 Great welcome everybody it is Tuesday September 8th and this is the General Housing Military Affairs Committee in the Vermont State House and the Vermont General Assembly and we are here today continuing our conversation on S237 which is a bill that affects or that makes proposals to change some zoning law in our statutes in different sections. Today we have with us Jeff Weinberg from Rutland there, Hartmanka from Ruizky in Burlington and Jacob Hemric from who's at this in his role as working at DHCD. This bill as we know is fairly complex. We have heard quite a bit both verbal testimony and written testimony and I just wanted to thank the people who have written in to to share their thoughts with us all of that information is available on our committee website and it proved to be extensive reading for me this weekend in trying to formulate some potential language that we can start going over perhaps as early as this afternoon but probably tomorrow by the time we finish with testimony today of that reflects a lot of what I've heard and what we've heard both in written testimony and in verbal testimony that addresses some of the issues that have been sticklers in this and so that's what we're working on this week again we also did get S254 which is a bill about union organizing that went through the Senate. I know that the advocates and Tim Moonen from the Montlabel Relations Board worked together on to hammer out some language that was acceptable to the stakeholders we'll hear that about that perhaps later this week so with that I just want to start the testimony today with Jeff. Jeff if you could if you could just sort of give us a quick bio where you're working these days because your your bt is certainly well rounded and if you could just let us know what position you're testifying what hat you're wearing today and share with us your testimony that would be great. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I do much very much appreciate the opportunity to offer some comments on this legislation. I'm currently serving as and for the last six and a half years serving as Commissioner of Public Works for the City of Rutland in various periods on and off prior to that I served as mayor of the City of Rutland in throughout the 1990s and part of the 1980s when I had hair and and then between there I also served for a little less than five years as a DEC Commissioner under Governor Douglas and I've done consulting and a number of other things in the meantime and worn many hats this is true but today I'm representing my community and I would also like to offer just some comments or illustrations of concerns on some of the other zoning provisions I have communicated with our zoning administrator and mayor layer and they have authorized me to speak to those issues are a little bit out of my sandbox in terms of the public works responsibility if that's okay. The purpose of the bill is to promote access to affordable housing. A small as Vermont is the housing affordability crisis is not a statewide problem. The legislature and the media frequently kind of assume or tribute challenges found in a near Chittin County to every Vermont region and community but this is a classic example of that not being the case. In Rutland County for example households with just 80% of median household income can't afford a median price home today and while rental costs are high for a lot of people in our community they're substantially lower than they are many other areas of Vermont. The purpose of the minimum lot size mandate in the bill is to increase the density of housing in areas served by municipal water sewer. Since 2014 the city of Rutland has pursued a program of D densification in our northwest quadrant which was deteriorating due to the proliferation of single-family homes being converted into studio and one bedroom apartments along with proliferation of absentee ownership. The city the land trust neighbor works and have a debt for humanity have been working to acquire blighted properties and either demolish them or renovate them into owner-occupied single and two family homes. The program which has a lot of other features has met with substantial success reversing the downward trend and re-establishing that neighborhood as a desirable place to both live and invest and we have public opinion surveys that we've done periodically to document this. Another goal however was to reduce the oversupply of rental units especially the number of rental units that were not on the market but have been pulled off the market because of the the cost to operate them was unacceptable to a relatively small property owners that don't operate many many rental units and that intention of that was to increase the value of the remaining units and then enable private investment to improve the quality of rental housing you see our our biggest issue was the quality of rental housing not necessarily the cost. My point in telling you this is to illustrate that a statewide mandate designed to address affordability or encourage greater density looking at the two sides of this from our perspective will work to undermine the efforts that the efforts at the local level where challenges lie elsewhere and decisions such as promoting owner occupancy or addressing affordability through zoning really must be left to local governments. One-size-fits-all mandates can only result and inevitably will result in unintended negative consequences in some communities where the issues are different. Now on the man on the matter of mandated water and sewer utility mapping and municipal plans I have two concerns. Following September 11th 2001 US EPA and the Department of Homeland Security have advised utilities to remove site-specific information about these facilities from the public domain. Rutland actually had a good deal of this information on our website prior to that but have taken it down in conformance with this advice. I've provided in my written comments a link to an EPA publication titled baseline information on malevolent acts for community water systems. That sounds kind of scary and I think it's intended to. The mandate to provide this type of information I'm not talking about service area maps I'm talking about detailed infrastructure maps. The mandate to provide this is contrary to the advice in that document. Now we have no objection as they just said to publishing service area maps as part of the municipal plan actually that's a very good idea but we do object to pipes and facilities and those kinds of that kind of information but for smaller communities this could as I understand it represent a significant cost as well. Most Vermont water and sewer utilities are very small. These are very small number of customers and they typically lack the GIS mapping and digital data capabilities that we possess and that larger systems possess. So I would urge you I urge the committee to heed the advice of Vermont rural water, Greenmont water environment and the league regarding the impact of these requirements on the very small communities and the small utilities. Now I have from time to time it's I think many members are aware sad and seats that are similar to the ones that you occupy so I don't want to just give you a list of all the things not to do. I'd like to make a few positive suggestions and here are a couple. A large reason housing costs are more than many can afford in lots of Vermont is the existing state regulations which discourage construction of new housing by the private sector. Purchase prices and rents necessary to support new construction typically can only be afforded by higher income individuals leaving the the really demand market the market that we really want to meet which is middle and lower income people without new housing or competition for housing because it's not being developed privately. Section 17 in the bill calls for a statewide housing study really focused on the agent but that I think could be expanded to ask for a study of state environmental and other requirements that add cost to housing development with limited environmental or other benefits and I guess that gets me to the point of pointing out that there's some very good examples of addressing exactly this issue in H926 which contains the provision to eliminate duplicate and costly state permits for water and sewer utility connections and exempts designated downtowns from active 50 jurisdiction. I mean those are good examples of things that the legislature has direct control over that would not interfere in and of itself and and try to do something with zoning which is very much a local effort to try to solve a problem that is not ubiquitous although it is widespread and I think that the before we layer new mandates on municipalities we should very much look to reduce affordability or increase affordability by reducing any state requirements that work counter to that and that arguably either could be handled locally or don't provide a benefit that justifies the burden that it imposes. So I mean that's some of my remarks I also submitted earlier today a written version pretty close to what I just said which is I believe available on your website right now. That's great. Thank you. So one of the things that as we've spent more time with this bill you know one of the things that strikes me about it is that it's not it is about affordable housing or housing that's affordable. I mean the goal is to try to provide housing that's affordable it's not strictly related to subsidized housing or it is trying to deregulate in some respects especially for towns that do not have and there are many that have the village designation many more than I ever thought and there's a limited number that have designated downtown so I'm just thinking do you read any sections of this bill as deregulation for the on the local level? Not particularly I'm trying to think now I guess you