the record why they had chosen that I'm happy to pass that a lot.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Two juices. Pretty

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: cool. Pretty cool. Could also go with two and two.

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The concern was raised that most of the Senate members already are on committees, joint committees. Talk to them. So this board does not have The verbs for what are included in joint oversight is just down in G, the duties. So they shall meet with the land use review board and ensure strong communication and coordination regarding the implementation of Act 1A1, how the Act two fifty permitting process is working, and how the new board structure is working. They shall also meet with ANR to learn about agency efforts to improve and better coordinate permitting processes and coordinate efforts to further improve the process for applicants. The current sunset of 07/01/2029, so a three year. On page 12, section 11 is is based on what was previously the tier two area report. It's asking the Land Use Review Board to report back on issues that were already included in the tier two area report. Three different issues at three different times. The Land Use Review Board said that they had already started working on the accessory on farm business recommendations, and so that one is due 06/15/2026. The next one is on the effects of Act two fifty mitigation actions on primary agricultural soil, and that is due 07/01/2027. And then third is the effects of jurisdictional triggers in Criterion 9L on the development of retail and service businesses outside of fifth village centers and addressing sprawl and strict development, and that's due 11/15/2027. So prior to Act of 81, the last time a criterion was added to Act two fifty was 9L. It was added to address sprawl and strict development. And so looking at how that has worked and if it should be improved. All right, so then starts the changes related to regional planning. This language is very similar to what you all have asked. So first, on page 13, the first change is that on page 13, this is the language from H940. So you made a couple of changes to the regional planning process to give them a process to make amendments to regional plans on a slightly quicker schedule. And different bill H940, you also updated the enhanced energy planning for regional plans. That bill has already passed and been sent to the governor. Don't know if he's got any yet, but it already passed full bodies. If you do not add it to this language, this language could be overwritten because this bill, if it passes, would pass later in time. So this is adding language that you have already passed, that the whole general setting has already passed. So it's happening on PHSERT. Same on page 14, also adding the energy compliance language, enhanced energy planning language, and same on page 16. Otherwise, the language between the Senate and the House in this section is the same. On page 19, there are two sort of small formatting changes. One is referencing subdivision and one is giving it a title. Next on the bottom, page 19 and to page 20, business amending section 24 of the essay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Wait, I'm sorry, I'm going go back, because the language that was about, that was roughly the same as September, I just wanted, something I may have dismissed is how is this language different than what we passed in September? Or is it different?

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in September that flagrant was amending the regional planning statute, it's only in reference to enhanced energy planning, it was not making the other changes you're proposing regarding the amendment process.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Right. Okay. So that which was in September is in? Yes. Okay. Yes. But we hit other things as well. Okay. Yes. I'm with you, thank you.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So next is credit for BSI4348A, the land use categories in the original plans. A couple of changes have been made here. On '21, there is a typo corrected in the house version. And then also that house version should remove the language you added about it is the intent that most towns have at least one village under. And also in this section, they have removed the reference. You all discussed changing walking distance to compact and multimodal. They have removed those changes. That's on page twenty two and twenty three.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So they kept walking distance. Yes.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Taking deep breaths.

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 24, you they you had added as part of the village centers that the municipality has to have either public water or wastewater, and if no water or wastewater is available, they must have soils,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: they have removed the or water. That's okay, great.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Next, on page 25, a small change requested from the editors that we use the language as used in this chapter when we do definition sections. And then on page 26, so this is the Smart Principles. So just to remind all of you, the Smart Growth Principles exist in statute in Chapter 76A of Title 24. They're being proposed in this bill to be added to chapter 117, the planning and zoning chapter. On the house floor, language was added to Subdivision E. The historic growth principles in chapter 117 will be slightly different than the ones in 76A. The language that was added in the SMART Growth Principles means growth that, Subdivision E, serves to strengthen agricultural and forest industries, including homesteading, small scale agriculture and forestry, and supporting housing while minimizing conflicts of development for these industries.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is in SMART for instance.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Okay. Good. Next, section 15 is the essential law provision extending municipal and regional plans. Your version was if any that were set to expire in 2026 will be extended So, it'll be ahead of 2026. Lynn House has also added that any other stuff to do in 2026 or 2027 shall be extended until December.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Oh,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to organize this. Yes. Interest.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Both of you have the repeal of 40 four-seventy six, normal review of your top painting decision decisions.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I think we can just jot down to the next difference.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So that would bring us to page 30, because all the changes in the Community Investment Program are the same. Section page 30, the House is adding a statute of the Community Investment Program asking for an annual report on that program. So the Community Investment Board shall have an annual report summarizing what they did that year, including any incentives reported.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: This is a new report. It is a new report.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. On page 31, in section 10 of your bill, have this discretionary review of housing report from the Department of Housing and Community Development. It's section 21 in the houses version, and they have I tried to line it up. It is very similar, but there are a few differences. It is still a report from the department due next January. They've added additional stakeholders to be consulted with, including the Land Access and Opportunity Board, the Vermont Association of Planning and Development Agencies, the Bar Association, the Realtors Association, Vermont's Berkeley and Environment, and the Secretary of Natural Resources. Your bill specifically referenced whether there should be a Vermont model code. They have removed that, but they've also focused more on the mechanisms for limiting useful appeals, including the most commonly raised issue on appeal. And then they're also asking for there to be data around the housing that was built under the interim housing so actually 15. But other elements of the report are pretty similar. Finally, on page 33, the House has included a delay of a few of the dates regarding the environmental justice policy go out. So, few of the dates have been pushed out either a year, a year and a half, or two years based on requests from the agency of natural resources. Then the effective date, yours is on passage, this one is July 26.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Would Maddie? Did she go read on that? For the effective date?

