Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yes, you are live.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This is Senate Transportation. We are going back live. We're a little worried with a little early with the transportation support study. We have at least one member that is out. The e board is meeting, so we're gonna get started with down on a couple of members. So introduce yourselves, and we'll get started with this.

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: Good morning, chair Westman. Thank you. And members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today. My name is Marcela Dent. I am a Planning Coordinator with the Agency of Transportation. And with me today is Jonathan Slason, who is with RSG and was the consultant that we worked with on this study. The agency decided early on that it was appropriate to enlist the help of a knowledgeable consultant for this project, especially because of the amount of stakeholder engagement that we did through this process. Also in the room, we have Chris Glau, who is our developing review and the ACT 145 transportation engineer.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We also

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: have Rock McDonald, the program manager for our public transit session. And then online, we have Dan Courier, also with our public transit section, and Matthew Orencio, our regional planning director. So we're here today to talk about the ACT 181 transportation support study. I want to quickly orient test. Act one eighty one, as you know, makes changes to Vermont's planning framework and does this in part by standardizing future land use mapping across the state. And that is a process that is happening right now. It also reforms Act 50 jurisdictional thresholds in certain areas. For this study, we were mostly concerned about Tier 1A and Tier 1B areas where that jurisdiction is most limited. Act 181 had a goal of increasing housing production and development in Vermont per smart growth principles. So maintaining those settlement patterns that we have with dense urban and village centers and rural countryside in between. And then, of course, it authorized the Transportation Support Study section 37 a. And tasked the agency to review the revenue and benefits received for transportation support through the HAP two fifty process and then to suggest ways that we might preserve those revenues and benefits going forward. I'd like to hand the rest of the presentation over to Jonathan for, and we can handle questions as they come up or at the end.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: All right, thank you very much. For the record, Jonathan Slason from RSG. We're the consultant hired to participate and lead this study on behalf of the agency of transportation. And just in terms of timing, we want to ensure that there's sufficient time for discussion and Q and A. I will be moving through the slides trying to highlight the most relevant, I think the highlights for you all. But if there are any questions, it would be timely for you to interrupt me and ask, and we can address it then. But I'll be mindful of the time and making sure. The study process, as Marcello pointed out, followed the transportation support study that was authorizing the legislation. We reviewed the revenue and the benefits associated with Act one forty five, which I'll describe a little bit because that's the new act that's listed here, and how the revenue and benefits of Act two fifty Transportation Review are occurring and how that might change with Act 181 being implemented. Task three, the stakeholder engagement, was a wide ranging conversation that we had with many different stakeholders around the state to try to understand their perspectives on how things will change with 181 in effect. And then lastly, the task four, we put this into findings, we reported and synthesized, and you all have access to the final report, which has then several appendices with stakeholder notes and other aspects, further details on revenue, for example. So, that final report is available. Act 145. This is where we start. This came about somewhere circa 2014, I believe, where it was the I think it's still the only statewide transportation impact fee in existence in The US. It's a really innovative approach. Vermont, because of act two fifty and because of, some of the ways of our land use review policies, we had some scenarios that was called the laugh in dilemma. This went into some text, in the report, but where we define that here is where the scale of mitigation of an impact was deemed in excess of the actual impact itself. So it's the straw that broke the camel's back. It's the it's that one threshold, one car over a threshold. It really came about because of the Exit 16 diverging diamond project up in Colchester, that one developer who had some thresholds of levels of service of vehicle delay, which is the typical threshold for vehicle operations, that was deemed not adequate per the standards that the agency uses when reviewing projects in Act two fifty. And the project the land use project was going to be denied unless that project the physical construction project were to happen. We know how expensive the diverging project is. And so the idea was, let's develop a process where projects that would have stiff state funding behind them, but has sufficient public benefit and also have sufficient public benefit that facilitates development and land use change. Those projects would be deemed eligible for act one forty five, and that what started this statewide impact fee. We've collected fees around the state, about 53 projects, about a 156 land use applications have paid fees, the majority of which are in Chittenden County. The sum of the revenue that's been collected, the Colchester DDI is about $309,000. You'll notice that probably a very small amount relative to the total cost of the project. So it is never the intention of these funds to pay the full share of these projects. It is a contribution to allow land use change to occur while paying their fair share of the mitigation. The revenue itself has not been substantial, about $160,000 per year, which is a revenue amount that is modest.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, so I just wanna make a comment. The intention of fees is really something that's very important. The 145 fees are designed so that they're fair because the impact is measured and so the amount of the fee is relative to that. So I think that the legislature should, on these fees, have updates on what the intent is because it could be that our intent could be 30%, 50% or some amount of whatever the capital program is. I think that's something that we should talk about especially in this time when we don't have, when our revenues are so short. I don't know if, I don't want to post something on Act 145 right now, but I just want say that we should, that should be something that we look at periodically.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay, go ahead.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: But within Act 145, there is no reassessment of cost built in.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: What do mean reassessment?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Like, I don't know if there was a stamp, like over time with inflation, it's just

