 That's soldier on as our vice chair likes to say. Okay, so. So we are talking about active 50 amendments that are currently in S 226. Next, in section two D. It's looking at the criterion one D, which was one of the last sections of 511. It does use different language than what is in 511. It is not. It is not proposing to change the definitions. However, it is adding a new provision starting on line 11. I do think this is probably related to housing. So criterion one D is used for any permit under active 50 review. It's asking the permit applicant applicants to look at. It's asking the applicant to look at. Flood hazard area floodways. Or fluvial erosion areas or the floodway fringe. And so down online 11. Notwithstanding subdivisions one and two. Within an existing settlement. Which is a defined term in active 50. A permit shall be granted if all occupied space. It should be in place above base flood elevation. Or otherwise designed to be reasonably safe from flooding. This is a, this is a. This is different than what is currently in the statute. Currently the statute asks that if you're going to be developing in one of these areas, you have to demonstrate that you're not going to be. You're not going to be developing in one of the flood waters. Causing endangerment to health and safety. And you'll not contribute to or increase the discharge. During a flood. So this is actually adding like an extra. Sort of. Almost a scape hatch provision saying. Notwithstanding, if you might restrict or divert flow. A permit will be granted if all occupied space is. Elevated and flood proof. Does that mean, I mean, we're going into other committees, jurisdictions probably, but does that mean that you could. Build. And. It says it shall be granted. So I'm thinking that someone could get. A permit. I mean, I don't know if they meet those requirements regardless of whether there are other adverse. Impacts. I mean, if you redirected. If you redirected the river and it flooded another area. It seems to read. Well, I don't care about that other area. I got my permit. Yeah, I do have concerns that this would potentially interfere with other criteria. I don't want to get into that. I don't want to get up with some of the other criteria in the statute, but yeah, this is pretty strong language. Okay. Yeah, and shall might be met. Yeah. I hear that no pride of authorship. Don't want to cause a lot of undue. Damage. Just the first run through. Okay. And so this is a section. Senator Ram Hensale hinted at before mitigation of primary agricultural soils. There is a requirement that they mitigate that impact. Primary agricultural soils are mapped. And. The agency of agriculture. Excuse me. Does administer this part and does weigh in on this when an applicant is going to. Reduce or destroy agricultural soils. So this. So currently under that program. Depending on where the project is going to be located. An applicant may need to do on site mitigation, which would require the. The applicant to either change the shape of their soil. To avoid the agricultural soils or reduce the size of it. It does refer to sort of physically altering your project to avoid destroying the soils. There is, however, in designated areas. So within the downtown's growth centers, new town centers and NDAs. The applicant does have the option to instead do offsite mitigation, which is essentially paying a fee. Based on the number of acres of soils that would be destroyed. And that fee then goes to VHCB. Who would then purchase and conserve. Similar land. Elsewhere. That should be protected for agricultural use. Anecdotally, some of the developers prefer to use the offsite mitigation because it's a, it's a calculation they can do. And they don't have to alter the dimensions of their project. But there are, there are pros and cons to both methods. And so this is making an amendment here. That. Yeah. So it's extending that. This protection, this option for on offsite mitigation. So the payment of the fee is being extended to neighborhood development areas. In village centers. And new town centers because currently it's only allowed for those around downtowns. So that's one. What is the date change? Does that mean that they. They're, they've. Allowed sort of a grandfather. Clause and we're getting rid of that. So now. So I think this provision was added in 2013. And so at the time there were already existing. New town centers. And this would be moving. Moving. And so it was moving forward. This would, this would be allowed. This is striking that requirement and saying any new town center. They're currently are still only two new town centers. And I don't actually know off the top of my head. The date of their designation. So. It's just, I think it's just removing that sort of date. Requirement that was initially required. Okay. And then. Additionally, still in this. So on page 15. For a priority housing project. Or an alternative or community wastewater system. Located in the designated area. The per the race. So the ratio shall be one to one. And so this is for the calculation of the mitigation. For all other projects currently, the calculation is based on a number of factors. And the agency of agriculture works on this with the district commissions. To do a calculation for. How much agricultural soil needs to be protected. It's usually somewhere between two to one. To three to one. And so this is lowering it to one to one. And then finally. In this section. There is a mitigation flexibility provision. So for. I believe this is for, again, the designated areas. Yeah. So for designated areas. The district commission who's working on the application has this mitigation flexibility