 So I guess we can take a look at S187 and why don't you walk us through, I'm going to vote on this bill over the next couple of minutes, and vote open for anybody who's not here, but I don't sense there's any real issues with it, but just can you walk us through? Sure. Okay, so what you have here is a list of exclusions to the chapter on residential rental agreements and you're adding a new item to the list, transient occupancy by an occupant placed in a hotel motel or lodgings in connection with health care treatment or recovery where the occupancy is paid for by a hospital, an agency designated for designation statutes, so a DA, or a specialized service agency operating under an agreement and turned into pursuant to statute and regardless of whether the occupant is subject to the tax-lobby meals and rooms tax. So since the last time you've seen this language the only change is online is the end of 20 in the beginning of 21. You're substituting a word, you previously had that and now you're saying where the occupancy, if you remember that conversation and advocates brought that language, so where the occupancy is paid for instead of that is paid for. And other than that this has not changed until the last time you've seen it. Okay. Just wanted to cover other entities that hospital has to take because they could hospital have some situation. Right or when? Where or what? Is where the right word or should it be when? It doesn't matter that much. I haven't through the editors and they gave their stamp of approval, but if you prefer when you could make the change. Yeah, I hear the concern. Mine, I don't think it probably makes much difference. What the house? Okay, so the motion to pass draft 3.1 to S187. So moved. Okay. This is big. Please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Shall we do this? Sure. I think there's seven people in the room that can bring the history to life for you too. Okay. Yes. Okay. Come back. I'm sorry. Unless she wants to, of course. I'll just say 4-0-1. Okay. We want to 237 and there should be, I don't know if we forgot. I emailed you the latest draft. It's right. Is 6.1 the latest? Yes. 237, 40 a.m.? Yes. I just did not. Is that what you're? No. But David was planning on being here. So is Ella from 10-11. David. Thomas. Yes. Hi. So Ellen first or anything? She's Ellen. She's Ellen. Her name is Ellen. We'll get Alice it back. Are you able to talk to her? I don't know how. We're going to go along with that. So we need to have one minor thing that... On the first page, if you look at it, it looks kind of weird. I'll lie 19 and 20. This is to get more information into the... So I just want to see whether the committee agrees or not. I read it and I asked the drafters whether it was duplicate or not. And then I realized that the reason why it's not duplicate is because they've used hyphen it seems. It's a weird hyphen now. But I've never seen hyphens used in drafting like that. And it's very strange. Where are you? 19 and... Actually 1920, yeah. And 21. There's a... It's basically, I think the way they're trying to write it is water supply, hyphen, lines, facilities and service areas. So this is sewage disposal, lines, facilities and service areas. So... But I think they should try to explain that. I've never seen one like that. Well, it may be claiming it up because it's an underline under the comma. So they're trying to get rid of the semicolon, actually, and replace it with just simply a comma. It's very strange. Yeah, that's lining the period out in the semicolon and putting a comma in it. Yeah, it's to me even worse than discussing shelter maze. That's probably still something. Oh, it's water supply lines. Water, sewage disposal, line, service areas. So they should just get rid of everything between supply and lines, right? That would be okay, right? Well, let's have them explain it before we go. That's probably what they're doing. It's not water supply, comma, lines, facilities and service areas. No, I'm saying it's water supply lines, facility. No comma. I think they've got to get rid of the comma. Except that the underline is over the comma, which is puzzling. I've never seen that. I think they've got to get rid of the comma. Okay. What's the previous version? That's the way it's always been. Any early sense from the Natural Resources Committee on? Yeah, me, I don't know a lot of it. Correct. So you're speaking to people. I'm sorry. It kind of jumps. Yeah, I got it. I got it. She's coming in at 10.15, because that's actually the schedule for. She said she has to finish one whole thing. She's been here three minutes. Okay. Do you want David here also? I shouldn't put you sorry down, but David become tradition. Okay. Let me just tell it back. Specifics of this. David has highlighted some of the yellow sections which are changes, kind of parts of the Natural Resources Committee is looking at this morning. I hope it would be awesome discussion on this. On this bill, I mean, while we're waiting for Ellen, I got feedback on our regional planning commissions on the amount of money that's in here to plan to help towns with their bylaws. They think it's totally