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: a set amount per Correct. But it's per Yeah. It's based on the generation.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Sure, may I answer that? The mayor first contact setting, the Act 145 will remain in effect across the state. However, land use applications in the tier one a and the tier one d areas that will be exempt from Act two fifty will then have no mechanism by which they will be assessed, the ACT 145 feet. So we are talking about land use changes that would only be occurring in the Tier 1A and Tier 1B areas.

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: Okay, that's the whole yeah, those are the areas.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, actually that's the point of this study.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: That is

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: the impact I was on that committee that did the Ag50 changes and near the end I realized that we hadn't been talking about transportation and so we have talked about transportation. So I really, really appreciate this report. It's it's great,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: and I'll have more.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: There are some estimates of the debris of that $160,000 across the whole state. Now depending on if we achieve these housing targets and the speed of growth, the amount of revenue that potentially would be lost by implementing one eighty one is a fraction of that 160. We're estimating that if one eighty one went in today into effect today, it might be somewhere around $50,000 lost out of that 160. If growth were to accelerate, that loss would also increase because act one forty five revenues would also increase across the state. But it is only those geographic areas of the exact act from from act 55.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, but let me just say those geographic areas are where we want development to happen. And those are the areas with water and sewer that should be where development happens.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: So task two in summary, we review those revenues and benefits. We've discussed first the Act 145 revenue, which, we wanna be clear, not substantial relative to the cost of the physical constructions. However, it is a fair share contribution. There is a cost of every, the capacity to serve every new vehicle trip. That is what the cost is based on. We know, though, that the majority of the projects and to your, to your point there, senator, that some of these projects, the Crescent Connector in Winooski, excuse me, in Essex, Jones. Essex. Yeah. Don't wanna confuse projects there. The the Crescent Connector, that is a very that's a new facility with much a 100% new capacity in essence. The amount of revenue out of the the relative cost to revenue, that's gonna be much closer. Where in some projects, we're rebuilding a lot of existing capacity, And so the existing users, that means the general taxpayers of the state of Vermont, they're gonna be paying the most of the share of rebuilding existing capacity. And it's only those new users that are gonna be paying a a share of that cost. So that's why the the relative portion of the project varies because it's the type of project and how meant how much new capacity is being built. So segueing a little bit, transferring here to transit and travel demand management. That's what TDM stands for. These are two programs that, again, were discussed in the authorizing legislation. It was a bit of an investigation to understand how these two programs have been affected by both Act 145 and Act two fifty. First and foremost, act one forty five, it explicitly limited the contributions to vehicle capacity and vehicle projects. So it did not fund transit or travel demand management at all. It actually was an incentive to encourage some travel demand management incentives because the act one forty five, your impact fee actually was reduced if you were to promote certain ways to reduce vehicle trips. Transit itself, though, was not part of the Act 145 equation. Transit is part of a travel demand management philosophy, however. Now, Act two fifty, transitioning here, that both transit and travel demand management have not been significantly affected or dramatically informed. They have not been a core part of the way the Vermont transit system is funded is not through development reviews. We realize that operations and capital infrastructure are two very different sides of the coin, and development review would be more a kind more akin to funding the operations, and that is very difficult to do on a piecemeal development by development basis. There has been very limited, but some examples where Act two fifty has asked for ongoing contributions. Those have been primarily outside of any areas that are gonna be tier one a or tier one b areas. So we don't imagine that current status quo is going to change much in terms of transit in when act one eighty one is in effect.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. May I speak to that? So that's if we keep doing things the way we've been doing. And it was interesting to me. So I've I've you know I've I've been in Windham County and our local or one of our local ski resorts does have requirement to, and this is not a requirement that benefits them, it benefits the general area to support transit. There's a dollar amount, dollars 100,000 a year is what it has been for more than ten years. And I just thought that that might be something that the other resorts are required to do because I would bet that all of them have a significant impact on traffic in their areas, but that's not the case. So that was something that I found out through this report, but I don't want us to see it as an anomaly. I want us to see it as an example because that is a significant source of revenue even if the dollars aren't big because it's not millions. That match money is really important in the local match. So I really don't want to see that as a one off. I think we should consider it an example. Great.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: stepping back, Act 145 was there, primarily a mechanism to enable land use to move ahead without the need to build that larger substantial capital project. That lasted dilemma was raised, and you'll see that in the upcoming slides, as a concern that was noted by other stakeholders. Now that act, one forty five would not be available to them if they are exempt from act two fifty, they may have a situation where they will be asked to pay for a substantial capital project because of their land use project. Does that make sense?

