 Good morning. This is your general housing and military affairs committee in the Vermont State House Via zoom and we are Going to be working on s237 again today we started to have a pretty lengthy conversation about this yesterday and I want to take we have a double session today between now and noon and then noon 30 Until two before we start dealing with the budget in another zoom meeting So I really want this to be considered a work session We know where people stand on each of the topics so far whether you support it or don't we're pretty aware of That but this is to try to work through some of the language to make sure that at the very least the language is right And that the policy that we're talking about is where we can get it to a point of voting it up or down so With that we also are under the the knowledge that Ellen may have to leave us so actually I think I'm gonna have to try to actually Mike. Will you be able to bring up? S237 as a shared screen Yes, I can do that. Okay. That's gonna be the easiest thing to do rather than try to have me do that But I wanted to start off today because with Commissioner walk who is here to follow up on some of the testimony that he gave last Friday on the Tri-park mobile home section of the bill and we also I don't know if it's been shared yet I if it's not then I'll get it to I'll get it to Mike to share There's a suggestion of language that perhaps the commissioner will have the suggestion of language that we're looking for So with that commissioner welcome back and the floor is yours Great. Thank you representative Stevens for the record Peter walk commissioner of the Department of Environment conservation I really appreciate this the changes of the language that have come about over the last two days I think it really closely matches what what I've asked of you in the testimony last week There are a couple of things that I would recommend and I think There's a fair amount of alignment with what you may hear from erhard later I just want to comment on a couple of things in his draft as well if there if that would be helpful Just to help clarify things for you The incident we're talking about section 10 the mobile home park infrastructure piece The I appreciate the the the removal of the relocation component as that's not Supportable by by that funding source. It's something certainly my department is supportive of generally And I have been just just for the committee's awareness been in touch with the with Vermont emergency management about the potential for using hazard mitigation grant Program moneys to support that effort because that's really what that program is designed for in many ways is to take those known hazards You know flood hazards or buildings and flood hazards or people in flood hazards and figure out ways to address them in advance of the next Flood flooding issue and so my hope is that that will be helpful it can be a Slow process, but at the master planning work that the that try park and the time I've ever done it will really advance I've really set them ahead of the rest of the process So the only the only change that I'm recommending to your your existing draft for For section 10 at there to the the first is In a one You discuss to allowing for improvements to wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs We would recommend including drinking water in those needs as well Because that is a another component that is a challenge for the community and one want to make sure that we're addressing all of those potential pieces The the second proposed change that I that I would recommend to the committee Is in a three Where it talks about mobile home parks and other small communities? And I think this is where there's alignment between what you'll hear from Aaron later Our perspective is that that we should stick to the focus on the mobile home parks other small communities could mean anything to anybody And we really are focused on all you know all communities in Vermont already And if we want to give mobile home parks the specific focus that they they want we recommend striking and other small Communities from a 10 a 3 The the open question and one I would Advise you to leave the language the same But you know, it's it's more of a it's not a policy disagreement It's more of a sort of a question of how are we going to? You know sort of do the best that we can for this community the in in a one There is a There's a question about whether or not we should include loan forgiveness as part of the tools available to us I want to be clear that as part of restructuring, which is how the language is currently Stated we believe that covers the possibility of loan forgiveness whether or not loan forgiveness is available is a is a Open question at the moment and not one that we fully control it is a question of legal authority that the EPA has to weigh in on as well as whether or not we have Subsidy available So it it's a I'll try to stay at the 10,000 foot level But essentially every year when we get our Grant from the EPA that helps flat fund the the revolving loan programs We have a certain component of that that can be used for quote-unquote subsidy essentially for loan forgiveness and other tools that we use to try to help Communities that really need that support to be able to move forward with projects so We can we can only offer loan forgiveness if there is Subsidy available in the year In which those loans were given still remaining And so it's a bit of a process to sort through whether those exist and whether they've Potentially been committed elsewhere as we have lots of needs around the state and so we just Want to make sure that we're we're we will evaluate all of our potential tools to help this community Um, we just we think restructuring sort of accounts for all of that work I would encourage you to stick with that language The only other component that I would add to that and maybe it's you know, if you do decide to use the the forgiveness language to make sure that it's not a restructuring or forgiveness We'd like to be able to bring all of our tools to bear and the or language suggests to me that it's one or the other And so I would rather have it All of our tools be available to us, which is one of the other reasons why I would like to stick with restructuring Um, and then if if I may I I didn't mention this in in my contact to you this this morning but the for For the river corridors and and flooding language um, I appreciate the it now reflecting the um, the the actual the the rule Uh, there's been a rule and having that cross-reference work. Um, it might be simpler um To simply reference that that it's that the project is with or the building is located within a river corridor as mapped by a and r Or within a flood hazard area as mapped by fema um, that's clearer the rules kind of get to that in a backwards fashion, but it is um, not necessarily As direct and explicit as it could be and it will help, uh, make sure that Um, those potential applicants are have kind of clarity on what we mean So we map river corridors fema rep maps flood hazard areas If it's in either one of those Then the project would be eligible Does that make sense? So what we would what I would recommend is um That it's with it within an area located within a river corridor as mapped by the agency map resources or Within the flood hazard areas mapped by fema And and remove the reference to the rule. I think it gets to the same place I think it provides more clarity for More potential applicants for these for these, uh, tax credits All right, and are you in this section that is that deals with tri park or in the earlier qualified flood mitigation project definition In the qualified flood project mitigation mitigation