to allow a combination of both onsite and offsite mitigation. And this is striking that provision. So that the default will just be offsite mitigation. Okay. So does this promote. More development or. It seems like it's restricting the flexibility, right? It's striking the flexibility so that. The district commission can't require the onsite mitigation, which would. Require the shrinking of the project potentially. So it would just say district commission. You have to. You are required to assess the offsite mitigation, which is just a fee that is paid by the developer. That then goes to BHCB. As opposed to saying. The combination of a fee versus shrinking the project. So this is just liberalizes development. I think, right? By striking the flexibility. Potentially. Okay. Potentially. Yeah. It, it, it expands opportunity. Okay. Yep. Okay. I think this is the last section. I'm on page 16 of S2. 26. Back to title 24. In the municipal bylaw section. Right. Oh, yes. So this is the. The. On a complete, on a completely different note. This is a requirement that essentially would get rid of. Single family zoning. So we're in the zoning bylaw section. And we're striking language regarding. Requiring towns to include multi-unit dwellings somewhere in the town. And we're adding language here that says. In any district that allows residential. Development. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting. Multi-unit or multifamily dwellings. Okay. So I think we had this in one of our bills and we watered it down. Some want to. Something to deal with the character of the neighborhood. Is that. Yeah. Yeah. So. No. Okay. Kind of. So you. In S237. There was a proposal to. Allow duplexes. Ubiquitously in, but only in designated areas. This is for any town with zoning. Has to allow multi-unit or multifamily dwellings. In all of their residential zoning areas. They can't restrict multi-unit dwellings to specific zoning districts, which is how the law currently works. Okay. What, what did we, what did something did get enacted with. Dealing with this with the car. Something about. With the character of the neighborhood. Yep. So currently. Towns are allowed to. They do not require conditional use permits for multi-unit dwellings. And you did add language that said. They cannot deny. A conditional use permit for multi-unit dwellings. Based on character of the area. Okay. And. Do you recall. Was there a middle ground. Between that, which passed. And this. This is obviously very. Strong. I will get into this. I'm sure there's going to be some objections. Did we. Start out with something and compromise with the house or. Something that was in this. Same context. That we had proposed something. More than just the character of neighborhood, but less than this. So off the top of my head, the only, the only provision again was the. Allowing of duplexes in every district. Okay. As opposed to this, this is any size. Apartment building or structure. You did have language regarding allowing duplexes in any. In any residential district. Okay. So you, you read this to be. That a town. You know, I didn't. Have a, have a. A zoning law that said. Duplexes are allowed in any. Zone. But anything more than. A duplex could be prohibited in a zone that would. That would. I just try to understand what this language. I don't know if I read it initially that if they allowed for duplexes, it would meet the. Would meet this language. So that is a fair point. Multi-unit and multi-family. Multi-family aren't defined. But I do think the statute. And I can double check on this for you. I do think the statute. Also uses the phrase uses the word duplex. And so I do think it's a difference. But I think it's a difference. I think we can add definitions if you want to be more clear here. I mean. In the most in the, in the broadest. Reading of this language. I guess if somebody wanted to go into. What is now zone one acre for a single family. And said, well, now this law passed. So I'm going to build a high rise in there. And you can't. Stop me because. I don't think we're trying to suggest that we just, I think we're trying to say. You can't have single family. You got to allow something more than that. But not. Anything. Right. I would agree with that, Mr. Chair. We don't want anything, but we certainly want more density. And multi implies more than the duplex in my humble opinion. But you're right. Ellen, we haven't defined it. Okay. We'll need to. Okay. So this. And then, so I agree. It maybe isn't the perfectly clear. I would also add though that it didn't get rid of the. Requirement. That a town could add a conditional use permit. Like we just talked about with the character of the area. So they still might have the option to require some permitting, but they couldn't. Fully prohibit. So Ellen, it's you. It's the witching hour. 1030. Yeah. Do I let you go? Sure. And so just, just quickly. The last page of this is the tap. This is a task force as opposed to hiring a consultant. But again, it is asking for a review of the designation program and. And updating it. Okay. And. Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair. It's Chris. With. With us. No. Chris. You said I'll be back at 10 30. I know this. I've rejoined. Yeah. No, I, I would hope that actually as we go through this, that we would expand this to be a task force that would look at all the designation. Programs. In, in housing. Just because I think just as I mentioned earlier. Uh, programs, uh, in, in housing, just because I think just as I mentioned earlier, you know, why are we adding more programs instead of expanding the jurisdiction of one we have that everybody can apply for that to eat that don't seem to be as many challenges with. So I actually think I think this is near and dear to Chris's heart doing a review of all the designation programs. Isn't that correct? Mr. Cochran. Yes. So I would hope if we go forward with this aspect that we would include all the designations and designated programs. Great. Ellen, thank you so much. You are welcome. We'll see you next week. Good luck. Okay. Is is David with us? He is. Okay. So David, uh, help me out here. Are there parts of this bill that you have drafted at all? There are a few. Can we go through those? I think section three beginning with section three maybe. I think we could begin with section one if we're still talking about. 226. You know, I, I know you all, you've been around a long time, you know how this works, but I'm sure it must remain frustrating for you to think in your minds, you know, housing and see my face. And then I show up and I have to tell you that I don't know what's going on with 90% of what you're discussing. And I'm, I'm sorry for that. That's a silo problem. And just like state government is divided just like committees of jurisdiction are divided. You know, our office is divided and there are so many overlaps actually have identified yet another attorney who has worked on a part of this bill, which is being in so I'm going to do my best and and I'm going to try to help as best I can. I'm also going to tell you this of all the things that are you were discussing in the context of this this omnibus housing concept. Some of them have been around for years and are extremely well refined and you know some of the stuff Ellen talked to you about you know the difference is really the nuance and words right down to the word side of the page. Some of the other stuff goes to the completely opposite end of the spectrum and is just conceptual in nature. And, you know, I think you're at the, you're at the stage with some of these proposals, where you're going to be talking about words, and you're at the stage of some of these proposals where you're going to be deciding, do we want to explore this idea further so we need to work on what it really means. And that's a lot of my stuff, unfortunately, but I'm going to, I'm going to try to take you through that and do the best I can. So, a propo of that introduction section one here is this concept of municipal and regional land banks. And this came as a conceptual proposal from realtors, not sure exactly the name of their organization I don't want to mistake that but that's the source. The proposal didn't come with bill language so much as a memo that sort of described what they hope to accomplish. I took that and created the language that's in this bill, based on the ready districts, I don't know if you remember but these are the sort of the rural economic development and infrastructure districts that were designed so that small towns could work together and create things for, you know, telecom broadband, but could it be for more than what it could be for other types of infrastructure and economic development purposes. So, you know, as far as the words go, I'm not sure there's much value in trying to read through this language verbatim. I'll say conceptually a few things. The understanding is this proposal is modeled on activities that are going on, maybe in the Midwest, where there is depopulation there's vacant property. And that the answer in some places has been to authorize the creation of these regional municipal or regional boards that are quasi governmental entities, the purpose of which is to be able to identify a choir, and then just basically blighted properties or properties that are underperforming, you know, there's a lot of room for flexibility in here, but at the end of the day this would require statutory authorization for one or more municipalities in some fashion to authorize themselves to create one of these land banks. And again, you invest this land bank whether it be municipal or regional with certain powers, and that could mean things like priority for, you know, purchasing properties that are up at tax sale like they give an exclusive right to make a bid for the property if it's been foreclosed or there's been a tax sale upon it. The authority to condemn properties perhaps, and then sell them or lease them. Basically, the purpose of one of these land banks would be to again identify and then do something productive with properties that are not currently productive. There's a whole lot of details that would need to be ironed out and there are problems like, you know, who's going to pay for this who's going to do the work. What should be the basis of authorizing these groups, what power should they actually have how much authority you want to give them do they need money. Should they get priority for these properties should they have the power of imminent domain. What do they do with them once they have them, etc. And then, you know, liability issues like what if the property is contaminated it's a brownfield or it's a circle site those types of things. Lots of details but that is the concept underlying the landing. I'll stop there and see if anybody who else wants to comment on this. And this one, I think we will have the realtors in next week and have them defend this proposal unless I would assume that you're not in a full position to start answering those kinds of questions so, you know, I'd be very interested in hearing success stories, and, you know, laws, or programs we could replicate, if at all if this is sort of not fully baked at it may be more than we can handle but you know as as I said repeatedly the idea is to throw ideas out there, whether they're whether they're in statutory form that's general or specific. It depends upon a case by issue by issue of proposal by proposal basis, and whether we want to continue with it or not so I mean it's an intriguing idea I've and I've, I've invited everybody to, to, you know, come up with creative ideas. I don't know if the Vermont realtors can point to a municipality in Vermont that would want to take advantage of this. So, there's a lot to be discovered or explored in this area. I think we should start with the people who brought it forward for us. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that. Yeah, I mean I'll let Senator Clarkson speak up by the only thing I was going to add I think that's exactly right and as a curiosity and the possibility that it may be another tool in their toolbox. A few towns have reached out to me, and I've copied the realtors just to say let's get on the phone. So I can hear you explain how this might add value to these towns and communities. I don't know where they come in, you know just because yes a lot of towns are now intrigued to see if this does give them flexibility and, you know, some forward momentum on blighted areas, but, you know, want to make sure I can't I'm not in a position to defend it as fully as the folks I think have seen this operating from colleagues in other states. Yeah, exactly. So we'll have them in I don't think we need to spend more time on on that one David. Okay, and may I just add, Mr chair, some towns are doing a version of this on their own. So I represent a couple towns that are already working on projects like this, and creating opportunities for exactly this and sometimes are just having to do it by, or, you know, by ordinance, you know, and by special referendum and so there's a range of the way people are trying to get at this. So I think beginning with the realtors is great but we can also have some other examples testify of how they're handling solving these challenges. So you and I'll talk we can identify some of the towns you're talking about and maybe have them come in as well. Okay. So, I have received word I've asked if it's okay that I push off my other committee meeting until 11, and I expect I'll need to be there for about 20 or 30 minutes and I can come back. Okay, if that works for you guys and I can try to do high level overview type introduction to the concepts for 20 minutes. And then I can come back to you to 1130 and talk about this and talk about 157 if that's okay. Okay, that's perfect. Thank you for suggesting that. Let's go. All right, so section three COVID-19 funding housing smart growth principles. So, this is a pretty simple section of session law, but it's it's got a big point, which is this, there's all this money going out. There's hundreds of millions of dollars in housing money planning money, design and implementation work on, and on all these different components related to housing. And this section basically is a place to say, everybody who gets some of that money needs to the greatest extent problem. So we'll design and implement award funds that in a way to ensure that they are consistent with smart growth principles and know some of those principles are listed here compact sustainable infill development, preserve open natural space protect natural resources, accommodate a variety of safe affordable transportation choices and expand the range of affordable housing. You know, obviously, this could be fleshed out and be more specific on how it would work, but I think, you know, people like DHCD, VHC be would have a lot to say about how this is implemented and what they're doing or not doing to be consistent with the purpose which again is to ensure that this money is spent in a way that promotes smart growth principles. So any questions. This is sort of like, in some ways, motherhood and apple pie, but I'm wondering, is it just a question of timing that we're talking about that for the, I guess it's to the sponsors of the bill that we're talking about these principles applying to people who receive COVID relief funds as opposed to any other grant funds. Asia. Yeah, I'm unmuting. I mean, I think. I think originally the overall impetus for some of these sections was hearing, you know, hearing the commissioners say we just give us the money that is coming through the door from the federal government and we want to get it out and this was a way to say let's get some guiding principles around that. But I think, you know, we, we don't know that we don't know the types of federal dollars we're going to get and if they're labeled as COVID federal dollars we don't know what money is coming so I'm very open to like is this too narrow at this point it didn't feel that way like six months ago but you know that's probably when we started drafting it. And may I just add, I'm assuming that all are incredibly enlightened agencies who know so much more about housing than most of us are already operating under this value and under this principle. So, there is no question in my mind that VHC be and DHC be, you know, everybody's operating under smart growth principles, but this sort of. I think just wants to say it out loud that any project and you know I would expend it to any, you know, anyway, we can discuss it but any COVID or build back better money that. You know, I think we should discuss that because really any, any major housing investment at this point should be being supported should be supporting our smart growth principles, anyone, but at this point in time, it is. I think just underscores that that is what we would hope. They are principles. I just get concerned and we'll talk more about if the section