inadequate, particularly because it's going to be a multi-year challenge. It's not going to just be one-time money. And it's going to take a couple of years for towns to do this. This is a big piece of work. And so I at least love the notion we don't have. I don't think we have any of the RPCs weighing in on this at the moment, but I'd love to, during the break, maybe I'll give them a ring and find out, you know, what are they talking about if it's one, you know, because we have 150 here. Is there anybody from the administration here? 15 of them. So, okay. So maybe I'll call Peter right now. I'll call this month. We have three minutes. Well, let's... Anyway, that was a flag during town meetings. Chris Coffrin had some suggested changes that he emailed me. I was unable to open them until I buried them. I was like, they're very small, but... I just flagged that as a concern. Well, and I think that's one-time money if I'm correct. Right. And so they would have to come back. The following year, they wanted to continue for a comparable amount of money. I don't think that money's supposed to extend over the future. Definitely. Yeah, but their point is that this will take several years to actually roll out fully. I mean, anyway, it's... It was flagged as a concern. Be careful about what you spend. I got it. I got it. We're spending... I don't just disagree with you, but if the administration has... If they've highlighted this as one-time money, and we'll hear from Chris, if they expect that to last for three years. If they're right, if they're saying, what time we'll see where we are, and they come back for another one. Right. Then, because she's right, I don't think all the community will get this money. How now? Yeah. Anyway, that was my one on this bill. Other than everybody delighted that we're doing this bill, that was the one piece of feedback. You can house eat. I can. Welcome. We made faster progress than we thought on the other bills, so we're ready for you. When we started talking about... Our common... Okay, and I think we finally understand when I think we're talking about this trying to do... Maybe it's the point. Could I... So the... We're trying to delete the comment at the water supply and sewer disposal? Yep. I'll take out the office of legislative counsel. Yes. The intent is to make sure that the municipal plans include water supply, lines, facilities and service areas and sewage disposal, lines, facilities and service areas. I can't believe it took me two months to do that. It's just requiring more details on the map. It was because of striking out of the comma. It looked like the comma was still in there, so... Okay. So we're going to try in the next hour to walk through this whole bill and see what questions we have remaining with overvoting it to water. Okay? Okay. I'm going to send it. I'll let it... Yes. That's why you're here now. Okay. The day will come after you. Okay, so the section we're in now is the municipal plan and section 4412 on page two is... This is when we start talking about municipal bylaws. Right. Yep. So these are the types of bylaws that are required. So you're adding new language to this section. A variety of things are in this section. Plus we're also changing the excessive development. So we're striking that or just capturing the whole following section. Yes. Yes. Oh, so yeah. On page two... So the previous... Are you in subsection 10 on page two? Yeah. Are you up to something sure about the same graph, 6.1? Yes. Yep. So what we're doing here is we're expanding. So currently the municipal plan is required to reference the permitted accessory dwelling units. So now we're expanding it so that they have to comply with all of the sections of... All of the sections in 4412, which includes all of the sort of density requirements and affordable housing bylaws that you're adding in the next section. Let's keep going. All right. Yep. Yep. Yep. So now we're in the definition of accessory dwelling unit. And so we had the conversation about if there should be a cap on the size of the accessory dwelling unit. And so down on line 19, it now reads the unit shall not exceed 30% of the total habitable floor area of a single family dwelling unit or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. So that was what we talked about before. So I'm meeting we get how to capture that size issue. Good. Is Chris coming? Yeah. He's down the hall. Okay. Now we're going to listen to this. This is going to be showed up next. Yeah. This concerns. Okay. This one page five is just a different terminology. Yes. So this was feedback from the agency change. This section is originally titled inclusionary growth. And inclusionary has a specific meaning and other parts of the statute sort of differentiate. Inclusive development is a slightly different title. Okay. But this is the optimistic title. Great. Great. We could have done with it in the fifth case. Great. So this is the section that creates the mandatory program with the ability to opt out. This does have the effective. This section is an effective for three years out. So that's in the end of the effective section. But otherwise this