project that uh, as you see on your screen now That's that's the area where this that it would come to play So actually i'm looking at this this language and it says okay online 15 and 16 says located within an area subject to the flood hazard area and river corridor rule or within the flood hazard area as mapped by the um by fema um Is there such a thing as a flood hazard area and river corridor rule? Or is it's what you're asking for is to say Is to cut this reference that's highlighted right now and say to say within an area subject to um mapping conducted by by The flood hazard area is mapped by fema um and The and the areas I don't know what the proper name would be that are mapped by the state Uh, sure and I can provide I can provide this language. I can show it to you now if you if you like um, it's it's simply referencing that the jurisdiction of the flood hazard area and river corridor rule which does exist is there Refers to the mapping work that we do right so jurisdictional triggers are the the maps that are produced And so rather than refer jurisdiction for your you know, sort of eligibility to the rule It makes more sense to refer to the maps which establish jurisdiction for the rule if that makes sense um So it so it rather than saying as it stands now what I recommend it say is qualified flood mitigation project means any combination of structural and non structural changes to a building Located within a river corridor as mapped by the agency of natural resources Or within the flood hazard area as mapped by fema And and make it really crystal clear for everybody Those maps are all available online. They can go on and see what they're what whether their project's located in one of those areas And whether they're eligible Okay Representative Gonzalez has a question Thank you. Um, I had a question back in terms of the restructuring the loan restructuring and um, you answered a little bit but just to get crystal clear on it in I'm not hearing opposition to adding A language about loan forgiveness as long as it's inclusive and provides the flexibility Based upon what the rules allow and all of that Yes, I think as long, you know, the The the loans to the extent possible language really provides us with, you know, sort of the legal flexibility to do what what's available to us Um, I just yeah, I I want to make sure that we don't limit ourselves Um, so if it I am comfortable with whatever Approach you take provided that you're aware of that as a potential challenge and It doesn't limit us our ability to to do a number of things because usually we can bring to bear a number of tools That use the overall premiums Great. Thank you. So that's restructuring and for forgiveness rather than or That's what you had mentioned earlier Yeah, and you might you might say including consideration of restructuring and Loan forgiveness of those loans, right so that it's that we're considering using both I rather you know, just I think saying and As it states now Suggest that that can definitely occur and it may not be able to occur for For all or of those loans. So just based on where as of the considerations I've said before so That's that's my only my only feeling I you know, Ellen's capable hands can draft language that matches that intent But that was really my Okay, thank you. Please do Ellen. Um, just take that note, please um All right committee any further questions for commissioner walk up so we can let them go Okay, seeing none. Thank you commissioner. Um, we will um, I mean, I don't think the change is suggested by um Advocates is too far beyond what we just talked about but we'll take a look at those when those get posted and um, I would like to call on Representative Dolan if I could um and ask her thoughts on this material in um In this particular case car carry. Are you there? Yes, I am. Thank you And and and good morning commissioner walk Like my question I do have a follow-up question if I may on section 10 um, and just for my own clarity I didn't quite understand that the initial change I think it had talked about The original bill and perhaps this language is still in place, but it talks about the implementation of the master plan and the deerfield river and lower Connecticut river tactical basin plan Which is more about the relocation of the tri park um mobile home facility fundamentally because The location of these homes Are in the fema floodway which is considered the highest risk section of a river corridor high uh to future flooding and so how how would we kind of reconcile the recommendations contained in the tactical basin plan about actual relocation and uh and and with the Alternative which is just to to try to harden the current homes that are in place Typically, we we we try to to accept possible to to move people in safer areas and flooding oftentimes exposes where we have the highest risk properties and and I know uh this area is um has a notorious reputation for flooding on a frequent basis Sure. Thanks for your question representative One conversation about this last week The the intent of the tri park master plan contains two two main topic areas. One is the relocation of those homes outside of the the floodway the other is a addressing the the cost and essentially the overall revenue impacts to this community That the loans represent and the ability of the state to help reduce those costs What we talked about on on thursday or friday last week. Sorry. They all run together at this point Was the fact that the srf uh dollars weren't available for the relocation um, we're not opposed to The concept of relocation. In fact, we're supportive of it and which is why we've been reaching out to the To see if there's an opportunity To leverage those resources as you know, well Um to see if that's a pot of money that could be used to do exactly what is called for in the master plan at least that component of it the the What we're talking about here is what can we do to reduce the costs that the tri the tri park currently bears Uh that are related to its water and weight, you know water and storm water and and drinking water infrastructure and then how we Um how we address that and so that's that's why those two things have been somewhat separated out. It's not a question of lack of support Um for the effort, it's a question of the way it was previously drafted It suggested that the srf should be used for the relocation And and that's not an eligible expense Um, and as I went back and reviewed the master plan uh on friday The um it that wasn't actually what the master plan called for it called for a funding source to be named later Uh to help with that and what I would suggest is that most appropriate funding source may be the Heather mitigation program, which does allow for the buyout or relocation of Of homes or mobile homes in this context Thank you for that that clarification Yes, I I do understand that Uh the srf hasn't been used for this purpose, but um, but certainly the After typically post flooding is when those funds typically become available for relocation But I know every year we have some Some funds due to the frequency of flooding in the hazard mitigation fund Uh under department of public safety Department of public safety, so it would be helpful to flag that funding source for Um possible relocation, so thank you for that clarification And and just just to further clarify the the money that i'm talking about is the hazard mitigation program, which is irrespective of Uh a actual flooding event obviously there's some relationship to those flooding events because there's an indication that it is a hazard and an ongoing hazard it to me this is about the The hazard mitigation program is about looking forward. How do we prevent the next flooding event