survives. You know, I would like to know the legal ramifications. I mean, are we setting ourselves up for, you know, an individual citizen going to court saying you didn't promote compact growth to the fullest extent possible. And this is a statute. So, you know, another alternative that might be a different approach. And I don't know if it would be equally effective is to, to have when these grants go out, you know, a template of some sort where, like we do for administrative rules where they say, how you've reached out to the public or how you've extended the ability in this rule. And so on each case they have to say, this is how we met these criteria so at least they're forced to look at and pay attention, but not necessarily have a litmus test of whether the project go forward or not. Anyhow, we'll talk more about it. So, right, let's move on. The next piece is been around for four or five years most recently I believe manifests in each 93 the homeless bill of rights. And this is, you know, numerous sections, rather than go through them each individually because they they appear in different places in the statute but in a nutshell this you're probably familiar with this is an anti discrimination bill and from work and employment to housing to places of public accommodation, etc. The purpose of this is to say that you can discriminate against a person based on their housing status. So, could you tell us David, I know that we really haven't touched upon this issue in our committee but I think there's been extensive work and Tom Stevens committee. Has there been, as far as you know any discussion of this in that committee. This year and how far did they get in previous years. I think that they, it was on their agenda this week. This is a bill that originally Luke worked on and Lucas since of course moved west and Damien has picked this up so at this point this is actually a Damien bill. And the last I saw he was on the schedule to discuss this with House General this week and that's really all I know. The only thing I would say is, I mean Tom Stevens and I worked on this together in House General in 2011. Certainly picked it up, you know more recently and I think, try to fine tune some of the sections that were struggled for shelters, etc. And I let them know informally the leadership of that committee that this was in the bill here so that might, I didn't know that had spurred them perhaps to look at it again to know that it's in conversation in both committees this time. Good. I want to apologize. Senator Ram Hensel for not being aware that you have been working for much longer than 2017 I was just trying to do a quick. 2011. It's come up in different as different bill numbers so I think 93 is the most current one but that could also be an error. The next few sections are each appropriations of federal covert funds for housing related purposes, whether incentives support services, etc. They are targeted at different areas. Obviously, the devil would be in the details and the dollars are something, you know commit that's what committees do but as concepts. Section five relates to first generation home buyers, right so this would be as of now, it's a it's 5 million through DHCD to work in coordination with VHFA and other stakeholders to design and implement a program to write grant not more than $10,000 for purchasing closing costs to first generation home buyers. First generation home buyers that's not the same thing as first time home buyers and that's a distinction I want to draw here. So, Senator Ram, I guess. Would this equally work in our downtown down payment assistance program and add this money there with a carve out for first generation home buyers do we need to. Can we just, at least that program has defined guardrails and parameters at this point. This is fairly open ended. And if we didn't do a lot more work on this, we'd be in that situation where we'd be just giving money over with. The administration design the whole program this is sort of like a, what we faced in like V hip and other programs that got money but didn't pass into law. Yeah, I think, you know, there is, if VHFA and Mara Collins come in to explain the, the areas where they feel like there's a big gap in the current tools they have available. And they might make the case in the committee might want to look deeper into this and make the language much more specific and functional to actually get to the people. It's supposed to get to me and this would mean 500, you know, grants for homeowners but more I would also be the first to say it feels like with the first generation, the first time home buyer tax credit. It's smaller, it leaves a lot of people behind to don't have other generational wealth to draw from to fill in the to put the pieces together. And this while we have the dollars let's make it a grant instead of a tax credit which also doesn't help everyone particular people who don't have generational wealth. So, she, I think could be a better champion for this knowing where the gaps are that she's been seeing. But of course I agree with you we don't want the money to be set aside and then language or not get to the right people so we had talked about the details being really important eventually how do you, how do you determine a first generation home buyer, how much money is a solid amount for that person and how do we get it quickly into the hands of people who are trying to buy their first home. Okay. We'll definitely have more in on that one. And, yeah, there are other parameters to to consider so I look forward to having more but I would always hope that this was done in concert with VHF as other programs so not to be created