section has changed. And remind us why we put it three years out. To give a sort of initial. It was a bylaw work to be done. Yes. But what if they're bylaw ready? What if they're ready to do this? There is an there are incentives built into this in a couple of pages. So as soon as they have adopted this language they are incentive. They're eligible for incentives. Priority for funding. So that doesn't have to wait three years. If they are bylaw ready and if they're ready to go can they start sooner rather than later? Yes. You are correct. The funding actually is part of this. So it is on the three years later. So some communities may be ready to rock and roll. So some maybe have these bylaws in place already or some may be able to. Right. So they should be eligible for incentives. Yeah. Earlier than three years. Why are we waiting three years is my guess my question. Are we waiting three years? Yes. That's what she just said. And that's why I have eight questions. Yes. So I mean that was the. I think this was your idea. Was to push out the effectiveness. No. It was my idea. Okay. The effective date of it being the whole thing being mandatory. Right. So we know that we were sweeping in. Right. We should fix that. Yeah. We should be able to fix that. I think our objective was to not have mandatory immediately. Have mandatory. They get three years to have it be voluntary. But if a community has its bylaws in shape and is ready to rock and roll. I think we need to be in something that would immediately. Later. I would try to suggest that I was talking about the substance that changes not the. Right. Carrots. So. Yeah. I just want to make sure we. So. All right. So the incentives start on page eight. And so it includes the prioritizing funding. As well as the. The ability to override restrictive covenants and needs. So that's part of the sort of incentive package. So. Do you want all of those. To be captured in the. Yes. Okay. If they're ready to go. Yes. So. Each night. Yellow. Yeah. What is. Okay. Yep. So we had a conversation the last time I was here about the wording of this section being a little confusing. And so I just I rearranged it. Okay. So hopefully it reads a little more clear. You answered this question. I know. I spent a long time together. Before the break. And. How. Is this. Any. Different. So. They work in tandem. So. Subdivision four is part of title 24. Whereas then. The. Section 545 is actually entitled 27, which is the property title. So we tie those two things together. Okay. So it says the same thing, but you're putting into places. Yeah. Okay. And. I know we had a conversation. About. On. Line 11. About the concept of running with the land. And. I'm a little bit. To be a little concerned. That. There could be. Deed. Restrictions. For. Part of. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The.ії restrictions. Are. The. To petite. The. A negative effect. On debt city. There. Books. There put. Accessory too well there. So what run with land. Trans vezes. you from doing, you can't put an accessory dwelling in there. So I wouldn't run with the land. Transport would just be connected to one possible sale. So I'm just wondering why need or should have running with the land in there, as opposed to deleting that phrase? I don't know. OK. So this was something that was headed given over to you by the agency? Yes. OK. Did the bankers raise some questions regarding subsection 4, as it was written before, regarding the decoders and restrictions? I think it may have been more complex than this one, but it could equally apply to the others. I just want to hear from you. We can hear from them. I think any concern they may have would be taken up by line 6 and 7. Presumably. Yeah, because this is all a perspective. And it doesn't make sense, quite frankly. In my mind, some of this language is almost, how should I put it, unnecessary? Because if you pass a bylaw, and you start putting covenants in your deeds that contract a bylaw, there is, in some ways, a legal criticism that says that it can't be enforced. So I think in some ways, both of these sections are felt as suspended. But as long as it's perspective only, then I don't think you're dealing with taking the property and the rights. But certainly, we can hear from them. If we don't get to them today, we can have hallway conversations before tomorrow on that, if they have some alternate language. And we'll hear from the agency about this party in the way. Ellen, would you be kind of to just point me, the conserved land concern I had, that's, because I'm finding this sort of dense to read and get any. OK, so it's on 17 and 18, I see it. Yeah, so thanks. I found it myself. And the fall and the morning protects the house. Yeah, yeah, got it. And then we go on to the Act of 50 exemption. Yeah, did you want to move on to the next tune? It's on the tail page 15. And this was, again, we talked about the language in this subdivision being a little bit confusing. So I just rewrote it so hopefully it's a little more clear. This is at the bottom. Yeah, right. So what we talked about this, I think that I shared some concerns that the language