from happening? um, and so it is generally not tied to the An actual the the money coming from an event and so that that's where I think That in his work I did reach out to center ballot and representative long to sort of discuss the possibility of this As a path forward and I'm happy to work and help facilitate that process to make sure that we get to that second leg of Of the plan and that tactical the master plan a tactical ways to plan Um to get to that um that relocation component so All right, uh, thank you representative dole and representative. Um commissioner walk. Let me On line eight you had suggested is it line eight that you had suggested to allow for improvements to drinking? Water comma wastewater and stormwater and infrastructure needs. Is that what you had suggested? Yes, please and that I mean, I'm noticing down on line 15 that that lines up with the drinking water state um plan is that right? Yes, and I believe at least one of the loans to the park Or to the town on behalf of the park is a drinking water loan. And so it should reflect that full sweep representative dolan I think this is one of those um situations where we have as a state struggled periodically across the state with communities having homes in way in in floodable or flood prone prone areas and one of the one of the historic issues that we've been grappling with over time has been Making improvements to water drinking water wastewater in these areas that only are to get flooded in the future and it would damage those public investments and what it's why relocation is the most cost effective solution um, but yet we've made these improvements in in other places and in brown boroughs as well uh Water wastewater improvements in homes in flood plains I want to flag that because that is um something that historically the state has been trying to get away from because you're actually exposing the state from making uh investments that only get damaged and thereby questioning whether that's a smart use of of limited funds um You know, I think fundamentally we all want um to provide for safe water and drinking water and wastewater services, but we we um also want to keep people safe and to to um Ensure that our investments are done in a real thoughtful way so as to make sure they're Achieve the long-term benefits we seek. So I want to just flag that That um those two lines there so flagging it for To really think about well flagging it again from a I mean this language is specific to um, it's specific to the tri park master plan and and what's been going on there For the last eight or nine years in particular. Are you talking about a larger? um, are you talking about a larger policy issue a statewide policy issue or something just related to this particular? um, this narrow instance Because this doesn't create a precedent for I mean it can create a precedent, but it doesn't create um The language is pretty limiting right here to to the tri park stuff or can you help me out with there? Yes, you're you're correct in in that you've identified the that this language is specific to one occasion, but it is incremental And it reflects yet one more example where the state is putting state resources into areas that are flood prone and and with potential for flood damage and so I I mentioned that is Something we should be concerned about There's a there's a balance there of how to Ensure that we're making We have such a demand statewide for a water wastewater services And we want to serve um all homes with that need yet We also need to be thoughtful as to where we're putting those limited state dollars um to ensure that we're not investing in areas that are Uh could potentially result in higher costs from from flood recovery So I would I would uh, thanks karen. I agree with you completely and sort of in concept If we're talking about the construction of a new wastewater facility or wastewater infrastructure In the floodway or in any of the you know, sort of Surrounding area that might be a different piece what what I understand to be the issue we're trying to fix essentially there are high cost loans that the that the park is currently obligated to that they would That they are looking for relief from the state to see if there's an opportunity to make those existing loans More cost effective for them and that's so it's it's not new infrastructure on the ground it's uh, it's work that's been previously done and therefore needs Uh, they're looking for some relief and so we're happy to look to see if that relief is possible um, I I I would not support the the construction of of expensive new infrastructure in the in the floodway Yeah, I agree with you that the the most appropriate uh approach is to is to uh relocate those loans But we're just talking about it is the existing loans themselves I'm gonna have to apologize. I do have to to leave to attend to another matter But um, I am available and happy to come back if you have questions or need further assistance throughout your, uh, your Work on this bill and trying to get it accomplished. I know where you know I appreciate you coming in clarifying. I think we're going to take a quick look at the language that was proposed through Um, the advocates through gen or through gen holler. Um, I think it's going to be pretty Close. I think there's going to be a conversation about the small communities um Um, cure, you know, I'll be curious to know and and maybe we can talk about that concept at a different time, but just that idea of why Why take out small communities if we're dealing with, you know, areas that are riverside um In the future, you know, it's areas that are riverside but are not mobile home parks um I think that's what we're talking about but I I I do appreciate that it's not precise So I'd like to find out what why that language was was put in So thank you Thank you. All right, um All right, Mike, can you take the the the bill down for the time being? Um And I I did want well carry you have to leave in a minute, right? Yes in about 10 minutes or so. Okay. Um, chris concord is here And while we had um representative dolin hadn't had the question about the use and um The the use about, uh The tax credits and how they may be you were curious about how they might be used or misused And I wanted chris concord and who who manages the who has at least I don't know what if if he's still managing the tax credits upfront But he has extensive experience with the management of those tax credits chris if I was wondering if you could take a minute while we still have Bill will stand on on the tax credit question Yeah, absolutely. Um chris cocker from the department of housing and community development. Thank you for having me. Um, I for several years I administered the state's downtown and billet center tax credit program um the program was aimed at increasing the vitality of our community centers because um the financing to make these building improvements just didn't pencil out Um as representative dolin knows well, we did extensive studies um post-irene on how do we keep our centers active and strong in In with the the risks that are inherent, you know, we are getting warmer and wetter We do know the next flood is going to happen. Um, it's just a matter of when um at the time post-irene this was uh considered as An an opportunity to do hazard mitigation use the tax credit program to do hazard mitigation It's a fairly limited pool of eligible applicants. So it is it is just commercial buildings So these are income producing buildings within our existing village centers Um, these are places that are not going to move in any time soon and in many cases They are located on managed channels. I think an easy example for everybody to understand is Montpelier Montpelier is