separately but to enhance and create more opportunity within that program. Right. And for more people and maybe in just, you know, anyway, there's, I think there's lots to discuss actually this. David, what time did you say you had to 1111. Okay, he has six more minutes or seven more minutes. Okay, let's keep going. Sure. So section six similar construct of federal dollars through the HDD, and this will be working with the HDD and stakeholders. So this relates to manufactured home relocation assistance. There's a lot more detail here starting on page 29. So this is money to for grants to help with moving abandoned homes building, you know, code compliant concrete pads for existing homes. So this small scale capital needs for mobile home parks. To is grant funds for rehabilitating existing substandard homes. You know, three and four sort of advocacy and marketing components of manufactured homes and promotion and support of those communities. Grants for common home repairs for sort of small scale. You know, just improvements that are necessary, not quite the same as rehabilitating substandard homes, rather helping with just the cost of maintenance and up the next piece, you know, we're identifying and providing funding for gaps such as ADA compliance, independent living accessibility, moving homes out of flood plains and other dangerous locations to new lots. So section seven, you know, supplementary fund for flood resilient communities, grants to buy out of flood plains also relocation services new infrastructure for new sites. Eight down payment assistance and purchase of high energy efficiency mobile homes to replace older homes. And the funding to parks themselves for, you know, basically park improvement and infrastructure beautification public space road of repair and maintenance etc. So that money, all flowing through DHCB and DHCB to help mobile home owners and mobile home parks in a lot of different ways. Thank you, Senator Ron for pulling this together. It seems like touching upon a lot of areas of concern for mobile home mobile home parks and mobile home tenants. Let's keep going have about four minutes for seven is money through the CD to design implement a program to provide matching funds on a per employee basis to employers with 25 or more employees. When that employer is providing housing for us workforce. So this is basically a matching grant program to help employers provide housing. I just want to say when we say provide housing that could probably be parsed a little bit more so it doesn't make it seem like we're incentivizing them becoming the landlord in any way but knowing that a lot of larger institutions are trying to put money toward the development where they know that their workforce could live without being the one holding the management or you know ownership of the property, or at least have articulated that this could really change the availability of housing where there's crunches due to institutions and hospitals and colleges. Are you familiar with any other state or municipality doing something like this, and whether it was brought to your attention at all in the form of a tax credit to employers, they can claim that they gave $5,000 towards a deposit or down payment and therefore they want to claim a credit. I mean there's a lot of different ways of incentivizing this and I'm just wondering. Obviously we all in this committee I think like the idea of incentivizing relocated workers and part of the targeting of that money goes to first month's rent deposits and things like that. This could get some matching funds from employers which I think is great. I sort of just, I just started with the need, you know that I heard that a lot of these housing crunches are in areas where there's an institution that you know has a lot of churn with people coming in and out, and they would be interested in helping be part of the solution, but could you seeing the state that you know has some skin in the game. So I, I mean, and you're, you're on finance so you know if a tax credit seems more, more feasible, because it's you know a but four kind of we wouldn't have this development that that could make sense I just think. Don't ever use the word but for this committee. Fair enough. Yeah. But no, we know like Bennington hospital is trying to buy units and yes that's a great idea if we can get partnerships with some of these things by offering some incentives is definitely worth considering. Yeah. I got about one more minute until I have to pop out and I can come back. But I'll try to finish up are you seeing section eight on the screen. Okay, so this would be a commercial property conversion incentive. That's basically DACD working with RDCs RPCs chambers, etc. To identify commercial properties that could be efficiently converted to residential use and provide grants on a per project basis to purchase rehab and convert those types of properties. Okay. Section nine is new American housing support services. So this is money flowing through DACD actually the contract with one or more entities to provide financial support translation legal technical services and other housing related services to Vermonters who are new Americans. Okay. So this is what he's right. It is an extension of some of the existing districts and I'm not even going to begin to try to. Okay. Perfect. We'll let you go David thank you so much just just worked out just hope actually. So let's let's take a 10 minute break now and we'll come back and hear from Chris if he's around. And then we'll talk about 157 when David comes back that's the home construction fraud bill and the house has now offered us in a proposed amendment. So, 10 minutes.