of A through E above, this is the situation, whether the existing permit has conditions on the Act of 50 permit, is that right, Act of 50 permit? And whether those conditions would carry forward to the municipal permit that might substitute for the Act of 50 permit. Yes. And it says, you can't get rid of any of those conditions unless they fall into one of these criteria. Yes. And you raised a concern, C, that may be too broad. Someone could say, well, this law doesn't apply, so we'll get rid of the condition. Meanwhile, some neighbors may have fought really hard for this or something like that, and now the condition is gone. Is this for, does that help in terms of giving people the right to complain about that or? No. So I did not rewrite any of the substance of this, but the language in four is about providing notice and an opportunity for hearing. So this is making sure that there is notice given to the statutory parties under the Act of 50 process. And so if someone does want to raise an objection, there is a process by which people will receive notice, and there will be a hearing on this change of permit. On the overall switch over to the municipal permit? Yes. Will the Act of 50 permit be part of the record so they can see what the conditions have been? Yes. The permit itself will be gone, but the new municipal permit will be added to the land records, and so hopefully those two things should be tied together, at least in some way. Man. And how will this be affected by the changes the House is making? Well, they'll get reconciled for the course of this process. What? Well, the House is making some changes to some of these reviews, or have it just backed away from all of them. It doesn't matter. It's not the House. I know. I'm just curious about that. So yes, so the language in this section is in the House Act of 50 bill. So it's parallel. It is parallel. The language of this section has not changed in the House bill. However, the House bill did expand the exemption to village centers, as well as downtowns and neighborhood development areas, which is what you have been as downtowns and neighborhood development areas. There's expanded it to include village centers as well. That's good. Is the neighbor just to play devil's advocate here? Is there a reason why this section to limit the removal of conditions is preferable to say all the conditions apply? If somebody wants to get rid of a condition, they should go through a municipal process. Like they would in Act of 50, they want to change the condition. This was the original proposal. I think you could do it other ways, but this was the original proposal. Because I'm still looking at C and thinking that a federal or state law is no longer in effect, and how does a hearing help? Well, it could be a challenge. Since you know the county, say this law is governing this condition, I would think this law doesn't apply anymore, so we can get rid of the condition at the first. And somebody could disagree with that and say, there's other laws that are still in effect. So we're changing conditions. We're trying to give the towns more responsibility, but we want to be careful not to change the conditions of the permit, unilaterally, to change the permit. If we could have a free fall, a free fall, where the towns could change the conditions of the Act of 50 permit, we'd never get the same. And so here, they say, you can't do it. But in these conditions, these cases, you can't. And it could be a major mistake, or it could be done. They couldn't overextend themselves in terms of removing conditions, or how it could do that. And we don't want that. And I see that. I think this is a section that Chris could possibly look at, to not even deal with Chris. OK. So let's go on. Sorry. I know. Forgive me. But I somehow had thought, and I clearly was, that we had included village centers. I thought we included all downtown and village, designated downtown and village centers. We didn't include village centers in here. And would we like to? I'd like to get this bill out of here. I know, but we have to take more testimony on that. I don't know. OK. I'm just putting it out there. It strikes me as we'll let the House do that. OK. Fine. I just think I had to, I thought we had. OK. I remember on July the 18th, this deals with giving the communities more time to bring their housing, their housing, preserving their property, housing. Sure. Page 18 is the next change. And I mean, through what last we spoke, because we're changing the, because we're removing downtown and neighborhood development areas from Act 250, that does change priority housing and the definition of it. And so there was concern about how to preserve the incentive for priority housing. So we added to both the designated downtown and the neighborhood development area a requirement that towns have one of the following things to promote affordable housing. And so on page 17, and then later in the neighborhood development area, there's new language that came from the affordable housing group. And so we discussed that perhaps we need to push out the deadline slightly, because the way that the designations are