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So repealing laws that have not taken effect yet is a complicated legal mechanism because you have to first repeal what has not yet taken effect, give that effective date, and then also have an effective date for the act in which it's being repealed. So on passage is a little squishy. Having a known date for both of those things eliminates any concern that one may take effect before the other. Okay. Interesting. So yes, that was for, it seems like good hygiene. Yes. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I got a follow-up yesterday from a member of a regional planning commission. Okay. Concerned about some changes that the house made. They were required parsing fees to be more involved that they don't have stopping for. Mhmm. Mhmm. And what what they recommended was that they just made the RPC a member of the there's a study made so and so they at least have somebody on the city that's involved so they can have a new

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: appointment possible So what I would get to know more specific.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Well, didn't I didn't get into a lot of detail. They were concerned that they're going to get tasked to do something that they didn't have the resources on the funding for.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, if I may build on that, it seems pretty clear to me that we need a study. So that's the direction I would like to go. It sounds like you're interested. I mean, I would like to be on it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Mean, as long as I have it, don't want to be on it. I could be. Yeah. Sure. Okay. Okay. We'll

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: go from there.

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. So we do have ten minutes. Now one hypothesis is that we might have some time to start walking through the bill formerly known as S-one

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 138.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But to see things, do we have time?

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think, I mean, I did it in five minutes and set it up. Amazing. Okay, let's

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So cheers. See, hey, side by side. This committee passed S138, Commercial Property Accessibility and Energy Projects. When it went to the House, it went to the House Energy Digital Infrastructure Committee. They worked on it, and then they actually sent it to House Commerce where it got added to S327, the Economic Development Bill. So half out of the House in S327, there are fairly minor changes. I mean, given how long, it's an 11 page bill, there's only like five changes in the So it's fairly succinct to the changes they make. They are highlighted in yellow. So on page one, you had a definition of district. It has been just been moved slightly on page two because now there's a whole definition section with this because there's quite a few defined terms. So it's just being moved and then on page two, so this is in 03/1975, they've added language that is consistent referencing that this only applies to commercial or industrial buildings, and this program will include water conservation projects and resiliency projects. They did add a definition on page two of resilience and resiliency. It is based on the definition of resilience from ANR's resiliency word. And they've also added a definition of water conservation improvement. On page three, they have struck the language that says that this program can't start until 01/01/2027, because this bill will take effect on 07/01/2026, so they just thought it could start as soon as anyone is ready. On page four, they've struck some language regarding the analyses that were to be done. So it's just struck language that says that the resilience or improvements will improve resilience in accordance with state goals or nationally recognized building standards. There aren't probably too many local or state resilience standards, so what they have done also is that on the next page, have added that improvements need to meet or exceed energy efficiency, water efficiency, or renewable energy standards, and meet the commercial building energy standards, the CVs.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I am wondering, I have questions about that. Like I'm wondering if that's too restrictive somehow,

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The CDs are the law. No, but I

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: mean, so, okay. Because they're Actually, I think maybe I'm just I think I was thinking of it as like a trade of In accordance with these building standards. I guess it is No, that this is Yeah, no, you're right. This is fine. Okay. I just had to process that a minute. I'm good. Okay.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. The next change is on page eight. And this came from the advocates. So in your version it said that the amount of a loan cannot exceed 90% of the assessed value of the property. The advocates ask that that be 90% of the value of the property as stabilized or as complete, to make sure that the property valuation has not lagged, but will incorporate the changes therefore allowed us to potentially borrow more. Next, on page nine. This was a request for clarification from Ways and Means. It just says the section should not be construed to affect a taxpayer's liability or municipality's responsibility for payment under current GSA 5,402, the education property tax. And you did not, I don't think anyone had that intent to affect the education property tax. They wanted to just be very clear. So then the last, just a couple of changes on page nine in 3002 and 77, they struck the prohibition that a capital provider or lender shall not serve as a program administrator when it's lending.

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which to be fair, well, do they have any reason for it? Not other I think it was Is the universe of lend Is this going to somehow reduce the universe of program administrators that may be available, especially if perhaps NEDA gets involved? I think there may have been a couple reasons I don't I'm gonna just Yeah. I mean, that's like, so far

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: the only thing that's like raising a flag to me,

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

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 11, these are the last two changes. They've struck the requirement that the Department of Financial Regulation identify program administrators. Okay.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Say that again.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you had a provision that said the Department of Regulation will meet with stakeholders and identify a list of appropriate entities that could service program administrators. They removed that because I'm thinking because people are becoming aware of this bill and may make themselves available. Okay. Last one. And then finally, also just included reference that the projects can now include resiliency and for funding this commission, section three thousand two sixty four.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: 138 Submitment Committee over the House, three twenty seven is on our calendar.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So we're reviewing it because it's otherwise, Senator Clarkson's committing you to review. So she wanted to know what we thought about this particular part. I mean, for what it's worth, I am, there's, I, the list is like,

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I wish we had a

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: list from DFR. I can live without it. That's fine. The other part that gives me pause is like lenders can't be administrators. I wish they'd kept that, but am I, is it worth recommending we go to conference over? But I'm interested in other people's thoughts. What I might do is just highlight at least that one part for Senator Clarkson. Yes?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Mr. Dale said that keep up in state when we used to put him into that. Okay. I think that Senator Hardy had an issue with him, testified that was also her administrator. Okay. So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you have a problem? You prefer that it be there? I mean, I can I don't think it's worth it?

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

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: mean, I'm happy to flag it for Alison, for me, for Senator Carson. If they're going to conference committee anyway, then it's something that they could talk about there, but word otherwise not. This alone is not the reason. Senator, you're okay with that?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's fine.

[Angie (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.