could interpret some of it that way but zoning is the is the most local of kind of municipal activities I mean we're getting right down to the parcel level and it really needs to remain there in order to serve its purpose and I gave you the illustration in my remarks of Rutland successfully de-densifying to meet other needs and to meet other demands with significant success we're very proud of that it's been going on for quite a while and if some of these provisions were put in that would work across purposes to any community that was facing other challenges that would not you know that could be met by local zoning but would be overruled by some of the provisions potentially overruled by some of the provisions in this bill and I think it's a it's a very dangerous thing I know other people I've read other testimony I know other folks local folks have testified on the issue of overwhelming municipal utilities by substantially increasing the potential density in the service area those kinds of things I know that you've already heard from folks on that so I'm not speaking directly to that although I could I really wanted to give an illustration of why in some places this would be kind of the wrong tool to use to try to achieve you know a desirable end for for a great many okay we have a couple questions here one from representative triano and then representative Byron thank you welcome Jeffrey so I have a couple questions I mean for a number of years we the public have been hearing about disastrous infrastructures in our larger cities and towns here in Vermont large sums of money being spent trying to track down leaks and gas lines water lines sewer lines and that sort of thing so you know it seems to me that you know mapping would be an advantage that ultimately would enable cities and towns to locate their infrastructure and be able to repair them at a faster rate and a more economical way to do it and then I understand the issue surrounding cost but here in the Northeast Kingdom where a large number of towns don't have that infrastructure and so you know my question is what small towns and cities could be impacted that have water and sewer systems could be impacted in a in a way that would be so negative that again it would reverse the issues surrounding locating leaking pipes well I would say first of all I completely agree with you that you know we're fortunate that we have the resources and have invested very heavily in documenting and and also creating computer models of our sewer collection system and with a lot of state assistance I might add we have a lot of state help from DEC on that much appreciated and we're continuing that I don't want to get into all the specifics because I'm getting off the point but so I think having the ability even for very small systems to know where their stuff is what age it is what condition it's in you know kind of a hit list of future maintenance and upgrades based on that kind of site-specific invest investigations and information is absolutely critical my objection is to making all of that detailed information generally public so if ANR the legislature were to provide the wherewithal especially for these smaller communities to make those investments and to get that information that is enormous benefit not only to them it's a benefit to the environment it's a benefit to the ratepayers my concern only is let's not put that in a document that is widely available to the public what we do we have all we have all GIS mapped it's it's pretty slick and when developers come in or anybody comes in that wants to develop something a open land or wants to increase utilization of an existing building we share with them any of the information that they need it's public information technically so we provide that to them but it's upon request and we know who's making the request and we pretty much know what their purpose in making the request is and I guess what I'm saying is we're not hiding the information but we're not making it available to people that don't ask for it so if anybody is malevolent according to EPA or or up to mischief they would at least have to identify themselves when they sought the information and provide us with a rational defensible reason for needing the information it would not be withheld for any reasonable reason but it just the idea of making it available for anybody with a with internet access in a mouse is we think is ill-advised that that clears things up for me quite a bit I understand now thank you and and Jeff just a quick question before we get to Matt to represent if I wrong it does not this draft of the bill afford a municipality like yours to opt out yes it does there are I have to say I don't fully understand I haven't had a lot of time to study it provisions for submitting reports and that kind of thing I don't I can't ascertain the degree of burden that those reports are taking advantage of the option provision would impose so I really don't know but again I I think that using a zoning one size fits all mandate is going in a direction that is not going to end well for Vermont again and I view zoning as you know the most local of local activities and I just find it hard to believe that even with opting out and assuming a burden associated with that which may be light I I honestly don't know haven't evaluated it is is attempting to resolve a problem that should not or need not be created in the first place representative planer thank you so I wanted to circle back to the comments that you made here about it H926 and the duplex duplicated cost wow that was a tough one so with that were you regarding to sort of like the redundancies between like municipal and state zoning the process yeah so I had been doing a little homework on this bill over the weekend and there were some sections that were removed in the past that were sort of mirrored in in age 296 and it appears that a multiple multiple sections that were taken out kind of touch on that have you reviewed that because that was most of that was about the downtown designations the NDAs etc yeah I'm familiar with age 296 926 but I'm not familiar with the earlier versions of this bill this one came I have to say is a bit of a surprise as it as it left the Senate we had not been following it and I don't think the league we've been a little busy distracted is a good word for it I like to stay more involved in related activities and initiatives going on a legislature but this year it's been very difficult to do that and no one is more difficult I'm sure for you folks given the constraints under which you're operating as well but we've been supportive and from before the COVID thing hit and actually I believe I offered some comments in the Senate on a couple of those provisions during this local government day in a legislature or something like that in any event the back when I was DEC commissioner I tried to put a bullet through this thing and because it was you know driving us all crazy at the local level and it was less pointless than it is now but pretty close to pointless except for the revenues it generates for DEC which becomes an issue for sure but in any event I accepted as a compromise at that time a change in the law which provided a an opportunity for communities to assume the responsibility of issuing the state permits along with their own as opposed to basically getting the state out of the business altogether that was a compromise figuring that some communities certainly wouldn't want to do that and that should be their choice which is perfectly fine but others larger ones in particular certainly might want to do that many had expressed the desire the problem was when it came time to write the rules after I moved on from that position the rules were written in a way that almost no one would ever almost no community would ever take advantage of it to this date I think these 10 15 whatever it is years later only two communities and Ron have ever taken advantage of it and that's because the rules are written in a way to strongly discourage anybody from using that ability that I can get into the details of why that is but I don't know that that's necessary for everybody on the committee to to hear me drone on about so when the provoked proposal came forward to you know revisit this and to essentially just have the state get out of the business for those communities where we have regulated water and wastewater utilities to me that's clean it isn't going to be undone through administrative rulemaking and it will provide the necessary relief the truth is the state has a legitimate and in fact a critical interest in regulating our wastewater system and specifically our discharge where we release the treated wastewater to Otter Creek in our case the state has a very legitimate interest in that and they take it very seriously and DC actually does a very good job likewise on the water and the state has legitimate interest in regulating our treatment plant and our distribution system given that our permits provide the state with control over those things that the state has a very clear and legitimate public interest public health environmental interest in I can see absolutely no reason why the state would also have an interest in permitting individual connections to those systems you regulate the system thoroughly and effectively an individual connection to the system should be something that the operators of the system can regulate and manage in years past the state used to offer service at least with the wastewater side and that they tracked reserve capacity and all the regulated wastewater plants they stopped that years ago we now maintain our own records which really should have been the case all along anyway I'm sure in some cases it was and we are responsible for making sure that we don't over commit our legal capacity in our plant so the state doesn't even provide that service