reviewed is every four or eight years. And so we needed, if these changes went into effect immediately, there's a few towns that would be up for renewal or review very soon. And would it maybe have time to comply? And there was a risk that they could become out of compliance and then lose their designation. So on page 18, and then later, we add language, hopefully trying to avoid that by saying, beginning on July 1, 2022, any community under review or seeking renewal for their designation status shall comply with subdivisions B4 and B5, which are the new affordable housing requirements. So slightly pushing out that new deadline. And this is supposed to end like this one? Yes. It's 20. Yes. So now we're in the requirements for a neighborhood development area. And so this was some of the language from VNRC surrounding flood hazard areas in the neighborhood development area. So this was the proposed language change from VNRC. So it now reads, the proposed neighborhood development area consists of those portions of the neighborhood planning area that are appropriate for new and infill housing, including only areas containing pre-existing development and areas suitable for infill development as defined in section 29, 201 of the Vermont flood hazard area and river corridor rule. What does that mean? So infill development is defined in the rule. And so this is just attempting to have the definition match that. So I don't have any questions about rules and statute, but is it meant to say that there's only two places? Well, you know, use the word including, but then you use the word planning. So it says that the area consists of those neighborhood planning areas that are appropriate for new and infill housing. And then you're trying to say what that is. And it's only those that have pre-existing development or areas suitable for infill development. So we're letting the rule and pre-existing development control. Is that the only two areas? I mean, shouldn't it be more appropriate to do it in a negative, say areas? Right, so this is sort of the result of back and forth negotiating. So currently the language reads excluding identified flood hazard areas. And so this is an attempt to allow some more development in the flood hazard area, but only where there's pre-existing development and it's suitable for infill. For all the details here, but if you looked at the language you're striking here, wouldn't you have that rule just come after excluding identified flood hazard and erosion areas as defined? Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing? No. No? No. So it's attempting to capture that it's different in all areas that some towns have development already in the flood hazard area. So this is an attempt to allow some development in there because previously they were excluded from including it in the neighborhood development area. What would be the results if you took the word only out? Yeah, it seems odd. It's confusing. Have that there. Yeah, I do think the language could be changed. If I can just say including areas containing it. So forgive me, I'm sort of slow to boot up here, but are we giving permission then to continue to develop in flood hazard areas? I guess I'm puzzled by this. Yeah, that's my concern. So why would we do that? Because it was proposed. But it's a bad idea. Well, for example, if you look at that mobile home part that we've been talking about in Browler World, if I were reading this, is this telling me that it would be OK to include that in a neighborhood development area and that you could develop it? I don't know specifically about that. I don't think so. What would exclude it? Yeah. I think the slams that was proposed by people who would, I assume, want to protect these flood hazard areas from development or work. I think having all of us having lived through Irene, I think we want to get as much out of flood hazard areas as possible. I think we want to understand what this says. I don't understand what this says. It makes some things somewhere. Yes. Man. Go ahead. I want to just preface, and one thing I would say consistently when we talk about this flood stuff, is that this is one area that I really want to be back for resources for me to look at. And they will. So the neighborhood development area rules or statute was passed immediately after Irene. It was passed before A&R created their River Court to rules and procedures. A&R River Court rules and procedures allow appropriate infill, like in parking lots and things that are already developed. They're already onward that are not of high risk. What this change does is bring the neighborhood development area designation into compliance with current best practices today in our further River Court overall. Which is what Kate spoke to us about. And we worked with the NRC on this. Obviously, they do not want to see buildings built in the wrong locations either. So we came to agreement. And that's the intent that two different state policies were communicating with each other. She's trying to sync them up. I get the sync up. Is there any way that with the word appropriate development would be added? I mean, because I get