 All right Good afternoon everyone and thanks for being here today We're now over a month into the session about a quarter of the way towards adjournment And we had a good start with almost everyone in the building making it clear housing would be a top priority After spending historic amounts over the past few years I'm still seeing a lack of housing in every county there seems to be an understanding outside this building And I believe in it as well. It's time to focus on the regulatory side of the equation We need to make it less expensive faster and easier to build or renovate the housing. We desperately need That way the investments we've made will go farther But more importantly incentivize the private sector who actually build much more housing than the state government to invest and build more On January 10th, I stood here with a tripartisan group of lawmakers and stakeholders to outline good solid proposals that had wide support and I felt good about the odds of passing something meaningful But one month into the session Not as confident as I was that day It appears in some committees. They're moving in the opposite direction Instead of prioritizing how to produce more homes Which would address all kinds of issues like workforce Healthcare property taxes education and more Some are looking to add to the regulatory burden and put us further behind For example house energy and environment is currently moving forward with a bill that in my opinion would be an economic disaster and Senate's natural says 213 looks similar Creating new definitions Significantly expanding requirements and shifting responsibility for certain types of land use regulation for Vermont Vermont municipalities to an hour that will put for monitors in jeopardy of violating laws. They don't even know exists as Proposed age 666 each 667 Or 687. I'm sorry. We'll also dramatically expand Act 250 jurisdiction statewide While it does include some Act 250 exemptions, they're narrow Stringent and geographically limited making nearly the entire state subject to Act 250 As most of us know we have a housing crisis in all parts of Vermont, not just in our cities Leaving rural Vermont in our housing strategy is far from strategic fair or acceptable And to be clear I'm not proposing that we build on our mountaintops develop forest land or create sprawl Our housing package focuses on designated areas within rural communities Make my point. Let me show you a couple of maps This is the first this is this is what currently triggers automatic Act 250 jurisdiction As you can see that's the yellow And here's what would happen under the house proposal That would be Most of Vermont Act 250 would be automatically extended to the areas indicated in red orange and yellow Which would cover over 75% of the state's land area and would be designated critical resource areas That means if you want to build a single family home Or maybe even a garden shed you'll need to go through Act 250 Which we know as costs and time Under the house proposal Act 250 jurisdiction would also be triggered if a proposed Project was set back more than 500 feet from an existing road Always part of a subdivision with more than four units But another way as currently drafted H 687 would render more than 90% of the state subject to automatic Act 250 jurisdiction For perspective currently less than 15% of the Vermont landscape falls under automatic Act 250 jurisdiction I think most Vermonters will find this new bill totally unacceptable and Hamper not help solve our housing crisis As I said at the beginning of the session the depth of the crisis we face demands bold action But this bold action isn't what I had in mind And actually moves us in the wrong direction So I want to be clear I won't accept a housing bill that fails to meet the moment Taking one step forward and one step back won't cut it Taking two steps forward and one back won't cut it We must jumpstart housing in all communities period That's going to take all the creative approaches in 8 7 19 Including changes to Act 250 local zoning appeals and tax incentives for those who want to invest in communities Here's the bottom line We can't water this package down and expect to address our housing shortage Now I've been around this building long enough to know how this works That's why I call it out in my state of the state and budget address We cannot let a couple special interests and a couple committees block the progress we need to make And I'm confident the vast majority of Vermonters agree with me But I also think most legislators of both parties do as well The folks back home elected them to solve problems not create them And just because you're sitting on a committee dealing with Another issue. It doesn't mean you can't make your voice heard on this one Because the reality is housing impacts many issues on other committees from homelessness To health care to public safety and resiliency Education and workforce So let's make progress on housing that we so desperately need to help our communities and with that Open up to questions I would say for instance right down the end of the street be an RC They've been integral in this for this process and have hampered our progress They have their mission it's part of their they're a group a non-profit That that's their their mission is to to protect the environment as best they possibly can my my Mission is to make Vermont more affordable create more housing and make the make Vermont safer So we have two different missions To clarify here when we talk about a new statewide act 250 jurisdiction I mean, what's specific like it's an act 250 like a new criteria or is it just the The area in which act 250 is Why well, it's it's all all Incorporated into the bill It's it's the whole revamp of act 250 Julie might be able to describe it better So it is expanding areas Where act 250 jurisdiction applies so in the the map on the