anymore they're essentially doing nothing except adding a layer of delay and cost on folks who are going to be connecting to systems that are locally regulated locally operated and we regulate those connections and then the state regulates us to make sure that we protect the environment and public health there's no benefit there and all it does is add cost and in our case substantial delay to an awful lot of these very small inconsequential projects in the scheme of you know the the ability of the systems to serve hey thank you representative salt and collecting yeah hi Jeff this this may be a little outside of your area of expertise but do you believe that the planning community has a consensus on ideal you and uniform development patterns in all human habitation and let me get a little more specific to are you familiar with the name Robert Moses or the phenomena of urban development I mean renewable right and so in that moment for those who don't know an urban renewal some really high-minded planners thought that they had the best idea for what how communities should be structured and they set about to impose that vision across communities all across the United States it's been pretty unanticipated consequences particularly when it comes to the notion of density of living you probably are familiar with the proliferation of tenement housing and super dense public housing and that has history has shown been a tear disaster so you gave a very good example in Rutland how this uniform approach isn't good for all communities right use you set about to do de-densification for very specific purposes so do you ultimately have some concern that the state may not be the best purveyor of planning information and that all of the feedback that we're hearing from planners that are telling us that we need to take a different approach might be something that suits our well well I I think that was essentially you've captured the heart of the concerns that I expressed in the first part of my testimony and that I've repeated in answer to some of the questions as well there there are good example local right here in Rutland and it's again a success story love to talk about those back in the Godnick administration in 1970s one of those high density this was back when families were much larger than they are today subsidized housing developments was built in the southwest section of the city the portion of the city represented a Howard you see here represents it was called Forest Park and certainly not prone to the worst kinds of problems that these urban centers these developments and urban centers have but it had a stigma and that stigma carried with it to every kid that lived there that went to school and on and on and on and the Rutland housing authority over a period of something like 15 years has replaced literally demolished and replaced that old and you know I have to say failed in terms of what the real social goals are for these projects that failed project with one that I think is a model it's absolutely beautiful the neighbors love it it is it's lower density but more to the point it when you drive down the street it doesn't scream this is where the poor people live it doesn't do that and it is a wonderful example of what we've learned and how we can apply what we've learned even in a community as small as Rutland successfully so I would agree with everything represented that you said and I would encourage the the committee and the legislature to focus on those things that are fully within your control that contribute as 926 actually does in a couple of good it's a couple of very good powerful cases there are there are other issues relative to landlords and regulations on evictions I know there are there are landlords in the city that own a large number some good ones to thank God on the large number of rental units very good landlords who manage it in a way that that works for them but they find workarounds and they can be very expensive workarounds and those those costs are reflected in the rents I mean the rents go up because they have to work around some of the requirements that that are in law others people with just maybe a rental unit is part of their home that have had one or two bad experiences they just take them off the market they just refuse to rent them and they you know there's nothing wrong with them their owner occupied for heaven's sakes it's it's a good situation but but a lot of those just got pulled off the market because the costs and risks associated with being a landlord were unacceptable to them and the potential revenues were insufficient to put up with the the risks that they that they were faced with so there are I think opportunities in some of those regulatory areas where we are working across purposes to affordability and rental housing and and I think those should be studied and look for opportunities to maybe make some of those regulatory changes represented class thank you Jeff and your memo is pretty clear and I have visited in Rutland the neighborhood you're talking about it is a very impressive renewal but you know part of this bill higher level is about inclusion Arizona versus exclusionary zoning and you talk about Rutland but do you think Vermont has an issue with redlining well I don't believe we do I think we can say that for certain I certainly can't speak for everywhere that's for sure I think others might be better able to speak to that there may be some places I might be able to think of one or two and where an argument could be made that there's exclusionary zoning practices taking place and and that's that's something I think the legislature should look at I would agree with that but you know there's a fine line there you gotta be very very careful as to whether you are zoning for communities with legislation or whether you're you're providing guidance or constraints if you will within which communities can operate and the maximum amount of flexibility that the legislature can provide and still avoid the the worst abuses and provide the greatest benefits would be that tricky place that I would hope that you would find but yes I think that's probably the case in in some of our non-urban communities okay thank you I keep muting myself because there's a dog ready to bark to my right there's thank you so much for coming in thank you for sharing your testimony with us feel free to stick stay here we have a couple more people to testify but I appreciate you coming in especially testifying on the water aspect of things and the rest of course too but the the you're free to stay and and and listen in and if you have further comments just grab my attention and and we'll see what you're I I want to thank very much the committee for taking testimony in general there was a turn it think of a way the Senate was not to put it this way the Senate was not as forthcoming or open to the testimony in hindsight and and the houses is picking that up and in very good fashion with your efforts here in the committee so thank you very much thank you and thank you for your service all over the map and certainly Rutland is Rutland wouldn't be Rutland without you hope your service well it as long as I've lived here you've been in the papers anyway whether that's a good thing or not I suppose but thank you next up we have Earhart Monka who is here to I believe again I believe your hat today is if we're not affordable housing coalition and the microphone is yours thanks represented Stevens much appreciated appreciate the time and yes I am here representing the ever month affordable housing coalition and also pardon I similarly have a dog who seems ever about to start barking in and disrupting when I'm on on zoom so nice to see you all today if if if remotely so I did follow the bill and its development in Senate economic development also went to all the field hearings that the Senate economic development held and many of the ideas I think that are incorporated in the bill came about as part of those extensive field hearings that were that were held in the in the fall also worked with Chris Cochran and other folks from the administration on on aspects of the bill and overall we're very supportive of of this bill let me delve dive right into some of the sections that have become somewhat controversial and maybe sort of remind you folks that there is and has been a long history of using government policies to discriminate against poor people to discriminate against people of color and other folks in protected classes and zoning has certainly been one of the ways whether intentionally in some cases and many times unintentionally through the use of exclusionary zoning practices to have a disproportionate impact on folks in protected classes that are protected under our fair housing law and in fact for people of color nationally have led to much lower rates of home ownership among people of color as well as also led to an exacerbation of wealth disparate disparities of wealth for for people of color so just you know as as a reminder and this is you know redlining our representative Kulaki mentioned red lining that's certainly something that has been one of the factors in in what I just mentioned as as well as exclusionary zoning practices and some of those exclusive exclusionary zoning practices could be things like limits on density limits on having larger prohibitively larger lot sizes that allow only for the development of expensive housing or densities that are such that they only allow for the the development of more expensive housing that is exclusionary to people of more modest means who are disproportionately represented including in our state by people of color and folks folks with disabilities especially also on another one of the protected classes as you know affordable housing challenges are multifaceted you all as a committee have spent countless hours looking at the different