a riprap channel It is never going to move the the meander of that stream is never going to be restored It is unlikely in our lifetime without significant federal money that Montpelier will ever move So the option you're left with is if we know another flood, it's going to come And you know, this is going to cause significant business interruption and threaten life and property What steps can we take right now to make these communities more resilient? They do need to plan ahead. They do need to make these investments There's kind of post-irene. There's a fatigue and there's been less interest in making investments to make your building safer And what this was intended to is to target in these very specific areas that are critical to our Culture brand and economy. How could we make these buildings safer and better prepared for the next flood? So when when the next flood does happen, they bounce back quickly and they're not completely devastated for six months Sorry Sorry, I mean I There's so much traffic going on outside with road construction that I just Find myself muting more often than I did a few weeks ago. Um, and then forgetting So representative Dillon, do you have um follow-up question at all before um for chris? Uh, thank you chris and good to see you again I I do would encourage the committee to put specificity then with respect to this tax credit When you uh indicate in that bill, I don't have the most current language But the senate version included non structural and structural improvements and as I uh had mentioned yesterday That can be interpreted pretty broadly. There are uh improvements that are considered Strategies to help to flood proof buildings But they could in fact exacerbate flooding flood hazard risks or erosion risks on adjacent properties downstream and I appreciate that the explanation by um, mr. Cochran. I would encourage the language to Then specify that the improvements we're talking about are in building improvements such as elevating Utilities for example is uh, is it is One flood proofing strategy that wouldn't necessarily change the or heighten The flood hazards on adjacent properties chris You're out. Um Sorry, uh, if I could add all these changes are going to be regulated by the municipality That has duly adopted flood plane and hazard mitigation ordinances, which say you can't increase the risk to downstream properties So I I think it's a fair concern, but I do think it will be administered through the local bylaw Um, if I may, um Chair I I agree with you However, only about 50 or so states have more than uh the fema minimum flood flood plane bylaws Let risk bylaws and thereby They're somewhat narrow in scope Uh and wouldn't necessarily address some actions such as placement of a berm for example along a riverbed riverbank or Some sort of diversion At that facility even though under fema rules you would still need to conduct An elevation study to determine whether those actions would cause or contribute to the height of water I think the biggest risk what we've experienced in vermont are erosion related impacts what we call fluvial erosion hazards Which are not mapped by fema Not part of the flood hazard bylaws that are the minimum standards And I again would encourage for clarity's sake that you would specify the type of Flood proofing would be building building related only for to qualify for these tax credits Okay, we have a question. Um, are you okay right now chris? Yeah, I understand the good turn. Yes Okay, thank you representative consolis um And my question was actually for ripson of dolan and um, she just kind of answered that and just in terms of the suggestion for the specificity and so what I heard was um, your recommendation is that the language is building only um Flood mitigation projects So, yeah, okay um any further comments on this section at this time being with um Carrie and with representative dolan and um All right. Well, thank you, Carrie for for stopping in and um, good luck for the rest of the day We'll see you at least in thumbnail size in a couple hours Thank you. And if you have any further questions, I um, I'm be happy to on other portions of the bill I'd be happy to have those conversations as well Okay, and and Sure, and I just want to request if you do have time to if you have specific sketched ideas about what you Of the comments that you were just making in terms of where it would fit exactly in the language that as it exists right now um That would of course would be helpful too Great. Thank you Good to see you all take care All right. Um, so we're back to um S237 and Are we satisfied with leaving this section alone for the time being? Or do we want to talk about where we want to I mean to see it sounds like there's just a couple of language things That we would need to clean up in order to take care of this bill. That's brattle borough area specific. Um Does anybody have thoughts on it? Right now, I mean we had a couple suggestions from the commissioner the language that was Posted actually why don't we just go right there right now? Um, like if you could post the language that is uh From gen holler that that talks about this same language that would be helpful All right, so scroll down Okay, so um So I think in this particular language what i'm seeing is that on line three What the commissioner requested was and forgiveness not or in this language of The other small communities So this would make it specific to um mobile home parks and The other thing that the commissioner was requesting was that we add Improvements specifically to the town of prattle borough and the tripod cooperative That um to allow for improvements to drinking water comma Waste water and storm water infrastructure needs Um representative dole unfelt slightly differently about that and she asked us to flag it. So here it is flagged Do we have thoughts on this or we find adding drinking water to this particular language? I'm not seeing any um hands raised so I would um And I guess I would have one last question for chris cochran on this section um about the date for the report that's a conventional reporting date And um in section b And i'm just curious to know if that still works Or do you need to go out to april 15th? Um that date is fine Okay, thank you representative howard Oh, i'm sorry. I just wanted to say I agree with adding no drinking water. Sorry about that No, that's fine Thank you Okay, so this is section 10 I don't have um Mike so let's go back to section 10 then so ellen do you have these ellen are you still here? Yep, so do you have those suggestions? Yes I'm gonna be looking for s237 on my computer for a minute here. Um Because there is more At the end of this bill There are two studies. Well, let me go let's First of all, we we talked about this study Actually, I'm sorry Under the vermont housing incentive program. This is on um Mike this is at the very end. This is the last section of the bill There is a section on the vermont housing incentive program. That is something that we know from H7 39 we had a conversation about it But what it it actually ended up as a 6.2 million dollar program in the coronary relief fund COVID response at h9 66 and so I don't think that this is Um Necessary right now. Um, and so i'm just putting it on the table if we're okay with Um cutting it Anybody has any thoughts about it? Um, um, this is Yeah Um, I got a feedback from josh Our commissioner handford on this and he said if possible the governor's office would like to keep this provision enabled um for future use I explained to him some of the challenges and Um about enabling something without money. Um, but he asked that it be kept. Um, so just Passing that on thanks I'm sorry. So that request came via um the commissioner Um, the