the right hand side there those areas indicated in orange Are above 2,500 feet and that's automatic act 250 jurisdiction in age 687 It lowers that threshold to 2,000 or that elevation threshold to 2,000 feet It also creates what are called critical resource areas That are defined by as prime ag soils slopes in excess of 15 percent river corridors wildlife connecting habitats among other criteria and Also indicates automatic jurisdiction if you are more than 500 feet off of a road and so Collectively it results in the red orange and yellow areas shown on the left-hand image In areas that are suitable for development Most people agree or suitable for development You give up But the 90% of the state where there's probably not much of a chance for a kind of meaningful development Well again from the very beginning. We've all been talking about the housing crisis How does the bill? How does this bill particularly how does it help housing? I haven't seen words on anything to help housing. So my first litmus test is How do we how do we make housing more affordable? Faster more units in place to get it work ourself out of the situation we find ourselves in and This bill just doesn't do it The the one I've seen or at least it looks like it mirrors the house version Oh, yeah h719 has a lot of good provisions in it. I mean they're We all agreed with that and it's still I'm still supportive of that We'll see what they do with the act 250 portions of that but Well to see what what happens when it gets through committee and goes over to natural resources But as proposed we were in you know, 90% agreement with everything in there not everything The response to some of the property tax issues that you raise that involves eliminating this 5% buffer and Extending meeting day votes according to the other long districts need to Put something go back to the drawing board put some back together Your thoughts on what you what you've seen so far as as I understand that there'll be like three phases to this first phase is Making sure that they they take away the 5% cap, which I think is a move in the right direction rectifying that They're talking about extending town meeting day or I don't know if it's just the vote on school budgets or whether it's town meeting day itself It's unclear to me But but I think that's that's fine as well I think if you might recall when I propose something similar about seven eight years ago It wasn't well received, but but I think this is Well-timed to give people the opportunity especially those who've crafted their budgets that have exceeded the 5% cap and They need to go back to the drawing board so a Couple of things as well with that one If they if they do this This doesn't fix the problem. We're not going to come up with 225 250 million dollars worth of savings with this provision at best. I think we're looking at at best maybe 15 or 20 million of savings to do this so it's still long ways to go In terms of the property tax increases. We're going to see as a result the other piece of this is If we extend this This This vote for whatever period of time It's going to cause a lot of confusion Understandably we have to support the municipalities and the school districts and coming up with With new ballots and so forth and then warning this I Think this is a this is a time when we should Institute the mail-in ballots Because you can't expect people especially if it's not a set date if it's some time between Traditional town meeting day and some other date For every town to be consistent would be would be difficult. So I think mail-in ballots is going to be essential Compel voter participation among a swath of the electorate that might apply more scrutiny to those budget proposals We've seen in the past where it's a limited number an embarrassing number of people actually vote In their town meeting day and in school budgets and so forth And I think this is a way I think we've proven that mail-in ballots increases participation And I think in this instance people should weigh in There's a greater chance that more budget should be voted down Well, it depends what they what they do the school board to do with their budgets because they'd be going back some of them We've going back to the drawing board reflecting on this situation we find ourselves in and Maybe changing their budgets So the legislature has a proposal right now You say it doesn't go far enough What what kind of proposal do you have that you think would more fully address the property tax issue that voters are Well, what I just said though was I believe what they do they're doing is three phases I'm I'm supportive of what they're what they're doing the first phase We haven't heard much about the second or third phase at this point, but that's going to evolve So I wouldn't say I'm opposed to what they're doing What more would you like to see I mean if you're putting this bill together What do you want in there? I think we all have to be at the table. I mean we've had Suggestions in the past. I think that they have to reflect on those They have some of their own as I said in the state of the state may and the budget address And we have to work together to find a way to reduce the amount of spending for For our schools and it's going to be tough tough conversations. No doubt Suggestions in the past Put those back on the table. So right now I said that I mean not right now I said with this phase two and phase three. We're at the table. We're already willing able and We want to be part of the solution as well. We're not putting all this on on the legislature we're saying we're here to and We'll be involved in whatever whatever decisions they make if they if they want us to be and We'll be part of hopefully part of the solution Nothing further that you would add as it relates to the school budgets They're going to be voted on this year whether that's March or I think that's difficult