problems and the different challenges that we have as a state and as Mr. Winberg has mentioned certainly they are very different in different areas of the state I think you all know that probably the crunch or lack of of housing per se is is much more extreme in some areas of the state than than in others in some areas like Rutland it's it may have been disinvestment and quality of housing and there the focus really needs to be more on on the quality of housing there are many solutions as you know and they don't all involve money a lot of them do involve money you folks have been absolute champions for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and for other funding sources that help create more affordable housing and that help alleviate homelessness but we also have some some solutions that are less related to the state or the federal government providing providing subsidies there's no one magic bullet we need all the different all the different strategies all the different options and certainly land use and land use regulation and zoning are are are one of are one of those and just before I get off the subject of of of using exclusionary zoning to to basically using zoning practices to exclude whether intentionally or unintentionally just a couple of resources for you all one is a book that some of you may know it's called the color of law by Richard Roste and so excellent excellent book that really goes back to the 1930s and documents just how government policies have helped to help to discriminate and exclude people of more modest means there's also a movie that came out just last year called owned that goes into some detail to look at the zoning policies the failed zoning policies especially post-war when we just created tract housing that you know had relatively much larger lot sizes and created incredible sprawl and created basically the suburbs and our incredible dependence on on cars and fossil fuels leading to you know our current helping to lead to our current climate crisis and the need to sequester sequester carbon there's also to the point of density certainly you know the way some housing especially during urban renewal and during the creation of you know these towers of of public housing that that I would not hold those up as good examples of density some of you may be familiar with Julie Campoli's work here in Vermont book called visualizing density that I think in many ways creatively shows how density can be used to eliminate sprawl reduce sprawl and and also create denser housing that is livable and that is not like the towers of public housing that folks often associate with with low income housing and some of the failures of past housing past federal housing policy so I just mentioned those as resources because I do think that they speak to this issue you know generally local traditional zoning does often have that exclusionary impact and if you provide greater density in coupled with good design and coupled with other other tools that are available to planners through through zoning including smaller lot sizes I think you know you can create sustainable thriving thriving communities and there are many many examples of that Forest Park is a great example of redevelopment that is extremely successful and we have others around the state where older forms of public housing that were developed in previous eras and and have you know been associated with some of the some of the stigma that may have been attached in some people's minds with affordable housing and public housing in the past have been redeveloped successfully and made much better places I think this committee knows well that the way affordable housing has been developed built and developed in Vermont and nationally for the last 30 years has really been different from those old those old failed policies of the past and density and increased density has been part and parcel of how to make that affordable that housing more affordable not just with government subsidies but but also by more creative and greater land use we certainly and I think Jacob Hamrick had pointed this out in one of his slides we do set minimums for a number of different things in state land use planning laws you know one great example is accessory dwelling units which the state minimums for accessory dwelling units are proposed to be changed during this to make it easier to develop accessory dwelling units and and more more difficult for local opposition to to prevent their their development also mobile home parks there's through state land use planning law where no community is allowed to de facto prohibit or create prohibit the development of mobile home parks there's also minimums around you can't eliminate or prohibit multifamily so residential care is another example or group home so there are a number of ways in which we establish minimums in state land use planning and so I would encourage you to look at smaller lot sizes and greater density to promote infill development and to promote the creation of more affordable housing clearly helps lower the cost and promotes the development of much needed additional housing not just affordable housing as another example I mean I think we do need in this national crisis of affordable housing and you know as long as I've been involved it's there's been a crisis in affordable and quality housing in the state of Vermont we need bold solutions and so I would encourage you to look at some of the sections that have generated controversy among planners and some and the league and some other municipal representatives as an example of a bold solution I'll cite that the city of Minneapolis has eliminated single-family zoning in order to address its affordable affordable housing crisis these are the kinds of bold solutions that planners all across the country are looking at and that I think Vermont needs to look at as well does that mean that we're absolutely wedded to the language that's in s237 I would say no you know the planners that have commented there have been many good solutions for how to good ideas rather for how to tweak some of the proposals that are in especially in section 2b and I would encourage you to look at those I know time is tight and you're scheduled to adjourn by September 25th at the at the latest I believe so I do hope you have time to look at those some of those those suggestions I think there's some good ideas that that I would encourage you to look at and and integrate into the bill during during your your markup I we do understand some of those concerns but I want to make sure that you understand that some of these bold solutions are necessary even if you need to modify them somewhat based on some of the other concerns you've heard you've taken testimony and read about the off-ramp I do understand we do understand the concerns for municipalities to lose the priority for for resources but there is an off-ramp and I encourage you to maintain an off-ramp if you need to tweak the language on that and change that to adapt to some of the concerns I think that's that's a good thing to do but I'll just remind you that for these for the kinds of minimums that that are proposed there is an off-ramp and there is a way for municipalities for legitimate reasons to to buy out I do have some comments on a couple of other sections of the bills that I I'd like to provide you with one is to encourage to support the idea of enabling towns to greater regulate short-term rentals I would say moving forward maybe this is something for next winter I do think greater state regulation is warranted on a statewide basis and would encourage this committee and your Senate counterparts to look at that during the next session but for right now providing clear authority for towns to regulate short-term rentals in a way that may be more stringent than than the current state regulation I think is is a good thing I'd also like to speak briefly to the mobile home section the mobile home park section in the bill and remind you in addition to Sue Phillion's testimony from Braille borough town planning last week you did before you left Montpelier due to the pandemic you heard testimony from folks from Tri Park mobile home park and the language that's in the bill is absolutely critical especially for Tri Park but not just for Tri Park it's also critical for other mobile home parks that see and have acute infrastructure needs the Vermont housing and conservation board did commission to study in the summer it was delivered in the summer of 2019 so just over a year ago that identified millions of dollars of infrastructure needs in mobile home parks which specifically go towards their sustainability their viability and their continued affordability Tri Park because it's still trying to recover from some of the impacts of Tropical Storm Irene I would say is probably has the largest single set of needs and the most acute the bill originally had $750,000 identified that was stripped out in Senate appropriations I know it's too late to get that back in on the house side but I am hopeful that there may be room for that on the on the Senate side those would be for the most critical needs one is a replacement of a bridge that was destroyed that is was rendered inoperable by Tropical Storm Irene and two sewage system upgrades there they're absolutely critical to the tune of about $750,000 that said without the money the language that's in the bill is absolutely vital to restructuring and hopefully actually forgiving of the current loans that they already have which would help with their cash flow and with the restructuring of of their of their debt I know you received some testimony from Commissioner walk I do believe there may have been some misunderstanding around clearly the state water and sewer funds that are referenced in the language section we're not intended to be used for relocation of mobile home lots out of the