governor's office via the commissioner. Yes, okay Representative hanko Thank you. Um, could you please point to where that program is in this bill? I'm not finding it in the copy that i'm looking at but I might be looking at the wrong draft so Um, it is not in the draft that I posted yesterday. It's in the bill as it came over from the senate Thank you Um, and I guess at this point Um, I just want to make a comment that we're really taking a leap of faith because a lot of this is out of our area of expertise So it was helpful to have representative dolin here and the commissioner because much of this language is is foreign to some of us and um, we're really Kind of leaving it in their hands to craft the appropriate language in terms of water quality, etc Thank you. Okay. Does anybody so we have um Representative by wrong Yes, I just what copy are we working off of right now? Yeah, I'm I'm so I'm gonna take responsibility for this when I was talking to ellen and then she presented the um She presented the uh strike all amendment I had put in my notes to delete this section because we had already done the program and I'm Going back to right now. I'm going back to the bill as it was passed through um the senate because these sections still exist and and We need to go over them and decide as a committee whether to cut them or not and so um So find your senate find your find your senate version passed. Okay. Yes. Is that right ellen? Yes, sorry Yeah, no my apologies for that confusion. Um So ellen actually can we work? So ellen i'm gonna ask you then um if i'm looking at Right now i'm looking at the senate as passed And what was um What was section 23 is about the vermont housing incentive program? And that is not in our current version of the bill. So I just want um And you didn't write that section that's david's david wrote that section. This is pretty much lifted directly from 739 Um, uh, yeah david wrote it. So I don't know specifically right so the question We'll have to answer about this section is If any revisions have to be made to it in order to just make it I don't know that I know that there was a request in this and um We will um To have to take a look at it to make sure that it has um Doesn't have to be changed If this is just remains enabling legislation um Section 22 ellen did that stay in the in the new bill and which was the vermont state treasurer credit facility for local investments Yes, that is in the strike all amendment. It's section 11 and it's on page 19 Okay, and the point of this section once again was to um Take away the specificity of the amount authorized And was written to say the treasurer may use amounts available To provide financing for infrastructure projects in vermont mobile home park So this tags along with the section on Not I mean it goes beyond the brothel borough tri park But this has to do with her being able to develop programs that are um For these purposes We haven't visited this section since we had the walkthrough So i'm just double checking to make sure that I have the um What that new language authorizes? Um, and I did not draft this section either. So I am not I don't have a deep understanding of it, but it is It's yes, I didn't change it from as it passed the senate in the new strike all actually ellen can I just pass Something on I mean and I again i'm a pot. I apologize committee. No the representatives out There's clearly not a clean copy of what we're considering because I just brought up a section That came from the senate bill because it was in I inadvertently left it out of my request for the strike all So if we want to go back to the strike all and ellen if there's any other sections that I That I that especially that had to do with studies Then and then let's just stick to the strike all amendment, but if there's anything left in there For instance, there was a study about short-term rentals. Um, we've had a request to say let's not do that It's it was actually Most of what's being asked for was just done in a needs assessment that was issued by the housing finance agency um There is a study about uh elder housing That I don't know Because I don't have it in front of me is um, is that in the strike all? ellen I can't hear you. No, I don't think so All right Yeah So I'm just I'm just again apologizing that I that I requested those things to be cut And I just want to make sure that we're talking about them. They were requested They were they were they've been identified by numerous sources as being um Uh either redundant The there is language in the elder vermoner's act that talks about elder housing So many of the same issues are going to be dealt with in that study it provided it passes Um, the department has talked about not having the capacity to do uh, some of these some of these reports certainly not by january 15th And so our question the the question I have going back to those which are not in the strike all amendment are um Can we um are in the senate? as passed So ellen we have a request in the chat. Can you email the senate? As passed to us so that we can see it And then we're going to stop conversation on that particular bill and we'll return to it later and we'll just stick to the um We'll stick to the uh strike all amendment And I will try to find a version that I can actually look at All right, mike. I just tried to go on that link that you that you just shared and um It did not work Or it was not found I apologize unless ellen's actively doing it right now I could email it shouldn't it be on our shouldn't it be on our our legislative page The strike all is on your legislative page data the original version if we go back a couple of weeks is going to be on our legislative page, right? It is This is so irritating my apologies. All right. I finally found my own copy of the of the draft dated September 8th Okay, I just emailed the as passed the senate version and I think I got all of you actually maybe I missed One or two of you so let me So I just send it to your emails. Let me know if you didn't get it I think mike just sent it to me. Oh, okay Because I definitely didn't get yours ellen. Thank you. Okay Yeah, okay. Well, then hopefully between the two of us you should have gotten it at least once All right, and again, we'll return to I'll I'll do better homework and and have The sections that we just need to we need to talk about from there when we come back from lunch But this is we all right. So let's go. Um, it's all Okay, again my committee, are we going to be more comfortable just working from start to finish rather than I had it in my head that I would be able to handle Going backwards and go over the sections that I think are pretty That we've that we've considered are fairly non-controversial that are in this bill and then return to section two and the connections to that so, um I Let's throw out some thoughts here about what's going to be easiest for us to deal with start to finish or or Or something different anybody can just sort of chime in I need to start all over again because I am definitely not comfortable with where we are right now That's why I'm stopping. Thank you And and I'm wondering um, and I don't know if this would be more work than is possible in the time frame that we have but That uh, sometimes when we've had Multiple sections of bills like this. We have had the lawyer on On the bill just do a top level for each of the sections so that we can see it all um Kind of all in one place Uh, and so I don't know if that would be something that people would find helpful as we kind of go again through it to see okay, we the We agree on xyz We don't need to dive into it. Oh, what is again? ABC yes, we need to dive into it. And so I wonder if that That would be helpful for us as a group So