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: Yeah. Could you explain that, Anne?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: So I don't wanna pontificate, but in a geography that would be exempt from Act two fifty.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: So like Hartford, our roundabout, we had to pay if we put in a third roundabout in that same area, potentially, maybe, I don't know.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Like if

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: you won by the Dunkin' Donuts, perhaps, it would be exempt.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: If that was a tier one a and tier one b area, right, and it would be exempt. And if the local development review board said that your land development impact is going to cause excess congestion concerns, unsafe concerns, emergency access concerns, and a roundabout has to be built, then it would be that land use's responsibility, that project's responsibility to fund that roundabout potentially a 100%.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, interesting. So if a new hotel went across from the VA and we deemed we had to have that that's what could happen. Oh, interesting. I had not understood that. If that's accurate, that's kind of a not a loophole. I don't know how to put it, but like an a design, an unexpected design piece to this. Because that if I was a developer, would go, never mind. I'm not putting my Hilton or whatever over there. I'm gonna put it right outside. I'm gonna go closer to

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: Well.

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: The farm down the road.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Is that the word?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: So so senator, that that is exactly what has happened over the years. That and that part of why development review is doing the way that it is, it's trying to make it more attractive and easier to go downtown. Now the challenge has been, there is still probably mitigation and capacity and changes in those downtowns. And now we just have one fewer tool at the state level to facilitate maybe a fair share contribution. Now we have opportunities for you to consider as ways to go forward. So I'm not gonna say that. We're not here just telling you the the facts. Alright. We have some opportunities. Okay. We will say that because of the agency, agency transportation review, of of removal from the review process, it may make it harder for the state to achieve its mission and monitor the impacts of the state system. So It's simply the acknowledgement that the state now has a different way in which it has to operate, and it may challenge some of the ways that the state has obligations to maintain the performance measures on the state. That is critical because we need to maintain our performance measures to attract federal dollars. Alright. Moving on because I do wanna get to more of the opportunities. We did a wide ranging of stakeholder meetings. 13 meetings, we had conversations with the AOT staff. Transit operators, we've met with several of the operators, some of the ones that that that senator Harrison was was mentioning, also some of the ones in the Chinon County area. So different perspectives were really helpful to gauge how much transportation and land use has contributed to transit. That's why we were able to hopefully provide a new good narrative there even though it really wasn't dramatically affected by this particular act one eighty one. Travel and management representatives and service providers. These are people that join car sharing, services to get bus subsidies, these types of things. Developers. This was a core community that we wanted to understand how they would be viewing Act one eighty one, how would they be viewing the tiers, and how might they be affected. The Land Institute Review Board itself, we met with them, and they were also had members part of the steering committee that the project was using. So it was great to have their involvement throughout the project. We met with some financial institutions, a bank and a public lending institution. They were helpful for orienting us to understand how fees are considered by the development community and how they account for that. And then we developed we had three different meetings with different government entities. So the VAPTA, which was the leadership of the regional planning commissions, so three individuals there. And then we met with several communities, those that which self identified as saying we were very interested in the tier one a, tier one b exemptions, and then those communities that were pointing at the idea, and they were interested but not yet committed. And those communities provided us really rich feedback and information. I think I put in the report that it was wide ranging, but the information was actually generally consistent, which gave us a lot of confidence to to report that. Some of the key findings from that from that past three synthesis, revenue is not substantial. Not gonna harp on that here. Let's keep The projects have been large in Chinon County. No surprise given the intensity of land development, but also the smaller geographic the the city and the town sizes. So simply transportation, because of the distances that we travel, we impact different communities. In the roundabout, maybe in Hartford, the the most of the travel actually might be in Hartford. It's because of the sizes.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Might be going to a taxi.