at this point in time again their approach right now to to eliminate the five percent cap provision and and extending The the voting on school budgets for a month or whatever period of time it ends up being is the right move I haven't seen I haven't seen that the budget has Passed out of committee in the Senate at this point in time. So I can't really comment on it I know we're trying to get the information this morning, and I I didn't see anything in writing Maybe it's out now, but I haven't seen it It depends on it depends on what it what it says the actual verbiage So we'll see see what it says and then I can comment further every a chance to look at it Governor this morning in Senate judiciary. We heard some testimony from folks at the Columbia Columbia University's Justice Lab Showing that the raise the age initiative that legislature pass and that you signed has we're seeing a a Smaller caseload. I think it's maybe how how the they put the data this morning Some might say that kind of goes maybe an opposite of or against of what would you paint it earlier in your budget address? You know relating to crimes and delinquency among young vendors. What have you seen this data and what's your read on the situation? I I haven't seen the data. I'm curious as to how far back they went Looking at I believe this was if you look the the trajectory back maybe 10 years It has been dropping in some respects a lot of that is probably due to our demographics I don't know if they factored that in or not, but I'm sure one of the committee members asked that question You or administration and maybe make sure winters can chime in on this if you'd like, but You're proposing to pause raise the age again. We've heard some concern from lawmakers this morning about that Why why do you see the need to again pause it? I think it's again. I don't think we're ready I don't think we were ready before I signed it. I said that But but I don't think we're ready for it And I think we have to really take a step back and make sure we know what we're doing We don't want to make the situation any worse than it is right now Anything you want to add sure? Thank You governor. I think you hit on the key points. It's that There were some limitations in the data That the Columbia Justice Center were able to look at the publicly available data What we are looking at as a department is the overall system and the strains that this would put on the system of care Both from a child protection services standpoint and a juvenile justice standpoint We have some of the same workers covering all of those cases and we have Some pretty high vacancy rates right now We are working on the high-end system of care, but until that is in place The system is going to remain strained and overworked and as the governor said we want to do this But we want to do it in a way that we can implement it successfully And we're just not in a position to do that right now What were those limitations in the data the data looked at a couple of three publicly available data points I don't remember specifically what those were but what we're looking at is the system as a whole Some of the cases that both go into the onto the criminal side and to the juvenile justice side That they bounce back and forth and so they do have an impact even though They're not reflected in the data that the Justice Center was looking at and we gave some testimony this morning on that Can you also talk a little a little bit about the I know if you mentioned this morning It's a couple of years out here, but a new potential facility I think 10 or 12 beds maybe was the number that was floated to be placed somewhere in Chittenden County Was it can you talk a little bit about that? Sure, we're looking at a permanent secure facility for Crisis stabilization for justice involved youth for those those who need the highest amount of care who might pose a danger to themselves or to others That permanent secure facility is probably a couple of years out still we're in the RFP process right now looking at a Few different sites and we'll have a decision on that in the coming months And it is a 14 bed facility I should say I think it's six beds on the crisis stabilization side and then eight beds on the treatment side So a longer term stay and more treatment in the secure facility there We think that's the the right size for our needs Actually commision one more question You kind of mentioned somewhat earlier going back into even before the session you heard about this middle sex location Potentially January we're now in February. I guess when you foresee that potentially coming online Yeah, the middle sex facility is something that we refurbished as a temporary solution until we get to the permanent facility that I was just previously mentioning The construction is done. It's ready. We simply have to contract with a service provider We're in conversations with a service provider But haven't don't have anything on signed on the dotted line yet, but we should have that in the next next couple of weeks I would expect thank you Again, I would probably refer to my commissioner is she on She's not on Maybe I can get commissioner Tierney to She's more more in tune with with that than I am I would just I would just big picture I would say the the quicker that we can get to Renovals better But but we we've received a lot from Canada now I don't know the details of that whether it's just in state or not Everyone I want to make sure that we're including out-of-state Renovals as well, and I think there's going to be a lot coming online in the near future whether it's offshore wind Maybe in the New England region and in other areas as well so Again, I just don't want to make Electricity any more expensive than it is today we need to to be sure that we're taking care of people and Our businesses as well trying to foster that Manufacturing sector that relies on