let's start at the top Okay, and then I do want to not get hung up on section two Because that's a longer deeper Conversation and we need to we need to be really sharp about it. And I again people have shared their thoughts on it We know where the flaws are we know we made improvements after yesterday, but um, I'd like to just Leave that conversation for for later and just so let's start with ellen. Let's start with section one And as suggested by representative Gonzalez if you could just Remind us what section One is and what it does And then we can quickly discuss the elements of it that we remember from our testimony And did you want me to start with section one of as past the senate or in the proposed strike all? I think they're both the same in section one, but No, the senate as past I mean this operates as a strike all amendment. So let's That that that I left stuff out of so let's use this because it's available to everybody right now and um The the loss that we have is that is that maybe some stuff hasn't highlighted But if you can just go by the line numbers in case and so i'm seeing line 19 and 20 are the Are the areas in section one that are changing Is that right What uh line 19 and 20 I'm sorry again, um I'm having some technical difficulties here, obviously. Um The changes that were in the senate Let's Where were the changes that happened in the senate? Let's just right there starting right there. So again, I was 19 and 20 is is where we start sure so So section one We're in we're talking about the municipal plan requirements. And so the first amendment to the the town plan requirements is the addition of water lines facilities service areas and sewage disposal lines facilities and service areas to the utility and facility map as part of a municipal plan And what else in this section was notable And so the only other change in section one is the is Adding is changing the reference in subdivision 10 from Under current law There's a requirement that the housing element should comply with the provisions of the the adu provisions But we've brought in the language to say the program shall comply with the requirements of 44 12 Which includes the new inclusive development provisions? And what we heard about this is some people felt like we wanted they needed to keep this private And we also heard that it is every other element of planning that has been Fit into this category has gone off fairly seamlessly and that And that this bill allows for an opt-out so That's where this section is. Does anybody have any Questions on this representative zot I just had a question my recollection was that there seemed to be some concern also for witnesses about The cost of producing this information Did I Am I miss remembering remembering that? Uh, my memory is that the uh testimony About the money that it costs to map period is very expensive and that the notion of Not just this but the perspective Um, which is existing language, right? It's prospective community facilities and public facilities This is adding the the water and sewer supplies to that requirement and so So the the the answer is Yes, it's an existing problem For communities And so there's no proposal of Funding to help communities with the expense. No, there's there's funding that's always available Through as much as we as much as we allocate money for them, which is always never enough But there is money to for planning grants or our or there are applications or opportunities For funding not necessarily for the funding of the whole project But certainly for the planning portions of it and for I mean every facility takes on Every municipality seems to take on it's You know the expense that that this occurs and they there's a way to fund it. I think if if Chris Cochran has a Um, a more complete way of what the process is and how it's funded Please share Chris Cochran for the department again Yeah, I would just like to clarify. This is not Requiring engineered maps or drawings for anything about scale. It's just requiring basic, you know lines And where they're going and the reason this tier is in an earlier version of this bill that Was removed it talked about Municipalities and I think you heard this from a witness taking control of the water and wastewater connections in their community And this is one of the most expensive assets the community has And it seems logical to me at least that you know, if you're going to take on the management of this and this responsibility Which is which is something the municipalities Strongly say that they want you should be able to know where your where your sewer and water lines are so you can manage this asset The other part of the two is, you know, we want to link Growth To areas where we've made infrastructure investments And if you don't know where your lines are it's really hard to do that and the state does a great job Mapping natural resource areas and tells people where they shouldn't develop But this is trying to get it is showing areas where we can and should develop and this information is important Thank you Just to follow up to that. I just want to make sure because I I understand the rationale for it, which is I think More clearly what you articulated was the rationale what I was looking to find out is How much of an additional cost burden is this for municipalities? If at all because it sounds like You're indicating that it's not an a potential Increase in cost. I just want to know I think many municipalities have this already I don't have a sense of which municipalities do have this or don't have this so I can't really You know tell you specifically what the costs are going to be You know if municipalities needed assistance with this As the chair mentioned, you know, there is this municipal planning grant fund that could assist communities make update these maps as needed So if they don't currently have the information it would be an additional cost burden, but there are planning grants available Yes, sir that accurate Yes, sir Thank you a representative Hango Thank you. And one last question for mr. Cochran just to reiterate then that we really don't have a handle on How many municipalities may need assistance in this mapping? Is that correct? No, we do know which communities have sewer and water plants And a and r has mapped that off the top of my head. I want to say it's it's 60 communities And these are generally our our largest municipalities because they've been able to you know afford to make an infrastructure investment because they have a density that they need to support Um, but it is not every municipality. It's just the ones with these systems and it is just municipal systems It's not systems. You know that are fire districts oriented. It is just municipal So thank you for that. So do you think maybe it's safe to assume there are like, uh 150 small municipalities that may have water sewer systems or both That would need to engage in this type of mapping I have no idea. I think that number is incredibly high. I think when a and r mapped the communities that had sewer and water systems, and I will need to confirm it was in the range of 60 communities 60 that were mapped or 60 that they thought had 60 that that have public municipal sewer or water systems I miss under Yeah, whether they are our mapped or not. I do not know However, I would suspect given that there are larger our larger municipalities Most should have this information Which ones don't I can't answer that question. I just don't know. I'm sorry I know that's fine. I just wanted to clarify whether You actually said there were 60 that were already mapped And then I was extrapolating that there are about 250 In the state and maybe 50 of those were far too small to have any So I was giving it