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: That's great.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: There is a there's the concern about that last in, particularly those developments that might happen on a state highway where if that threshold is passed, a roundabout on on maybe Route 2 is gonna be bigger and more substantial than a roundabout in Downtown Montpelier. That is where we have a disconnect between the cost of doing things on the state system versus on the town system. And again, at the state system, we're losing that statewide impact fee, and therefore there was a concern that the mitigation projects are simply higher cost. And that's where the developers, the engineers, the communities were all generally concerned about that last in scenario arising, and we need to find opportunities to to address that. Some of those opportunities are strengthening the way that our local development review process happens and the resources that they have. Several of the communities noted that there is one general policy called the level of service policy in the state, and that is one that the agency of transportation has. South Burlington starting to come up with their own policy. There is room for other communities to adopt, and then they can make that determination on their own to know when that final threshold is passed. So there are some opportunities there.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can I just make a comment, David? I really appreciate the public outreach that you did and it's very helpful to know that contractors appreciate fairness. I mean of course they do, everybody appreciates fairness, they're aware of how these fees are structured and they understand why there are fees. I think as we go forward looking at revenue, having fees that are meaningful and relevant and the right amount is really important. And then having the town be aware that there are items that are not in the new activity mechanisms tier one that was another reason for this was that towns don't have the authority that VTrans has in development review. So that's something that we need we need to work on that this year, I believe, is to have talents have the authorities that VTrans has, especially for transit and TDM because we don't want to lose that. And it was great hearing how the providers want to be part of that system and they're frustrated when they get called in late in the process. They want to be part of that process and we'll have a better more logical system if they're part of the process from the start. And I think you said that, I know it was in the report. Don't if it's in

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: the report.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: I don't think we've highlighted that particular piece, The but it might come up transit operators themselves, there is and at the community level, there's ways to get them involved at the municipal level, which is being strengthened, or it is the only level now in the act one eighty one for those tier exempt areas.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right. But they need specific authority and statutes to do like the way it was two years ago we tried to

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: work on

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: this. Towns didn't have the authority to require transit amenities in development review. They could require bike racks but they couldn't require like a transit bus stop or not that the provider do a bus stop but the flex shelter or even a bench.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: They couldn't

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: require a bench.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I think that's still the case.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So that's just a glitch that wasn't necessarily thought about earlier, but we need to fix that glitch.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Thanks. Yes, Connor. I think what we discussed here is pretty similar to what you're summarizing for us. I'm trying to move a little faster, is that there were some concerns about the communities. I think you're alluding to that even the tier one status communities may not have the full level of support and the and the resources available to them. So we'll discuss what that may mean going forward in the next slide or two. The generally consistent consistency concerns. I think you're, again, acknowledging that developers and communities have all acknowledged that there was an appreciation being said that the agency transportation's review was consistent, and that consistency was appreciated. Because in the in the land development process, going forward with consistency gives them confidence. It's now a challenge that we need to create greater consistency probably at the local level, and that is where we may have some opportunities that lie ahead. The support for fees again, because they were clear on where they're gonna go, what they do. But lastly, any upfront costs, whether it's statewide impact fees, local fees, local contributions, local mitigation, it's always needs to be considered in the pro form a of the projects. Now as an alternatively, we could walk away completely from upfront fees put it on the general taxpayer. We know that that's what you're struggling with this session. And so at the end of the day, there's a temporal situation here. Who should be paying for what? And so the act one forty five process was a way that solicited some initial payment for that for those upfront costs. Past four. So it's starting to get towards some of those opportunities for you to consider. We've already mentioned municipal review. They would benefit from additional resources. This could be technical. This could be levels of service standards. This could be what are they legally allowed to ask for in the development review process. How can they bring new standards or maybe check boxes of saying, you transit agency needs to be asked about this land use change. Are you okay with its impact on your operations? That is an example that Hartford, I think, was pointing to that that folks across the river in Hanover were were asked by the state to to mandate. So go ahead.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. This is I mean, so my husband serves on the planning commission in Hartford, and this we have a we have advanced transit. And one of the conversations we've talked explicitly about is requiring payment essentially to our public transit provider as a function of this and to potentially going to, like, MOUs where you you're but the thing is there's no teeth to that. You know? Our our they can suggest it and say, hey. Maybe you should not do a parking garage. Go down this direction instead. Pay for this. But what I'm understanding for your presentation is we actually have even fewer teeth necessarily to requiring that of our developers because there's no you're gonna get have to pay, especially in the tier one a communities, tier one b communities. Is that, like, an accurate reflection? Like, I almost feel like we're going backwards now with the tools and the toolkit of our and and I you know, my husband had an explicit conversation with a developer on the board where we had a major apartment complex going on Sykes Mountain Avenue. And they said he said, well, are you gonna put in a bus cover?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Shelter.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, you're put in shelter. Are you gonna have a cutaway so the bus can come? I mean, of your residents in this low income facility maybe have disabilities or maybe older. And essentially the answer was, well, I guess we could if we really wanted to.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: And then they didn't do it. So now, potentially, the town or we are gonna I mean, people are gonna be using the bus. There's gonna be a stop there. So now there's no way for us to get and it sounds like we're getting less

