 On people we didn't get to on the omnibus housing bill and they had the benefit of hearing all the other people and digesting some of what they said and I start off with Nancy Owens, who is the president of ever north, which used to be housing Vermont right and combined with sister agencies and other states. They are an incredibly important player in housing development in the state of Vermont in the not certainly in the nonprofit world. So, I've heard Nancy testify before she's great. And so I hope she can help us as we move towards putting pen to paper on ideas for our omnibus housing bill. Welcome Nancy. Hi, thank you very much for having me and making time for me today and your busy schedule. Yeah, as Michael said, I'm, I'm a head of ever north, which is a multi state organization operating in Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont that has been involved in has 30 years experience financing and investing in affordable rental housing really a focus on rental housing and we currently have about close to 10,000 apartments in our portfolio across Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. And in Vermont, in particular we're really busy these days and have, I think, close to 20 projects across the state that are in various stages of development. We have two major roles, just as a background, we partner with nonprofit organizations, you know, that you may be familiar with like Champlain housing trust, as a county community trust down street, wind and Windsor and so forth organizations like that to develop and develop and own affordable rental housing. And then the other thing we do is we raise capital from investors and that's primarily banks. So we, we raise those capital dollars from investors into funds, and then those funds are making large investments in affordable rental housing in exchange for the low income housing tax credit which is a federal production program, that's the biggest production program in the nation. And so we have over our 30 years raised over a billion dollars from bank investors that's been reinvested across the three states. I want to say I was able to hear a lot of the testimony on Wednesday there was a really great conversation and there's a lot of things I heard that I support and agree with. And maybe before I get to that I just want to also just say, you know, there's a lot of the word unprecedented has been used a lot over the last year and a half or two years this this time is so strange and but there's also some some opportunity in the strangeness and in the in the crisis that we have with housing. In my career, which has been all in affordable housing. It really feels that there's more consensus and more understanding than there ever has been about housing is so interconnected to our lives whether related to health related to the economy, the workforce, all the things that without housing, you know are so impacted. And so I think about that that that housing has has an elevated place in the conversation right now. And that and there is an opportunity in that to shift people's notions about the questions you've been discussing this, how do we do it a little more quickly. You know, I don't know about cost effectively cost right now feel a little out of our hands on some things but but certainly how can we increase production. That's what I kept hearing on Wednesday, and I think you are hearing as well as a problem is production. And, and I, and I've heard Eric Pharrell speak before and he mentioned you know this thing he says which is the people who show up to slow down housing are the people who already have homes that's the people without homes are not the ones arriving at this at the zoning hearing, and other things and, but I think, you know, even the people who have housing are being impacted by the housing crisis. They, they, on the one hand their homes are people who have homes, whether it's, you know, especially in there have homeownership which is the vast majority of people in Vermont. You know their homes are appreciating and value and that's, you know, good news. That's something people are glad about and fortunate for. I can't ignore the self interest of homeowners, because homeownership is the largest asset that most people have, and we want to encourage that. But I also see those same homeowners right that same majority of people in Vermont, that their adult children aren't finding a place to live. You know that the maybe their businesses can't grow maybe they're seeing businesses shutter in their community because those businesses are hampered. So, there is, I don't know how we capitalize on that, but, but there is something in the messaging and the understanding, I think that we need to try to capitalize on that there, that there's going to be changes in our communities and how we started to have that more production and the changes. This group has been talking about. I think are ones that the state has been working on for decades and have done a great job on which is this. Again, there was a lot of conversation on Wednesday about housing and conservation and our downtowns and preventing sprawl and and our work focusing on downtowns and, you know, Chris Cochrane started out with, you know, all of that and around. And those are things I absolutely support we see as an as a development company we see the benefits of the downtown program the downtown credits, the neighborhood development areas, the, the work to eliminate the duplication of permitting. The incentives from a zoning perspective around the concentration of development. So I think that that looking back at my list. That that focus that the state has had and continues to have and is contemplated and some