the part, I understand there is appropriate development in flood hazard areas. But that doesn't say that here. I don't have any strong feeling that they're appropriate. So maybe, I'm sorry, I want to catch up sooner. When you work out carefully with the NRC, and they're not here to comment. I know they're not. But she has an exciting beautiful little baby does. Which was lovely. It was so great. She was helpful. I think the natural resources can be flagged as a section that we think it might need some clarification ourselves and to welcome their ideas out in Clare. But I think we know the intent. I think we also, just for our own purposes, ought to know what section 29-201 of the flood hazard area and where the power of the rule is. Can you bring us that rule for tomorrow morning? Sure. I think that's the definition section of the rule. It's just having it match the definition of infill development. Right. And I think Kate discussed that with us as I'm recalling. But I think just the simple word appropriate infill development or whatever would help us feel more comfortable. It says appropriate if I'm on my side. Yeah. But if you can get us that language, maybe we'll stick the language in here as opposed to cross-reference in the rule. I prefer that myself, actually. It reads, infill development means for the purposes of designated centers, construction, installment, modification, renovation, or rehabilitation of land, interests in land, buildings, structures, facilities, or other improvements in an area that was not previously developed but is surrounded by existing development. For purposes of farm production areas, infill development means construction on a vacant area within the farm production area. That this is pre-existing development and area suitable. So pre-existing development alone. And again, I go back to that question of the old home park in Broward. Does that say, does this say that you could treat that as a pre-existing development area and build there? It's not a designated area. No. It's not. If it were, if it were, would that qualify for being rebuilt and we know it's going to flood? And in fact, we're moving stuff out of it. I don't know enough about the facts to actually come in. I think this is, we should flag this and have the natural resources to be weighing on it. Let's delegate it. Well, I don't know. We should be passing things we don't understand. Well, we haven't passed it. We haven't passed it. They're going to make their changes and get them to. No, we are going to pass it. Oh, I thought you were going to. We're going to pass it tomorrow. We're going to vote on it tomorrow. And then we have the members who want to discuss it. And I hope that tomorrow we'll understand what this says, because I don't want to vote on something that I don't understand. OK. And it's unclear. OK. We will try to find that out to keep going. On page 21, there's a change. We're still in the same section. Previously, it referenced within an existing settlement. So it just changes it so that it's confined to within a neighborhood development area. The next change is on page 26. And it's the same language I referenced a few minutes ago about delaying the implementation of the affordable housing requirement for the neighborhood development area, pushing it out to July 1, 2022. Is that three years? That seems like two years after. Maybe one, it's later. Yeah, so this change is going to pretty much affect a pretty narrow group of towns, a known group of towns, because their renewals are coming up with at that period. So the next change is on page 31. We updated the amount for the tax credits. Right. So that's going to come out. I think those are all yours. Do you have any more sections? Nope. OK. Could you stick around for the next 15 minutes? I'd like Chris to come into the chair and to go on this environmental stuff here. And I could give you Mr. Pernick's stuff. Walk through section 61 in terms of any concerns, additions that you might have. Good morning. I'm just talking to the Department of Housing and Food Development. You were right. I had nothing to worry about. You were going to pass this bill and get it done. Thank you. We are. Yes. Even the more we live with it, the more questions we have. If I get this dangerous. I think we're supposed to be in after resources in like 15. I love it. Yeah. So I just wanted to just flag a few things, and then if we can get to some of the specific questions. One thing that we missed when we recommended adding, when we talked about the flood mitigation credits, there's a reference in the tax credit section that talks about just limiting the benefit in the flood hazard area. That should also be included with record ores to be consistent with the change in the other section. Does that make sense to you? I'm going to need more support pages. Yeah. I can get you the specific. Sounds like it's a technical change. It's a technical change. That's important. That's a technical thinking. To qualify projects. Right. The whole background on this, FEMA's flood hazard irregular, their maps are not published on them consistently. The right floor is a statewide digital