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: from this, is that's an accurate reflection.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Should I answer? Mhmm. There are a few pieces in that puzzle. One, you are correct, and it reminded me that under site plan review, municipalities have no authority for off-site transportation impacts. That's a finding of the study that was illuminating for many. The other aspect though, is that the municipalities do have complete authority where they are enabled by a statute. So subdivisions, conditional use, they can impose conditions as they deem appropriate. Now the legal requirement would be that you need a standard by which to impose that mitigation by. And that is what is intended by this additional resources. Okay. Most municipalities do not have the standard. So when is that bus stop required? It at a certain scale of development? Is it at a location within the community? Or is every development? You cannot have arbitrary ad hoc mitigation.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So if I'm understanding, thank you for that clarification. Essentially what you are saying is that a community, if they develop those pieces, whether it's in their town plan or in their

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: It would be in an ordinance or a bylaw. Okay,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: that's interesting. Thank you. Okay, just to follow-up on that, so two questions, so AOT has those standards, Correct. So, Townsend could adopt those standards in theory?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Have level service standards for vehicles.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Is that like C?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Level through the general standard and D where deemed appropriate by the secretary is the current language.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay, so that wouldn't be that difficult to do. I'm interested in what you pointed out. Page 20 is a good page because it talks about the Mount Snow situation and then it also talks about Dartmouth, Hitchcock directed during the local development process in New Hampshire to create transit service to mitigate impacts on transportation system. That funding continues. That is what Vermont towns need to be able to do, in my opinion.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: And Vermont towns have limited explicit authority. The cities that have authorized ongoing funding, which there are a few, Burlington and some land development occurs in Burlington, the and which they have enabled because of levels of service of vehicles and because of parking constraints. They said, you need to fund transit because it reduces the vehicle trips. That is the mechanism by which they enabled the funding of transit to occur. It was because in the absence of transit, you would exceed operational thresholds.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. I believe that we need that the state needs to adjust our statutes to allow that. Or are you saying we don't? Burlington has a different, I mean, because of the

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: The Charters For site plan review, yes, I believe a statute change would be required if a, most of the land development would be in excess of a site plan review, and therefore then the community already has the authority. But they need to create the standards by which to impose that by. It's only off in your in statute today, it's not explicit how multimodal standards are considered.

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: Mhmm.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: So there might be some opportunity there. It is also it's only then limited in the site plan view, where there's that explicit the municipalities, because we are in Dylan State, thank you. So, we do not have that explicit authority in school though for site plan review.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: One more question on this. Should we look at how the New Hampshire towns are doing it or would that be helpful?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Frankly, it's very similar. They do not have a multimodal level service policy. They just simply they have the the statute, much like Hartford would have today. If if a large land development happens in Vermont today, the community could use the VTrans level service standard. And if it was shown that the land development required that roundabout to be put in, and instead that land development said, I'm gonna fund a transit service. We currently have the mechanisms for that town to do that. There is no change required at statute level, as long as it wasn't a site plan, as long as it was conditional use or subdivision. We, the communities, have that authority today. The real then the difference in New Hampshire versus Vermont is that the Hampshire communities that we discussed with, they have at that local development review process, they have a checkbox there that says the land development has the permission and the agreement with the transit operator that that this funding is going to work for them and that it will satisfy the needs, it will attract the users, and it will have the intended benefit. Because the worst situation would be the town says, you, developer, fund this transit service, and it's off of the traditional service, it's a one off, the state can't accommodate it, the transit agency can't use that