floodplain and if that language and that that provision needs to that those words need to be stricken to clarify that I'd be happy to work with you on the on the language as well as with DC but that was not the intention the intention is for DC to look at for an art to look at hopefully the forgiveness of existing loans to help with the restructuring of of their debt and and their cash flow and I did over the weekend look at the federal underlying statute and it's quite clear that the federal underlying statute does allow for complete forgiveness of of existing loans in in certain in certain circumstances so I would encourage you to not adopt the language that Commissioner walk has has proposed and not to get into the details of that language but would would be happy to work with you when you get into a markup of that the other thing I'll just quickly reference is that there was also money in the bill for planning and that that unfortunately also was removed when the bill went from your Senate counterparts into Senate appropriations and to do the work that is being proposed around zoning I think at some point additional funding will would be needed and I'll I know this committee knows well that the property transfer tax is also one of the sources for municipal and regional planning and of course that does get raided there as well as through Vermont housing and conservation board so additional money would be good to include in the bill I'll also mention and Mr. Weinberg mentioned this as well the Act 250 exemption provisions that were originally in S237 and then in the Senate got moved into the Act 250 bill H926 and now that bill is well they've been removed from that bill these are provisions that we strongly support we strongly support eliminating duplicative Act 250 review in designated downtown and in neighborhood development areas because that we want to be able to promote housing and other development in the areas where we want them not in our more rural areas and we support that coupled with some of the provisions that were in H926 that provide greater protections for natural areas including trails and forest the trails and forest fragmentation provisions so I don't know if there's time for you folks to look at those sections that were removed and then temporarily put into 926 in the Senate and now they're out again if you have time to look at that but that is something that we would encourage you to look at lastly I understand there's some conversation that H739 the rental the rental housing safety bill may be added to to this to make it a more comprehensive housing package and we would encourage you very strongly to do that I'm together with Sarah Carpenter and Wendy Morgan and others that you've heard from a member of the rental housing advisory board and have actually been working on this issue for as long as I've been an advocate at the State House so for over 20 years we have as you heard from Mr. Wenberg and from others we have rental housing that is in bad need of of improvement we have tenants living in deplorable situations and now during COVID more than ever we could have used for example the rental housing registry that's included in that instead of putting 2000 folks in motels to so that they would have a home to stay safe in some of those folks could have gone directly into permanent housing if only we had known where all the affordable where excuse me where all the rental housing privately owned rental housing was in in our state and certainly that was something post Irene that would have been good to during Irene during recovery would have been good to know but even more so now during COVID and during the pandemic it would have been good to know that likewise the rental housing stabilization program that you all stood up and provide provided the funding for through the coronavirus relief cares act funding to the Vermont State Housing Authority I mean it would have been so much easier to be able to communicate directly with the private property owners around the state to let them know about this this resource so that they could cover some of their losses that they have seen because tenants have not been able to pay the rent during the pandemic so just for so many different reasons the different aspects of that bill I think are are are important and I've listened with interest on to some of the concerns and criticisms that members have had but I would say if not now when when will we finally do this I've been working on similar bills for over 20 for 20 years there was one that passed the house in 2008 that was 12 years ago here we are 12 years later this is the closest that we've come I think you can change some of the dates in it for sure it you know clearly would not be implemented immediately we have to get past the pandemic but I think setting setting the wheels in motion to get this past is something that actually both tenants and landlords in the state of Vermont deserve and and meet so I'll stop there and thank you again for the time if folks have questions happy to answer any that I can all right here take a deep breath now that was all on one breath I have a question from representative Byron and then Hango thank you chair Erick you actually kind of answered or touched on what my question was going to pertain to again I was circling back to the sections that were removed from this and put in H926 around the zoning for the downtowns in the NDAs so essentially like you are seeing that as a way of promoting more expedient more affordable housing development in the areas that we're looking to you know promote growth in is essentially what I'm hearing right so yeah that that that's a yes with the proviso that you know in a 926 there's a balancing act and so we want to concentrate the development in those areas and at the same time which provides you know relief to some of our more rural areas where we don't want to see development in you know on prime ag lands on you know in important natural areas so there's a balance and there's components of 926 that go to things like you know trails forest fragmentation and additional protection so you know the way I've seen those is as a package but unfortunately they you know only part of that package is now in the senate version of 926 no no I completely agree with your point I think I've watched that bill kind of hit that wall the same way you did and feel that those components that are still moving are very very important ones to keep momentum up on and I was gonna try and discuss a little bit later in the day with the committee to take a look at these provisions that were removed these sections that were removed but you touched on it before I could say something so I just wanted to use this as an opportunity to say that I would strongly recommend request that we do in fact take a take a hard look at these sections because I agree with everything you said Eric all right thank you representative Henko I think I prematurely raised my hand so I'm I'm good now thank you should be a little red hand that can be put up and a hard couple of specific questions to the policies we heard your support for you know in general terms but some of the questions some of the areas that when we talk about you know we have to change things or we need different language or something like that I'm just curious about your take on let's go to ad use first as an example I mean I know that most of the most of the questions are about about the lot size and lot density and there is language that's that people have shared and I put together a draft of potential concepts that may address some of the things that you're talking about but one of the things that stood out to me was that in ad use was traditionally ad user supposed right now ad user supposed to be attached or pertinent to a property so a mother-in-law apartment a carriage house that's been renovated and so on and and this bill proposes to allow it to be a separate house so for instance I live on point three three acres in downtown Waterbury I have access to water and sewer our water and sewer system has enough capacity to handle another unit like this I may have some fluvial problems in my backyard but perhaps I build it up eight feet it will be fine but there's nothing in this bill outside of allowing municipalities to create bylaws on short-term rentals I could I mean this bill tells me that I could build this building and rent it as a short-term rental can't I yeah that that's that's a potential problem and you know it's something that I know Burlington I haven't followed it closely but I know Burlington is is is going through in terms of greater regulation at the local level for accessory dwelling units so yeah no I think creating an ADU just for it to be a short-term rental that that kind of defeats the purpose because creating an ADU the point is we want to enhance we want to have a greater number of homes and you know it also provides some rental income for the for the homeowner and could be the thing that helps get a young family into into how into their own their own housing into owned owned housing much the way duplexes are often away for families to begin to enter home ownership so I think that's that that is a potential problem and I know that's picking at you know it's picking out because I know that the intent is not to have a series of short-term rentals being built in people's backyards but to create again more housing that's affordable the other the other issue that I wanted to get your thinking on was that some of the planners and I'll use Stowe as an example because their example was so it stood out I'll just say it stood out where they said well we have this water and sewer system that you know having access to wastewater capacity in particular is something that allows development and some can some people could say sprawl and they developed a system where they had a village system