layer. We can make people look at the map and figure out if they qualify or not. So we're going to get that kind of extra. The short-term rental housing report. As you know, we collected a lot of data. Our housing use assessment will be coming out pretty soon. I think it's going to answer some of the questions you have there. My preference, given limited time and resources the state has was to actually give communities some tools and resources to help them manage short-term rental issues if it is a problem in their community. I'd much rather see language directs the department to provide department and regional planning commissions. Guidance to help municipalities define what we are on the ground with our short-term area. It's the short-term rental focus. We haven't gotten to that yet. I have some concern for your position on that, but I want you to focus on the sections that Elma Press talked about. Okay. Really the tax credit is the only change that I have. We asked other changes. I can review them this morning. If that makes sense. Thank you for your support. Josh will have additional comments for the later sections, as will I. A question regarding Senator Brock, your question about what you require. I can't answer that. If there's two buildings, a building here and a building here and it's on a river, what A&R's river corridor procedure allows you to put another building in the setback of that area. It has to be raised to above the flood and plain elevations. So if it does get wet, people won't be harmed. But it does allow an infill because an infill in that situation isn't going to make flooding any worse in that community downstream. So that's the intent. We haven't looked at what it would have as we play out in a mobile home park specifically, but that's the front. An infill is or an infill. It is as written. And so would it allow for all intents and purposes the rehabilitation of an existing building in the flood plain would allow it to be rebuilt as opposed to filled in? It would allow it to be rebuilt and our presumption is that we're providing these tax credits to them so when they make these improvements they will make the building more flood safe. Is there a requirement that they make it more flood safe? Well, it may be required in a community that gets too complicated. Are we tax subsidizing something that's going to wash away in the next flood? We hope not. That we know about. Our communities aren't really going to be moving any time soon. We've gotten huge infrastructure investments in them. I think the strategic way for them not to respond to a changing climate is to make these incremental changes to make their communities safer. To make these changes often with buildings are built they have to meet newer requirements but there's exemptions for many existing buildings because they're historic and they're on the national register so how do we get that slice of buildings improved and that's the intent of these incentives? Right. I did have one question on this for Ellen as well. I don't know if this is your section but on page 4 where it says nothing in this section should be consumed to prohibit a bylaw that regulates short term rentals distinctly from other residential units and then later on in the bill we talked about that you can't pass a bylaw that short term rentals that would wind up encouraging the displacement of long term permanent housing and just wondering if those two sections are inconsistent. And why? Yes. Do we need this here? You may not need it here. You may not. This is specifically the ADU section to enable the regulation of this section. On page 4 line 10 it is the ADU section. It is the ADU section. You subsequently added a more global change to the chapter that says municipalities may regulate short term rentals. It doesn't hurt them to be in both places but can we take a look, Ellen, at maybe striking line 10? That would be striking policy a little soft too. So you had written I thought I saw your I wanted to ask you a question that was raised around this morning running with the land apparently that's your language. What page are we on again? Page 9. This came up in Ellen's. I'm afraid I don't have a great answer to see that. I presume it's just running with the title in the land records but I did not draft it. I'm not a lawyer. I don't know. Who did draft? Our attorney. Okay, could you get off to your attorney? We don't. She's left us. We don't have an attorney so I think we're going to have to rely on your attorney. A vacancy? Yes. We've been in without an attorney for several months now. It's been fun. Wow. The things you could do, the places you could go. We've relied on the kindness of strangers in many cases. Session. I think that needs to go for the reasons I said you could have yourself a party. They could live there for 50 years if it's just a little bit of a lot of work. You may want to talk to the title lawyer. They would have actually good information on that. This is not something I can answer. Okay. We do have a few more minutes before you have to go. We'll take advantage of that and kind of talk to you later. Thank you. I just want to say that