of these other bills that have been discussed in the past are all ways that will help to increase production that we've seen those things through the work and more of that. More of clearing the way. Anything that will clear the way for housing to be permitted more quickly in those areas that makes sense right those those downtowns village centers with water and sewer with schools and sidewalks. So, you know, the one topic around that that's been talked a lot nationally. There's a lot of buzz about and I hear it here in Vermont and I know main is looking at the same thing, but is this conversation around single family zoning, and from an inclusion from a perspective of inclusion that if we're if you take a look at a village center or a downtown and the land mass, where all of that infrastructure is located, the vast majority is restricted to single family homes. And so how can we open up that those areas and think about, we have, we have, you know, underutilized space. And, and that's a change when going back to the, you know, I live in a single family neighborhood and in Burlington and and people are people have to think about what does that mean if we start saying some parts of these neighborhoods some parts of these streets can be densified can allow for multifamily housing of some sort. Those are the kinds of changes I think we have to keep talking about and showing the positive impact of. Because we're certainly seeing the negative impact from a lack of housing. And I've been, I've had a lot of conversations over the past year with employers, and I'm working closely with a group of employers in the upper valley. Because they're to help them construct a vehicle for them to make investment in housing, because they're so concerned that, and they're doing a lot of different innovative things to support their employees. But now they're actually looking at making an investment through Evernote into affordable housing. So we have, you know, the lack of production or the production that hasn't kept pace with the need is a huge problem and so, so zoning and permitting is, is the roadblock is the like we have only so much land only so much infrastructure so many places where things can happen in a cost effective way. And that is cost effective as opposed to being on the outskirts of town or, you know, you building septic systems or or trying to provide a well for multifamily housing and community water systems those are all expensive operations both from an upfront cost and a long term operation so, so it's that concentration of housing and I, we have a long long history and Vermont. And that's enviable of doing that and I just think we just have to double down and make those programs more expansive, more clear, invite more communities to be part of those programs eliminate some of the barriers for some of the smaller communities, and focus continue to focus our efforts in that way. And I know there is always money money money and I know this isn't a money bill that you're talking about but the infrastructure funds and the federal funds that are here both at the state level and at the, at the community level. I think as much as we can focus that lens of housing and the connectivity between housing and other investments. And, you know, is an investment in in a water system or a storm water system or a roadway or broadband system, how is that also enabling and creating more opportunity for development of housing. Right. How is that. I wonder about that even that question is asked, if even as a municipality is thinking about this investment in a related thing. Will it enable more housing will it contribute to more housing, because housing is connected to all those things. And the other, the third thing I think about beyond the money and the permitting and the programming, you know, policy piece is really the on the affordable side and I know we need housing and not only for folks that ever north is serving which is, which is people, primarily people with incomes, 80% and below is, is our, is our range of housing with a special focus at like 50 and 60%, but but still doing some of that middle range housing which in the upper valley for example we're talking about that would translate to an employee earning between 16 and $25 an hour is the focus range for that group that we're working on. But, but so thinking about that those homes for for for folks at that income level. I just have to speak for a moment about the network, the housing network, some of whom you folks you are familiar with but this, the community housing organizations that produce and steward affordable housing are so essential and and Vermont has really an enviable network of developers and funding agencies and service providers and syndicators which is my job. They really are very well coordinated. And, and tied to that is the long standing policy that Vermont has had with regard to permanent affordability. And I would say Vermont when you look across the nation, Vermont has done a better job than other states at preserving and sustaining the affordable housing over the long haul because we came out the gate saying we're going to do permanent affordability. And other states, that's something maybe they achieved many years down the road. And as a result, which you can see is states are losing housing faster than they're building it. They're losing affordable housing faster than they're building it and physical housing is still there, but it gets converted to market rate. Because of its opportunity right there's, there's, there's room to raise the rents much higher just rents across the country have been escalating so much that someone who owns a property that has been affordable. Now