the benefit of the doubt that maybe there were 150 left to do their mapping But if it's 60 who actually have systems, then that's um a little bit of a different story So thank you for clarifying You're welcome Okay, further thoughts on section one. All right I'm moving on then to I guess section three Ellen if you can scroll us forward Section and Ellen and Ellen, how are you for time? Are you just how's that senate committee going for you? Uh, I drafted the amendment. They're gonna vote on it shortly. So I'm fine. Okay Um Did you wanted to skip to section so with that was section one? Yeah, do you want to jump to section Three is that what you're saying? Yeah, I like to bypass section two for right now. Thank you. Okay so section So in the version as passed by the senate section three is the language regarding Restrictive covenants and deeds And That is on page nine in the as-pass version And I moved it to section Wait, okay. Sorry So and the strike all proposal does not have any changes to that language But I did move it to section four And it's not so but I didn't change any of the language. So this um, so this language adds a new Statute in title 27, which is the I believe the property law title and so This is saying that for municipalities that adopt bylaws Implementing the inclusive development provisions Deed restrictions covenants and similar binding agreements New deed restrictions and covenants cannot be Cannot be added to get around these inclusive development provisions So it's invalidating provisions that would conflict with them So this goes hand in hand with section two It does. Yes. Okay. So then let's leave that there. That's it's um and Move to the next section, please And then section four Is the report on substantial municipal constraints Also related to section two Okay, and this is important in terms of the Uh remembering That and again, this won't that this is tied into sections two and three but this is um, if i'm not mistaken, this is saying this is Anticipating that this bill doesn't go that these bylaw requirements do not go into effect completely legally on the books until um 2023 as we've written the bill right now. So if we pass something right now on these bylaws and requiring municipalities to the Or enticing or whatever the case may be um municipalities to write these bylaws This report is to be issued at the onset of when this is going to take a take effect But it has this two-year period of where people are saying i can't do this or i don't you know We we as a municipality don't want to do this and they file this report um Yes, and so the department Uh so this section four is having the department of housing and community development come back and let the legislature know How many municipalities have also have already asked Um to opt out and say i we have uh municipal constraints Right and the and the state would want to apply the state would approve or deny But then they're taking this information And compiling it into a report. So in two years We'll know Not just which communities have have uh chosen to opt out but also why um, which which is has been an expressed goal of of Having this system in place of not just saying um You know we respect your you know your your choice to not do it or your inability to do it Um, and and we want to know why that's the case. So I think that's in am I getting that right chris Um one clarification. There's no approval or denial. You're just submitting the facts and the department is Is receiving that and then reporting on the information that the municipality shared with us So a town isn't applying to To be removed to They're just saying we can't do it We can't do it and here's the reasons why Okay, so the state doesn't again the state doesn't approve That they don't say we don't believe you they're going to say thank you and and take this information and move forward Okay, and the intent of this is to create, you know, we we have had housing barriers forever and you know Regulations is a part of the problem But it's also there are other barriers that we need to address And there's been no formal collection of the data and information needed to overcome these barriers So we would hope that this report would be an informative conversation to help municipalities Identify and remove barriers Okay, representative hango had a question Sorry having trouble unmuting myself. Um, so I have um a comment to call everyone's attention to the chat because um, we've We've heard from alex one garden that um It depends on our intent of this mapping. It could be um potentially costly And um, also chris. Thank you very much for correcting that the vlct Says that there are 92 facility or municipalities with um wastewater facilities not 60 and there there is an unknown number that have not been mapped So we do need to remember that there will be a significant cost regardless. Um, Which i'm sure municipalities will ask the state to contribute to So my question that those were my comments. My question is um opting out of the Opting out if a municipality Decides to opt out we heard early on that that municipality would then kind of fall to the bottom of the The pecking order in terms of certain tax credits and grants. Um, is this still the case? We have not changed that anywhere or proposed to change that language Is it can someone answer whether that's still correct? Well, chris. Yeah, um, yeah, I can answer. Um, there's there's no There's no disincentive for not for not You know meeting or not File there's if you file the opt out or not Um, there's no disincentive. What there is is for communities that are making progress Um on meeting the compliance. They are given preference. So I think it's it's, you know, it's a distinction Um, what that preference is and to the degree of preference is undefined Um in past programs, we've given communities a few extra points If they've met a statewide priority It's not going to make the difference between a project getting funded or not, but it may help a project on the bubble Thank you. That's a nice spin on that, but I'm Still going to say that they're probably not going to be eligible for everything that a community who stays in would But thank you Can I add one thing? I don't have my notes in front of me chris. And so I don't know if you have your notes, but this language regarding priority of incentives and funding actually appears in a few other statutes that exist already So this is a similar priority system that does exist That like chris was just saying and I did have the list Somewhere in this file is the list of other statutes that use a priority system like this So I don't know if chris has the list in front of him, but it is I would agree to say that it's sort of a point system that there are multiple areas under statute that exist where you could get a priority point So then if the um municipality Decides to opt out of several different things, you know, you're not you're not getting on the bandwagon So therefore you're probably going to get left behind I think that the carrot system that's in place are the incentive system with these designated areas Um, and the various state programs again, they've been in place for a very long time and the not the the feeling that someone is Going to get bumped to the bottom. I think it's misrepresenting a little bit about what how this process works Um, a community may have uh qualifications or may get points for other things But this is this doesn't take them from being oh, this must happen to it's never going to happen And I don't think any state priority program is like that is dependent on funding It is depending on on the quality of the application and the need and so I I just I'm going to push back and say that They're going to move