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: money, that would be

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: the outcome that we want to avoid.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah, there's a lot of outcomes, including this current situation. I just want to be super clear. So then, do most things that are not conditional uses or subdivisions. Mean, my past, that's what I've seen. So that New Hampshire example is really helpful. So if you have documents or if you can tell us which towns, Lebanon maybe?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: I think it was Hanover and maybe West Lebanon, Lebanon, I don't know. But Hanover for sure. I don't think it's that significant of a change, but yes.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. Thank you. That would be helpful.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Alright. We've talked mainly about the effects here. We've talked about some of the way that transit and TDM and the limitations and the ability that communities have. There's one other opportunity, is the section eleven eleven permit, which is an existing state statute that enables the state when a land development requires work within the state right of ways. That statute also enables the collection of Act one forty five fees, but only in certain instances. Right now, our read of the statute was that it doesn't allow us to collect one forty five fees, particularly in those areas that would be exempt from Act two fifty. If revenue is is the goal of your legislative consideration, and we want to retain that potentially $50,000 per year of act one forty five projects in these areas. If that is worthy of this change, a possible route would be to amend the section eleven eleven statute to enable these the agency of transportation to collect those fees. It's one pathway. It comes with some some process that would have to be considered. There would be impacts on the state agency workforce to confirm that we have the resources to do that. It would also have to have some administrative guidance to say when in all instances or only a handful of instances, is it a blanket statement versus a a more constrained opportunity.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Right, it could just be that we enable them to collect the fees they're already collecting.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Currently,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: yes. So that might be a place to start, because that wouldn't be an impact. Well. To the, I mean, the agency might go, but we'll have eleven eleven,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it has very broad uses. Eleven eleven doesn't mean it's a new driveway.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. No. I understand. But we can talk to the agency about that. Yeah, go ahead. It's about to see them out.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Then, so moving on from section 11, which we identified it and there's some text in there. We've said that the opportunity is to provide additional support to local development review boards because that is where the action will be in the absence of Act two fifty. What are those mitigation thresholds? What types of mitigation? Is it vehicle? Is it multimodal? That is where there might be some additional support. That support could be provided by RPCs. That was namely where the stakeholders identified the resources to be preferential to derive from. Some of that standards could also be guided by the agency, but however, local is where the conversation is going, and therefore the local jurisdictions were asking for a context sensitive, the regional planning commissions to help them derive what guidance would be appropriate for them. Improve transit and travel demand management coordination in development review. So again, even though the communities may have authority to collect and impose some requirements on transit, that could be strengthened and more explicit their review standards. We've talked about travel demand management. These are travel management associations, which there are two in the state. There's CAATMA, the Chitin area, and then try, you know, vital communities. Yes. Yeah. In in the Upper Valley. Those are those are organizations that convene multiple stakeholders, and they help the development review boards consider how how incentives such as cash parking buyout. If you don't drive, do you get paid to to to not park? Do you have discounted bus tickets? These are things that can be done. In the state of Vermont, we do not have an overarching umbrella organization. We have very much disparate TDM services and service providers. The RPCs were again identified by the stakeholders, and and this isn't new to the RPCs. They know that a lot of folks are asking for their for their time. But the RPCs, how can we strengthen and support them to potentially offer some of this support for communities?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: So we explored, well I have to say, this is very helpful because I spent four years in house transportation going TDM strategies. We need a statewide TMA. Did you consider rather I I see that you identified having the RPCs with TMAs, but did you consider, like, a statewide TMA possibly? That was the

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: It was not brought about by the stakeholders. Nobody expressed interest in that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, that's why I didn't pass the bill anyway.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: We can have long term goals. Yeah. So, the RPCs, were they amenable or or