Less expensive electricity and they're paying a premium for it now. So if this can provide for Less expensive energy less expensive electricity, then I'd be all for it, but I haven't seen the the details Governor I have a couple budget questions The state's attorneys office says seven to twenty five new deputies will be needed to address the criminal justice backlog I've heard your administration wants to actually cut nine deputy positions by vacancy Will reducing these deputies impact the state's criminal justice response? Yeah, I'm not sure that That's entirely the case. So we're not looking to to cut I think we're using some of their vacancies as well And I think we have a discrepancy on The number of vacancies they have so again, we'll look into the details and see What's if we made a mistake and we'll? We'll rectify that but but we think there's more vacancies in there and they're talking about okay Also the legislature is talking about raising revenue, but we haven't heard an awful lot about reducing existing spending Have you asked your agency or department heads to submit some across the board actual year-over-year budget cuts like you know Everyone cuts 2% or something like that. I think in this Environment what we've asked we've asked our a lot of our agencies at departments just a level fund Especially with the incredible inflation that we're seeing across the board and the higher cost of insurance And labor costs and so forth so to produce a budget that that doesn't raise taxes in this environment I think they've done the old man's work and providing that so very proud of the effort on our part But we'll see what happens as we move through that's one of my concerns with the BAA They're spending more than we had We had anticipated In fact, there's a finite amount of money. So whatever they spend over and above what we had proposed Will come out of the budget so I? Look forward to Understanding where they're going to get that money You know big costs we've talked about property taxes one of the big underlying factors this year's health care costs You know there's two big bills right now to Medicaid expansion and also S211 dealing with the Green Mountain care board Have they moved on a read on that bill and then what what's your I have not I have not seen the bill I haven't reflected on it myself What I guess what is your take of where we are in the reform project bringing you know more people into the all-payer model? Yeah, I think we need you know I've always felt that we need to continue to focus on what we've been trying to accomplish over the last few years And I know it's difficult to see it through But but this is something that's important to to at least anticipate and not turning turning away from The the path we're on at this point in time. So as I mentioned in my Budget address the ahead model that the federal government is proposing I think show some promise. It's it's state-driven you using many of the ideas across the country and including Vermont and So we'll continue to work with them and the Biden administration to To make that better for us as well, but it's there's no doubt it's Healthcare is very costly just like everything else and it's been increasing. So we need to get a handle on this and and I think The model that we proposed years ago. I think we'll prove itself out in time, but it's going to take a long time We have a couple things working against this our demographics being one an older Population tends to use more health care than a younger population the younger population doesn't use it as much but provides some of the payment to to to hold the whole thing together and So we're With a demographic shift We have an older population and we have fewer of our youth here or fewer youth providing the basis for For the revenue that we need for insurance. So they're both things working against us, but This is a prevention model When you take when you consider that it takes almost a generation to get through that you know, we're trying to to prevent people trying to provide for better health and Prevent some of those high-risk situations later in life. So that takes takes a while for it to come to fruition Would it be accurate for me to say in a story that the governor says he supports mandatory growth caps on school budgets and Statutory women's on staff to student ratios into schools I've we have we have proposed some of those Some of those items and we would propose them again Because again due to our demographics We have fewer kids in the schools and there's been a shift and we have you know over the last 20 30 years we have 30,000 fewer kids in our schools. So We have to there's a day of reckoning and we have to figure this out So it would be a proposal. We're pushing forward with but But again, we don't have the magic one. I still believe in local control. I still believe in School boards having us say in this as well and the people in communities and supervisor districts having to say so we can provide some parameters and and Provide I think some direction But at the end of the day it all comes down to voters Well, it would propose them if what Well again I've said we've made a number of proposals over the last seven eight years They haven't been well received by the legislature But we still think they have merit and we'll propose them again if they're interested We'll start with timberquiston Install the new PUC chair, and I'm wondering if you see these regulatory boards changing the future Whether you like it or not and what you think will happen to them Well, I do think Yeah, well, it's a good question the Green Mountain care board was created due to single payer When that didn't come about We still have the Green Mountain care board before that we had Bishka that Oversaw some of the budgets or off oversaw all the budgets and in the hospitals So it's a question that they should be Debated I think as to