and they brought it up to the top of the mountain for specific business purpose and they ended up with five miles of of roadfront that in their interpretation of these of this law allows for the bylaw you know that they would be able to create or they might be forced to create 51,000 eighth-acre watts and you know one of the potential solutions in or proposals put forward is like well if we just limit the development to the down the designated downtown's or a certain percentage of a distance from an associated downtown or a neighborhood development what in your knowledge I mean there's a practical thing that says to me well I don't know that they'd have the capacity for 51,000 units we'd have to rebuild route 100 there's a lot of other things that go into it but I totally understand their point they're trying to extrapolate and try to bring it to to the nth degree in order to create a to illustrate a point but are they're not in a circumstances like this are they're not overlaying development districts or are they're not existing tools that you're aware of that would prevent them from doing that that would allow them on the local level so that it's not a cookie cutter situation to develop the rules and regulations that they would need without also creating this element that we've talked about that of redlining you know is is there not already existing tools that allows them to say well we want development in this place and we want it in this place we don't want it in between even though we know we built this line you know I'm gonna defer to I'm not a planner I spent a fair amount of time on a planning commission here in Burlington and you know have been involved in housing development in Act 250 and more distant past I would defer to you know Jacob or you know Chris Cochran or some of the planners that I'm sure can come up with a solution certainly you know we have this system of designated designation areas whether it be downtowns or neighborhood development areas growth centers and one of the things that was in H926 was to also provide an exemption to enhanced village centers as long as there's some inclusivity provisions for affordability in them you know that's something that I would say we would we would promote I don't know the specifics around Stowe but I just can't imagine given the wealth of tools that are available to folks in the planning community through zoning that there there couldn't be some way of avoiding that sort of worst-case scenario that that I know some some folks have have expressed concerns about so Jacob if you're still there how are you thank you for sticking around so I think one of the things that happens when we especially as we dig down into bills and we try to understand them point-by-point we lose sight of the larger forest for the particular trees that were that were looking at and I think we're at a point now with this bill and especially in what is admittedly the most difficult section in the bill of you know losing sight of what the bigger pictures are I mean I think that there's and as we head into potential markup and discussions about the details that we're going to go through and then what we need to go through on this bill is wondering if you had anything left you know from your testimony or perhaps from what you've been hearing today that you can add that sort of gives us a different or a fuller context of where of where we are when we talk about each of these separate things I mean we could be talking about lot size and lot density but we don't know what the statute is on either side of what we're proposing to change I'm just wondering if there's any if there's any notes that you've taken over the last couple days that you participated and listen that that either raise a flag or the areas that we should look at while we're as we embark on on trying to sort through all the proposals. Yeah, thank you for the record. You could do a volume. Do you have volume? Take a break with the Department of Housing and Community Development. Am I coming through okay now? Yeah. Yeah, it's the best I can do. Okay, I guess I guess you have to I'm sorry talk more slowly so we can and loudly so we can understand. I apologize. Yes, so I think there has been some really credible concerns raised about avoiding development in flood hazard, fluvial erosion and river corridors, avoiding natural resources and and recognizing that there can be capacity limitations on water and sewer lines. Just zooming out for a second and thinking about the big picture of this bill again, you know, the housing problems we have in Vermont persist in ways that are really difficult to spend our ways way out of and we all know people that struggle to afford a home in Vermont or I know I know friends who've left Vermont young couples with kids because they can't work in class people who can't afford to live here. The average listing price of a home in Burlington is $425,000 right now and very we have very, you know, where I am today, very affordable homes, but many requiring very substantial investments in code to so they didn't unnecessarily at the end after you purchase them a purchase price may be affordable, but the home actually isn't affordable and this is all about steering development opportunities for housing in and around centers where there's infrastructure, water, wastewater investments and expanding opportunities for small scale development, especially by individuals and not only big developers and I think the main point of this is if we continue to pattern match and to continue to do what we're doing, are we going to see a change in Vermont's housing market in Vermont's housing picture and a lot of smart minds have waited on this bill. I think, you know, the planning association has made many good suggestions and I think on the whole have provided support for many of the provisions of this bill and I think there could be with some fixes to where it applies, it could be made even even better and to your scenario and so representative Stevens, I think, you know, municipalities have many tools at their disposal to steer development and really three things strive development. I think it's transportation investments, water and sewer investments and your land use and finding a way to thread the expanded opportunities for smaller lots for more density for a more diverse housing types in the right location is the way to go and so deciding, I mean, I think what we're hearing is that is part of anybody who's listening in can correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm hearing is in opposition to this is that is that local municipalities still want to be the ones who determine where the right place is and I think supporters of the bill are saying, well, they already do that, they already can do that, this won't change that to a difficult degree, I mean, all of the communities who have to follow particulars, there's so many levels of zoning that you have to follow from, you know, if you're in a designated downtown to if you have wetlands in your neighborhood, I mean, there's lots of things that limit the development, how do we buy, how do we play with that, how do we try to like suss that out and say, well, what's, except to say that this bill does offer an out, right, it does say if you don't think that you can manage this, if you think that you've studied this and you can't do it, not so much that you won't, but that you can't, then you can you can apply for, then you can apply for a to get out of this or to be exempted from this, am I reading that correctly? That's my understanding, yes. And when it comes to, again, we're gonna, we're gonna spend more time tomorrow reviewing, you know, some, some proposed changes that were aggregated from different resources. And so it's just, I just want to leave us with, with the ideas, you know, that, I mean, did you know, did you know this bill when it had all of the Act 250 provisions in it? Yes. And would I be mistaken in thinking that plugging in sections, and I don't know what representative Byron had in mind and we'll hear out, but are they, you know, what were they addressing that? Why were they pulled from this particular, why were they separated in such a way from this bill to, to your knowledge, not to your, not in a, I guess, you know, how, how would you imagine, you know, that the reasoning why they did this? Yeah, I can't speak to the intent of the Senate, but they were, as I understand, amendments from the floor to separate, to separate the two bills, I, you know, I don't know why they were separated. What were the elements that were pulled out? That, that interplay with this bill? Yeah. So there were exemptions to act from Act 250 in neighborhood designated areas and downtown areas. Um, and there were also the, uh, water wastewater permitting features that, uh, Public Works Commissioner Wynberg spoke about. Uh, there were, uh, I believe the, um, I'm going to pause on, pause on that. I think those were the three main features that, uh, that were pulled out. Okay. And I saw Ellen for a second, um, poker head up. And I just want to, um, is that, is that, and again, I, we, this has always been portrayed to us as having interplay with the sections that were pulled out. And, you know, we've tried to limit our conversation because of, you know, one side of me says, well, if we start adding in other sections from 926, well, then this bill is actually going to have to go to over to natural resources. Cause that's, you know, that really strikes at what their portfolio is and these are the sections that come closest to ours. Um, Ellen, is, is Jacob on track there? Or can you shed any light? Of course. So Jacob is right. There were, um, Act 250 provisions related to exempting downtowns and neighborhood development areas from Act 250. There were also provisions related to municipal and state wastewater permitting. There were also some changes