Jenny, you're not the one that's been there. Okay. So, we're going to move on to okay. You talked to a good partner that you have a petrel office and you don't want to deal with the environment first. We're getting rid of the statewide housing state of mind with a short term passing study on page page 36 then 37. I think it's where we are, short term rentals. Bottom of page 36. Top of page 37. Okay. And I understand the concern and the need for data on this. We thought you were close and we have to work with many partners at EHS and others before we can release our housing assessment. There is some information on short term rentals. We also did, the tourism office did a study with Inotopia that scraped a lot of the short term mental data. We had a big pile of data but the analysis board is not something we can do quickly. So, we do have information so I don't think any emergency is a challenge with the short term mental data. For my opinion, we don't know what the baseline is. We don't know the universal properties out there and it's a very fluid market so without that ability to compare it to what exists, it's hard for us to report on what's happening in the city. We can't say this is a snapshot in time. We can give you some general ideas about where this is happening which we have testified to have for the greater degree. We do know many communities are concerned about it and that's where I got to my recommendations. Let's do something to help them now. Let's not study this for you. Let's give them an even able their ability across the board to regulate short term rentals. What they need is, for example, bylaws of ordinance and support and guidance on how to implement them. The communities that are feeling these pressures are aware of it but they could use some tools to help them get further along. I think it has those resources. I'm not only certain that we need the idea of emergency rules that allow you to collect data was to help you to get right making recommendations and assessing the situation. We have a very fluid market with short term rentals that everybody across the country is experiencing and we didn't feel comfortable that we can start coming up with any kind of statewide policies. Maybe there is no need for statewide policies but communities and other states are starting to get into this baseline criteria to protect long term housing and also promote tourism and all this stuff. We need either a fork or we need a study. We need some recommendations. Whether you need any information to collect on this stuff. Further, that could be your decision. Maybe we can make this permissive but it would seem to me, if you want to write a quality report there's going to be information you're going to want to collect. You might not have the authority right now to collect this information. That's why we wrote in a way of saying we want to get the information necessary to make sound policies while balancing the privacy of the people who are in this industry. But we need the information maybe when this report comes we've been told several times that the report was coming. I haven't seen it yet but maybe you'll see it and say okay we don't need any more information we're ready to make some recommendations. We're going to look at the literature we're going to look at all the other states and you may come back and say do nothing legislature. Let the towns have to do whatever they want. I hope that's not what you come back with. I don't want to add line I think part of your report would be we would be as a result we are developing bull prints for you know for I don't need legislation to do this. What I'd rather do is spend my time helping the communities with the issues giving them the tools they need. Very well they need legislation to get information for I don't know how much we can compel a crime community to share and that's a question for I want to empower you as fully as we can this committee has done a fair amount already I'm sure it's required some inspections so don't say that you can't I just don't control this industry because it's a public public interest issue I'm not saying I can't control it I just don't know what the extent of our that's one of the reasons why we're giving this hopefully this report will give a sense of the baseline for if you want if you think if you'd like to have an additional section saying the department of housing and community development will be a resource for towns and municipalities going forward as they develop these ordinances in this work I don't want to change the shout if they don't want the authority but we're going to make them do this report so by the end of the report I don't need language help communities we're going to help you anyway I realize in your initial comments it sounded like you were interested in having that be explicit that you were available as a resource for towns and municipalities that's going to require more research $50,000 $350,000 other people develop the bylaws start adding more responsibility more staff right we can issue you a report because we're talking about it now so you've got to go and we're going to move on to the other