to the bottom of the barrel Or the bottom of the list if they don't Achieve what's going on here. There are enticements here as as as it would said earlier These are incentives to move in this direction. They're not disincentives. You know, they're not penalties for You know for not joining the system. I just I just have to make make that clear Representative of wine hog and I'm sorry. I'm jumping the gun. You haven't been elected yet Thanks. Um, yeah, so this is Alex wineghan and I've been holding my tongue but doing a little chatting on the chat And just again, thanks for having me Legislatively as I'm for the vermont planners association Speaking on their behalf today. Also the director of planning and zoning for heinsberg Not speaking on behalf of the town but bringing that experience I just wanted to point out a couple things one that The way section four in the strike all amendment is is constructed which is similar to what the senate version was Um, these These provisions that uh, do not allow private covenants. Um to Prohibit activities and uses that the municipality allows through its zoning Is tied to whether or not Whether or not the municipality is in compliance with or Is addressing the The inclusive housing provisions And so to some extent that that's a little bit of a ding from municipalities that aren't So I agree that in general municipalities who File the report and are and are saying we can't meet those requirements Are not being negatively impacted But they are a little bit in this particular section and I would suggest that there's no reason that this this is breaking new ground With regard to private homeowners association covenants and making sure that they don't disallow things that the state has an interest in um with regard to housing Uh, I I would argue that we don't need to tie that to whether the municipality has adopted the inclusive inclusive housing provisions that That that could be disconnected and just Be a matter of state policy in the same way that the state disallowed Private covenants from limiting energy efficiency measures like um having a clothesline several years back Okay, thank you Oh and one other clarification just because uh representative hangover had been talking about the impact to municipalities for mapping water and sewer lines We just should be clear that there these opt-outs that we're referring to don't Don't have anything to do with that section of the bill Um, so those mapping requirements are requirements for a municipal plan Um, and there's no way to opt out of those the way this is structured You know, if if you are going to have a municipal plan, um, you'll need to do that mapping Which personally, I don't think is very onerous Or would include a lot of cost if the understanding is that We're not looking for highly precise or super accurate maps of these water lines But a general understanding of where they are And my my understanding is that is that um I guess I guess I have to phrase it if and when the municipal Municipalities gain control over their municipal systems in a way that's different from now That it makes Not just Legislative sense, but business sense to know where the lines are going. I mean that's that's I think what this is talking to am I am I misinterpreting that? Not at all and I I agree with with chris that it makes perfect sense For a municipality when they're creating a comprehensive plan to understand where your water and wastewater service areas are Where your lines extend to where they stop? And that all makes perfect sense. It's just I know as a municipal planner that are my own water and wastewater folks If I was to tell them that the state was now requiring a highly precise map Of where those lines are That could be construed as a as a as a large cost burden to do a whole lot of Understanding of where underground facilities are that they might not have but from a town planning standpoint whether the line is Specifically in front of this house in this location or perhaps is on the other side of the road Makes very little difference as long as it's a general understanding that there's a line that runs through that neighborhood In that general location and that it's within the service area Okay, um Representative zot and it is 11 56. So we'll pick up this conversation after representative zot unless We'll we'll see if we have time lisa for your question Yeah, this is just sort of tied into the most recent comments from the vermont planners association is And this is always a question. I think with legislation not knowing how Um, precise to be in the legislation itself So, you know, if the understanding is that it's just a general You know location of lines thing great But I just I just want to make sure that somewhere somehow that that is what is actually enacted and not Down the road a municipality finds out that they have to actually do these highly technical and precise Produce these plans and documents in a highly precise manner and in the same regard The opt-out provision unless it's addressed later in the legislation and I missed it As long as it is again, not a state understanding that all Unicipally has to do today that they're not participating and it's fine Um, and we specify that in some way Otherwise just kind of leaving it to these vague understandings, uh, you know trust but verify as mr. Reagan once said Okay, uh representative hanko I just wanted to build on that the comments about the Study of the mapping of the lines. I really cannot fathom that A casual mapping of the lines not knowing whether the house is on The east or the west side of the line is going to be helpful going forward. I unfortunately Have the pleasure of living in a house full of engineers and that would not fly So I I would be I would be hesitant to even recommend to a municipality that they do something that Is that casual in terms of going through a mapping process? And that's just a comment. I don't need Response. Thank you All right, um, and alex I suppose on a lighter note. I hope If my town which um Let's say they can't see my why but my water connection in what passes for my front lawn Her front yard here next to the sidewalk Uh, and they dig up the road and can't find my connection How much does that cost? How much does it cost to to find your connection to to dig wrong? Yeah, I can't give you an actual dollar amount, but it's um, it's not it's not inexpensive So it's certainly paced to know where your lines are But if you talk to the folks that manage these facilities, um, they will tell you that you you there are You do have to do some digging. Um, and that the precision of uh, of knowing exactly where our line is Um, just isn't there in all cases So there's no no we we experienced that on we experienced that very much in downtown waterberry and We're finally fixing it If we want to be worried about what points mean and priorities It only took 35 years for mean street to get redone. So, um Thank you, everybody. It's 11 59 go have a quick lunch and we'll see you back here at 12 30 Um quick question. Yeah But do we use the same link now to get back to the afternoon meeting? Mike is that how we set it up? um, so ron had set it up as two distinct meetings, but We can use the same You know, I don't know if we can use the same one or uh, I will so if we if everybody still has Mike if you could just send us all before 12 30 if you can send us another link, whatever it may be that would be um, the most efficient way Thank you. I'll send it to everyone that I see on the screen right now Thank you. You're welcome. All right. See you in a bit. Um, but including representative clacky as well because he'll be back For the afternoon session. Yes, correct. The whole committee. Thank you very much. Yeah, great