related to the requirements to become a designated downtown or neighborhood development area. Um, specifically in the neighborhood development area section, there was, um, new language, new language regarding infill in, uh, flood hazard areas and river corridors, um, as well as, um, some tie in provisions that related to if these areas were going to be exempt from Act 250, some additional affordable housing provisions that would be required. Um, you may want to hear from the Senate as to why they were pulled. Um, but I think you do know that age 926 was moving and there were nearly identical provisions in that bill as there were in this bill. So I think. Yeah, I think it's a little late for why, you know, I mean, obviously it was something that happened. Um, and we're dealing with what we have to deal with. I mean, I, I do express some concern just about making sure that when we mark this up, that we're not going to be, um, making an imbalance as to what's going on in the other bill. Uh, and, um, also just as an aside, there, this S237 visited a number of committees in the Senate and there actually were multiple, um, deletions as you see. So the Senate Appropriations Committee also took out, um, the entire appropriation section that was, um, making a number of, uh, appropriations for municipal planning grants as well as some of the other, um, housing programs, including technical assistance for ADUs and something else. Fee-Hit money maybe. So, uh, there are, there was a, this bill went through many revisions in the Senate before it got to you. Right. My understanding in the Senate, in the classic sense of, I mean, we won't know until the end of the session, if the money gets put back in. But, but my understanding was that the money was taken out because, um, because they were, well, one of the reasons was because we were only working on the first quarter budget. And that, you know, that was one of the reasons that I, that was shared with me, whether there's larger, um, policy reasons for doing it or budgetary requirements that, you know, that said, we're not going to fund it because I think we've heard from a lot of the communities that doing anything that changes bylaws requires some financial support for planning grants and, um, and I think we would support, I mean, I don't want to keep my fingers crossed, but I would, I would think we would support, obviously, making these grants available if it's, if it's possible. Um, all right. Um, I thought I had a question for Jeff Weinberg, but, um, I don't, we're representative Zott. Well, I was, uh, curious, I guess a fiscal note isn't quite what I'm looking for. But do we have any data that, uh, projections for how many units of housing this bill will accomplish and, and, uh, and if we don't have that data, who, if the housing doesn't follow from this change to our zoning, who will come back before the committee, I won't be here, but who will come back before this committee and say, yep, we were wrong. We thought that this, this set of changes would increase affordable housing and it hasn't materialized. Is there any way anybody can be held any kind of account of have any kind of accountability on this, or we just sort of surmising that the market, uh, with its, with the tweaks that we're, we're putting here will lead to this affordable housing. Cause we did, we did receive testimony today from Essex from the planning staff and Essex and Essex Junction and their conclusion at the end. I'll call attention to the committee. It says the bill proposes some useful approaches to zoning reform that might underlined encourage housing production, which underlined might lead to increased affordability. And it goes on to say it. However, it may not do so. Um, so anyway, I guess my question is if we don't have the data, uh, are we just sort of looking and crossing our fingers or what exactly is driving the belief that this will lead more affordable housing for Vermonter? Um, I think quickly we're in a position where we're creating, there's, there's, there's several elements to this bill. Of course, one is that we're, we're creating a statement that says, um, through zoning that, um, we're, we're not supportive of exclusionary zoning. And we want to see more inclusionary zoning developed throughout the state, especially in areas that are not affected by active 50 provisions. Um, or that are, I'm sorry, that are affected by active 50 provisions that, um, that may not be downtowns or designated downtowns. Um, using the word might is correct. I mean, housing gets developed by developers. So they need to be able to make the investments and part of this bill, I believe has an element of deregulation in it that should make it easier for people to approach project and make it more financially feasible. There's no promise that, that more housing gets built. There's no, um, you know, this isn't, this isn't a give or, um, uh, a plan for affordable housing organizations that we work with to have a leg up or to develop more properties. They may, if they're able to raise the money and do it and get the correct zoning and get the permits that are, that are still necessary in place. So I don't think that it's about promising that there are set units, that there are a number of units. It's about putting into place a pop, first of all, policy with some provisions, with some legal provisions that would encourage people to build in those ways. And certainly as to who's accountable for what, um, that's, you know, in terms of our work, laws are, laws are constantly changing. Things obviously work and then don't work. Um, or they, they are tested and don't work, but in terms of each, this is, you know, I think the, I think the highest level intent with this bill, no matter it's flaws or no matter the, um, support or opposition to this is that the, this is to say that we are going to, um, support this kind of zoning and do it in ways that we find meaningful. And sometimes the way that we find meaningful are, are planning grants or are some kinds of exemptions. Um, so that, I don't know that that gets to exactly what you're asking, but that's my take on it. Uh, yeah, no, that gets to it. And it's you, as you know, chair, uh, being pedantic is a specialty of mine. Um, so, uh, I just sometimes like to be precise. And when you started referring to the bill in subsequent meetings as a zoning bill, I was much more comfortable with referring to it as a zoning bill, or we do have data in terms of dense development in terms of its environmental impact. We have that. So if we want to talk to it about, uh, in terms of being maybe an environmentally friendly housing bill, or encouraging environmentally friendly housing, you know, I'm much more comfortable with, um, with that language, but to call it an affordable housing bill, I think is a bit of a, of a misnomer. And it's, so that's just why I was raising that because it just a little bit makes me uncomfortable. And then finally, when we talk about redlining, part of the problem here that I'm also uncomfortable with is when we connect it to this kind of moral argument around redlining, but then we allow communities to opt out, it feels like we're trying to kind of have it both ways. We talk about how important this bill we need to prevent this sort of morally reprehensible practice. But then we say, Oh, but you don't have to participate in the program. So we should either make it like absolutely mandatory with no opt outs, opt outs, if it's really geared towards addressing redlining, or we shouldn't talk about it in terms of redlining either. Um, there's a, there's a fair point there. I think that it's, you know, to the, I mean, we have nothing to do with the titling of the bill. This is how it came over and it said affordable housing. I think as I, you know, I, it becomes more about housing that's affordable. And I think that that's, that comes from being able to build more housing. You know, that just to, that to me is the simplest addition. But as far as the reporting, you know, the opting out part, yes, you know, there's, there are elements that are times we've been told that, you know, there's a cookie cutter approach to this, that, that we can't make it all one size. And so the Senate and their wisdom put in this opt out provision that if you look at the language of what this, this substantial, um, report is going to do is that, you know, the, the, the, the municipalities have to make their reports according to what I've heard to report themselves won't necessarily be onerous, the applications to be opting out won't necessarily be onerous. But the information will be collected by the department and ostensibly over time will be collected in such a way that says, well, community A felt like this and community B felt like they couldn't do it because of this and community C felt like they couldn't do it because of this. And at some point, will that be used to formulate for the policy? You know, that's, that's, that makes it useful. But in terms of taking a, you know, if, if you want to make an argument about a, or have a discussion about a higher moral stand, I think that's, that's fair too. But I think in all legislation, when we're trying to thread a needle between creating good policy and then listening to the comments that are being made by, by the people who actually have to implement this, you know, we, we take, we put compromise on the table all the time. That's all it's, it's, you know, that's a, it's a fair point. Representative Hango, your hand has been up for some time. Thank you for waiting. Thank you. I am, I'm concerned about this bill in, in many ways. One of the biggest concerns I have, I raised last week and I called it, I guess mistakenly cookie cutter, but you could call it one size fits all because I've heard other people refer to it as that small village that has municipal water and you build the buildings, people