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: They agreed that they could provide benefits there. They have a bit of that that oversight, that the benefits of multiple communities, and it's differ differ difficult. The communities just don't have the resources. So the RPCs, it's the next level up. They agree, however, that t TDM in in Vermont is difficult. It only is applicable in many in only certain places within Vermont, and RPCs are stretched. And so they just acknowledge that if this was something that that was compelling enough to consider, then the RPCs would be looking for additional support. Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So they're not chomping at the bit. Yeah. Okay.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: I don't wanna speak on their back.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That's okay.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I think you're gonna hit the nail on that.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: As an opportunity as well. So we talked about that last in. So full circle is where we began. It's about how in the absence of act one forty five and act two fifty, the last in scenario may arise. And so in the case of let's use the Hartford Roundabout as an example again. Hartford could put in municipal impact fees. Yes. That would be a way in which there would be a fair share contribution for any development that's happening within the community to fund a set of infrastructure that would be identified by a town plan or regional plan. It would have some support to it. Now because of the mechanism, municipal impact fees are designed a little differently, so they're generally more expensive than act one forty five fees. But they have a general idea that new growth pays for the new capacity that's required to facilitate and mitigate their impacts. That is the premise. And municipal impact fees is authorized by state statute, it's enabled in maybe five or so communities within the state currently.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, we

[Marcela Dent (AOT Planning Coordinator)]: got rid of our impact

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: fees as a whole as a town.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Because we wanted to encourage development. So we got rid of our impact fees for water

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: and something else. Okay. Interesting. Okay. So we don't need anything. They could just do it.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: So there is opportunity, maybe educating municipalities, educate the RPCs about what they are, how to design them, that type of because generally in the stakeholder meetings, there were some communities that were present that had them, and they were basically advocates, and the other communities are saying, Oh, we don't know enough about it. So that's where the genesis came from. Interesting. There is also a mechanism that was explored and ultimately, maybe initially dismissed, is the Transportation Improvement District. Again, it's currently authorized by statute. There could be some refinements to statute, but maybe there's an opportunity to reevaluate where that goes. Now that they're going to have these polygons exempt from Act two fifty, maybe a Transportation Improvement District may have some additional value. But we're just identifying opportunities. These are pros and cons, somewhat as set out in the report. We are not going into the depth at this point. Lastly, we've talked about the municipal level and how AOT may participate. We've said how in the absence of Act two fifty, AOT has limited ability to monitor impacts to the state system, and there may be some ability for how does AOT participate at the local level. The act one eighty one removed the AOT from the conversation. There is only in statute AOT's ability to be authorized as an interested person in the appeal process, but not be authorized as any authoritative voice in the actual local development review process. The AOT could write a letter to an ERB, and the ERB could be dismissive of it by law anyway. It may not happen in practice, that's Lastly, resources is needed that if the AOT were to participate at the municipal level, what would be the appropriate? Not all municipalities need AOT's participation. Not all projects may warrant AOT's participation. So the question would be, what would be that threshold? What would be the appropriate level? And AOT would need to acknowledge that it would be a change in the way that AOT currently operates. That's the last of the slides. I know we're probably close to that time. Hopefully we have some more Q and A. We have a few minutes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, I just really appreciate you taking the time to do this and for facilitating this with the contract you created. So thank you. Good RFP process. So I just want to go back to the opportunities a bit more. So when you're saying particularly consider statute changes to enable AOT to participate at a municipal level for impacts to state systems, I'm not sure what that if you could just go into a little bit more detail on that. Because they do in some regards now. Like, I feel like they do have to participate when they have a project themselves very extensively. But is this more if there's a development that's happening, they would identify like interstate work or, yeah, I guess they are.

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Sure, I'll take an attempt at it, and then I will ask, so Chris, if you want to consider how you might help me respond to that in a minute, we'll invite Chris up to speak. Currently, the state has the ability in Act two fifty to say how the project impacts the study area using the standards of service, the level of service policy that the state has adopted since early two thousands, and and it's changed slightly over the years. Acknowledging that act one eighty one and acknowledging that the AOT fundamentally has a mission to to protect the state system and to provide benefits of congestion, benefits, safety congestion safety benefits, provide economic benefits of the of what does the transportation system do at large. So acknowledging that the AOT has a mission to protect the state system, this is an attempt to balance in now that act now that the the agency is removed from that conversation at the local level. They are not being invited by DRVs at this point. They are not invited at the local development review process. They do not have to be by statute. Nobody's inviting them. Even if the land development were to be accessing a state highway, there is no requirement aside from getting the section eleven eleven permit. There's no requirement. Now, if a land development were to occur and the amount of congestion potentially to affect a state road that may be outside of that community. Totally. Is really an interesting question. Yeah. Because we may have a land development that's right on the border of a community. And I'm on my local development review board, we don't look outside of our jurisdiction. And therefore, without the state being sitting there, who else is looking for that next municipality down the line? And who's looking out for the state highway?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, that's a great point. And I, okay, but how would they, so it would be a change of more proactive invitation to them, or is it something that statutorily we would have to set in motion?