whether it's we still have a need for the Green Mountain care board and and what changes Would should be made to make it even better if we keep the board so I don't mind having the debate and We'll see where we go from there I don't know is there be any changes. I mean they're a quasi judicial board that's supposed to be Regulating and overseeing the The energy sector so I don't see that anything will change but different personalities and Hopefully will have better results for Vermont Rape payers. I think that's the point. We need to to protect rate payers and make sure that we have a system that That is conducive to to more affordability and growth here in Vermont I Wouldn't know I wouldn't wouldn't want to say at this point in time But but I think that there are areas where we would see that there would be a Way to protect rate payers in the future and we'll see I mean this clean heat standard It will be a test case for that Governor one of my readers suggested that since our it seems like a lot of people are still working from home a lot of state workers What what is the vacancy rate in these buildings that are all around us and could any of it be perhaps transition to housing? Fit up in in many buildings would be very expensive to turn something into housing We are constantly trying to find the sweet spot so to speak between remote Work and in in work provisions and there's there's a bit of a shift Both back and forth. I think that during certainly during the pandemic It was a lifesaver for us to continue with the government services with people working at home Many people have continued in that respect, but some are coming back So we'll have to I think we have to reflect on this over the next couple of years to see where we go But we are constantly looking for for ways to make state government more efficient And if it means that more people are working from home, and we can free up space and and maybe Sell some of the space to someone who could could make it into something else whether it's affordable housing or housing in general or Our business or whatever We would be amenable to that It feels like you're playing more of a passive role in this debate right now Do you think that's a fair characterization? Well, I think it's a realistic role. I mean We've seen over the last Certainly over the last two years They hold all the cards the legislature does they can do anything they want They don't need me one way or the other they said that and they've proven that I've said we will play a role. We will be part of the solution. We're willing to work with you But there has to be a desire for that Otherwise, it's in their hands. I mean they've proven that so I don't know what else to say We've tried the other pros Over the last seven or eight years we brought brought things forward for them to consider and they were just rejected out of hand so We'll do We'll do whatever we can to help I understand they've been keeping you in the loop on what we're working in ways and means right now But there are conversations ongoing to members of your administration and the legislature as it relates to that bill Why is I mean to what extent does that represent the kind of collaboration that you are looking for To get to a point where you I guess feel comfortable Putting an idea on the table and calling it an after proposal. Well, we have put again We put many proposals on the table over the years They could still be considered But we're willing to to be creative and come up with other others as well and having a healthy dialogue I think is important. So a passive approach might be we're here if you need us And and we're willing to help if that's passive, but we can't force them to do anything We've we've tried that approach and it didn't work so We're in the we're in the situation we're in They have the supermajority and They can they can do what they want I am going through those as we speak I've I interviewed One yesterday, so I have a couple more ago They're all good Stay tuned, I mean, we know we want to make a decision as soon as we possibly can The house recently has to build Discrimination based on hair types and styles Again, I my focus has been on making them out more affordable and housing needs and so forth And then this bill is important. It sounds as though it's not controversial We'll see again we'll reflect on that but my when it gets to my desk, it's probably something I would sign That would mean you have to work longer though Calvin I Heard some about that I I do think you know some of the the longer work days and less days I think is something unique and has seemed to work for many people and We in fact in corrections. We're we're using that strategy and it's been been effective And they seem to appreciate that having you know three days off is important But they work longer longer hours during the other four days, so We'll see I think again that That employers need to look at different strategies to find qualified help and draw more people in and Have a chance for people to enjoy the outdoors and everything Vermont has to offer So I think I think employers are looking at different approaches to attracting more people and that could be one of them Back to some of the crazy age discussion in Judge this morning and secretary winters if you want to jump back in was after you left the room at this came up the Committee seem to be voicing some frustration over what they pursued as The administration asked me to put off implementing your year after year and saying over and over that they don't have the resources to implement it and It almost sounded like they wanted to Play a game of chicken and say we're gonna implement it this year and you call your bluff And if you need more money, then we'll pass more money in the budget. What do you make of that? I? Wouldn't say that approach is any different than I've seen over the last few years. Thank you all