come. There are no services besides that municipal water for those people. I'm, I'm very concerned about encouraging people to live in lower cost areas that are served by water and or sewer and have nothing else available for those people. So that's concerning particularly because the municipalities that we have, who have greater services, greater access to services may be higher cost and those folks may not be able to live there for whatever reason. So I'm, I'm afraid of changing our rural landscape and creating little mini municipalities just because there is water and maybe sewer also. No grocery stores nearby. That's a big problem up in my area. So that, that concerns me. The Essex planners, if you read your letter from them do have some very important points and I'm glad that they brought those up. And particularly it was around what representatives just brought up the might you can build these buildings or not and people may or may not buy them. There may be no demand for them. So I really do believe that this is not an affordable housing bill. I really do believe it's a zoning bill. I don't really believe that it belongs with us. I'm concerned, very concerned about all the changes it went through in the Senate before it got to us and the fact that it was passed out so quickly at the very end of the session. And it's up to us to make it a good bill. That's very concerning to me. So I obviously have a lot of concerns about this bill and I'm not certain that we're going to be able to fix all of them in the short time that we have and give it a well thought out response. Thank you. All right. Being conscious of time, it is 432. That's our technical ending time, but we do, we can stay longer if there's further conversation on this bill. Jeff, are you still there? What in the representative triangle has his hand up? Go ahead, Jeff. I'm sorry, go ahead, Chip. Just comments. I mean, I've got all this running around in my head after all this testimony and this. And you know, I've lived up on the mountain for 48 years here and we do have zoning. We have lot sizes but we have no municipal water or sewer. But you know, I grew up in the rural borough of New York City, Staten Island. I was a child. There were wetlands. There were forests and working farms. Mariana lived there. She knows what I'm talking about. You're not in your head. So, you know, I lived through Robert Moses and his disastrous, you know, projects that he built. But you know, he was also known for bringing roads to gain access to outlying areas through neighborhoods that probably in retrospect should not have happened. You know, he was followed by Robert Lindsay's administration who did an awful lot for parks and municipalities. But you know, on Staten Island, the developers who just bought up tons of farmland where truck farms used to be growing beautiful produce for the local people and put little pink houses everywhere. And it was a disaster, an absolute disaster. So, when I think in terms of trying to confine development to bring about more affordable housing, you know, all these things just run through my mind in some disastrous zoning and development that has happened in my lifetime. So, you know, I think in terms of, you know, using downtown areas or designated areas, I should say, to promote this type of development which does have infrastructure to accommodate it. It seems to make sense to me. I think that if we are in Vermont or at risk of losing green pastures and black and white cows, we will really lose the character of our state. And that would be a disaster. And so, you know, I just think that preventing urban sprawl is really a very, very serious issue that we need to accommodate and we need to take up. And I just, I guess I'm rambling, but you know, these are experiences that I've had in my lifetime and they really have an impact on the way I think. And so, you know, I support this bill. I think that, you know, whatever we can do to prevent urban sprawl and little pink houses everywhere is really an important issue that we need to be taking up at this point. Thank you, Representative Casals. I keep thinking about all of the different factors and that if we were in through 3D, this might be time for the whiteboard where we are looking at the different pieces of this bill and then the different options that have been presented to us. So, the water and sewer lines are the one that the last few folks have just mentioned as one of those multiple things that are on the table. And so, that's what the bill currently says. And then we've heard different proposals from different people on that. And so, I have an insect that keeps kind of being around my face, so I apologize. But that's what keeps coming to my mind if that can be kind of the next step and so, a little kind of pre-markup, if you will, that because I'm hearing on some of the pieces, there's some folks that agree with some parts and other groups of folks that agree with different parts on different parts of the bill. So, I don't know exactly how we would do that in the 2D space that we're in, but that is something that is coming to my mind maybe it's time to chart out our different options. No, thank you. I wish we'll see if we can manage something like that. But one of the things, one of the ways that this committee has been successful in dealing with bills, especially with multiple sections, is to like go through, do a quick go through and say, this was a problem session, this was a problem section, this one's not, this one's not, this one's not. Let's not forget what's in this one, but then just sort of keep blocking off the sections until we get down to the, knock off the easy ones, if there's any easy ones, and then really be able to focus the rest of our time on the more difficult sections. And we'll see how far we go, short of like writing it down on a big board. That's one way I'm looking at how we deal with the markup. And I mean, markup to me is, at least starting tomorrow is gonna be pre-markup. I think there's a lot of discussion that we still have to get to, but that's the way I wanna approach tomorrow anyway, is to really just sort of say, do we have a problem with this? And if everybody says no, good, you know, no one, if no one, and that's gonna be the back end of the bill. But I think even the back end of the bill has had some issues that we just need to deal with. Representative Colackey, did you have your hand up? Did you want your hand up? Thank you, George. I took it down. All right. Well, so I'm gonna go ahead and adjourn for today. I think we're full. I'd like to thank Jeff Wimber for coming up from Rutland, and for Jacob for sitting in an air heart for coming back in. Thank you for your testimony. Again, we are everybody, I sent you something that I haven't posted yet. We'll post it, I suppose, tomorrow. The stuff that I sent are, I consider that capital D, capital R-A-F-T drafts. It's just, I just tried to go through the stuff that I had read by yesterday's Tuesday. So, yeah, by yesterday morning, I guess, or Sunday night to come up with like what seemed reasonable. And I used the Vermont Planners Association Memo a lot. I used, I read most of the other letters that had very much of the same conversations in it. And so, what I was able to provide to you will be a starting point. It's the way I look at it. We'll see how we do. So, anything else? And Chip, I thought Little Pink Houses was a John Mellon camp song. It is, but that's the vision that I have seen all these housing developments, one of which my uncle lived in and we used to visit him, but just rows and rows of houses, the same exact houses built on farmland that had grown tomatoes shortly before these developments. Okay. Oh, Representative Howard. Earhart and our committee, Earhart and our committee we use our blue hand. Yeah. Representative Howard. Sorry if I'm mumbling, the Nova Cane is wearing off for my dental surgery this morning. But I wanted to first thank Jeff Lemberg for taking part in this discussion. I would also like to mention that I live across from Hickory Place and I walk my dog there every day. In fact, Brody is now the mayor of Hickory Place. People are just, you know, so friendly and so nice. They have their community garden. They have a little book exchange. It just is an incredible neighborhood. It is not pink houses. They're all a little different. I live in a development where the houses are different. There's a couple of duplexes. There's the single home, one level, two level, which is great. So I think I am in support of this, I am in support of this bill. I think it's necessary. I lived in Rutland town also where there is no zoning and you can pretty much do whatever you want in Rutland town. So I really think this is important and I look forward to discussing it more tomorrow when I feel better. Thank you. Thank you. I guess that you did really well there with the no-king wearing off. Earhart, I don't know what you're gonna say, but I will say, I will ask you, you did post some links that if you could send them in an email because once we get done with this hearing, we won't see them ever again. So if you could send the committee or send the committee an email, that would be great or send it to me and I'll forward them to the committee. But please, go right ahead. Well, happy to do that, Mr. Chair. Just wanted to draw people's attention to them, Representative Trojanos, the reference to Little Pink Houses just reminded me of the resources that I mentioned during my testimony, especially the film Owned, A Tale of Two Americas and Julie Campoli's book on Visualizing Density. So I'll send those along, but yeah, that was pretty much all I wanted to draw attention to. Thanks. Thanks again for your time. Great. No, thank you. And thank you, everybody. We'll see you tomorrow. All right, have a good night. Ariana, is that a new hairdo for you? Thanks. Yeah, looks cool.