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: I think there could be various pursuits. We did not evaluate these angles. It really came about because of the only in statute is the agency an interested person in appeal. Yeah. And there is no mechanism and no explicit authority granted to the agency to go to the local development review boards and say, we're concerned about said project.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think the main example of that, I think of your district in part and outside of your district, you

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: don't have water. Right?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: But, like, the Waterbury exit, you know, when Stowe has a major development, you get a backup on the highway when people are coming in. But I don't think the DRB in Stowe is having any conversation about what's happening to the interstate, what's happening at that exit. So it would be more of a proactive invitation to AOT to maybe think about that angle. Because that's, you know, a development there. That's we're talking crap. That I mean, that's where we're seeing a backup is on these on those sections

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: of drug. Yeah, I don't know if

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: Senator, know you were gonna speak, but then I will invite Chris to answer any further questions.

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: So far. Do you

[Jonathan Slason (RSG Consultant)]: wanna sit here?

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: I'm glad that Hi. Chris Stiles, transportation engineer with AOT. To the question of local versus state roads, I sometimes get the feeling, and understandably so, that when local reviewers looking, they're looking out for their town roads. Yes. Their impacts there may not see the state road where we may try and come in and help. Matter of fact, there was a recent example where a residential development was getting built and it was one block away from the state road. So there's no eleven eleven permit. There was no physical impacts to the state road where a permit would be needed. But as I reviewed it, was like, well, that's a block away from US 7. I think I would want the developer to do a traffic impact study on that. It may prove a negative. It may prove that nothing is needed, but at least the study is being done to verify that. And I just felt in that aspect that was important. Again, the only way we were able to do that was through Act two fifty because it was going to appear there. Again, if it had not been Act two fifty, I honestly probably wouldn't have seen it.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: So what would be so if you had if that town had reached out to AOT to either, like, testify or give input at their DRB hearing, that would be that would be something that you would be open to from the AOT perspective, like if you were included or called in to be a part of those?

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: If if need be, I can be doing that. Yep. Yeah. Yep. That just gets to the matter of the resources, though, for for how many towns and so forth. Thank

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: you. That's great. So many things. So that's great that you're interested in that, I think we don't want to do it in something hodge podge. I I think there needs to be some sort of arrangement if towns do want to use or ask AOT or regional planning commissions is something that we need to talk about. It's probably going to be something that natural resources are going talk about because that's more of permitting. Because what happened with Act two fifty changes, the Act two fifty changes, most of the things that Act two fifty takes care of like storm water, they'll still need to get a storm water permit from the state. So most of the other agencies are already, will still be active within towns. AOT, and I hope there's not others honestly because we didn't really have it. It's hard to know what you don't have in it. Know what mean? It's a negative but AOT is one that definitely is super important to development review and not in town process. So we definitely need to make that work and sometimes we'll be able to not duplicate but do a lot of what AOT does, others won't. But the tier 1A towns and 1B towns are much at a higher level of capacity but they still need assistance. And then just, I'm really glad you brought up what we used to call developments of regional impacts in Florida because there are developments that are going to happen within one A's that do have an impact outside and it's not just an impact to the roadways and transportation but all kinds of impacts. So we don't have a way to manage that yet. That's definitely something that the other committees should work on. That's not necessarily a transportation thing, but we're, I would bring that up to them too because that's really important and that's going to be tough, challenging to do.

[Chris Stiles (AOT Transportation Engineer)]: Indeed, as John alluded to, that was the beauty of AC-one 145 because we've had projects in AC-two 50 in the Williston area and they're paying AC-one 145 people in the nation in Essex at the Crescent Connector because it's not that far away. It's another town, but we are a new people. Right.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And transportation is a really important part of that, but it's not the only thing. So thank you so much.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yes. I think at this point, we've got five minutes to get the Okay. We're gonna call it quits for today. Thank Would you take