can convert that to market rate in Vermont that's not happening because we, we said the housing must be permanently affordable. So the investment that state made with its own dollars through VHCB and the state agencies, and through the federal tax credits, those investments are not lost. And they're retained, and they're stewarded by this network of nonprofit organizations. So, I think, when you think about production being part of the problem. With other bad symptoms and other locations is the loss of housing on top of a slow production. And in Vermont we've been, because of these policies that were put in place a long time ago. We have done just a much better job than other states at preserving the housing investments we've made. And so we want to continue that pattern. And that trend. So that commitment to permanent affordability is essential. And, and that includes, you know, I just think anything that you're looking at that aligns policies and new ideas, you know, through this network of VHFA and the Vermont Housing Conservation Board really pays back dividends and I and I really, I just want to say, and I wish you were here to hear this, but that capacity in the past couple of years has been especially visible through Champlain Housing Trust. You know, some of you are from the Chimney County area, but I have been personally so impressed with CHT over the past couple of years as they have taken on such leadership in the state and in the housing network around the issue of homelessness. And this really, you know, Michael I think probably did talk a little bit about the hotel purchases that they're doing and how both their cost effective and quick and, and they're resolving and supporting, finding places for people who've been homeless to live. But they have taken on really material risk to do that. I mean, it's not. They've taken on substantive risk to do that risk to their reputation about doing something new and fast in a challenging time, and risk to their own organizational capacity, and, and really just basic fundamental real estate risk around some of that to do those renovations and convert them so quickly. That capacity, you know, I just that to me the strength that CHT has is as an individual organization but then also through the network to be supported and to share that information is just for me a real illustration of the value that something that Vermont has this. And it's not, it's not the same in New Hampshire I mean they have great developers and great, both for profit and community developers, but the collaboration and the consistency and cohesion is not this is not as clear in those states as it is in Vermont. I just think about as CHT is like the largest housing organization, they can do more than most others but, but I think about like what if, what if every counties, or every regional organization had the kind of strength maybe at a different scale than CHT. You know, that maybe more production could be happening so I. I just think the network itself is a powerful tool. Okay, does anybody have any more Nancy and I want to open it up to questions I do have one myself. Happy to have any questions. Thank you that was wonderful. Also want this question for Peter Gregory and I am any of the witnesses we had in your connections around the country and what you're hearing. Are we losing a lot of housing permanent housing to short term rentals. And is there some sort of solution to that that you hear about at all. Yeah, so short term rentals as a topic of conversation among my peers across the country. It's, it's a serious problem and I'm looking at Senator Clarkson I know like in communities like Woodstock or Stowe or other resort areas. It's even, it's even more compounded. And it is another way that housing is lost out of the system right it goes from being a house that's been contributing as a location for workers to live in and you know, so forth to a business. The solutions that I've seen that seem to be most acceptable and productive because are the ones where we're talking about a smaller scale owner occupied type short term rentals feels like a balance point that a lot of communities have come to where those kind of short term rentals could be allowed because, you know, on the other hand, there are lots of people who having income like that enables them to stay in their home and stay in the community. I think it's the, it's the resist the piece where there seems to be more consensus is around where entire buildings get taken out of the system out of the housing system and converted to short term rentals or where there's an owner who has multiple buildings and it's a whole business environment as opposed to a smaller scale. That's one of the reasons I really want to explore promotion of the development of ad use, because I could see, you know, somebody wants to convert their house and they do the math and they, or they want to rent their house out and they want to turn into a short term rental and they do the math. That's the only way they can go is maybe moving out and turning that place into a short term rental but if it was really easy for the convert part of their house, they, they could get some income at the same time and provide potentially an income unit and keep living in it so practically, I think an investment in things like ad use from the state to make it really easy for, for someone's overhouse to build a unit in there. And that might require zoning changes as well on the state level to. No, no, I just like to build because that was going to be my question because Nancy gave us a big lead in her testimony into that in terms of losing housing. We don't just lose housing. We lose whole neighborhood feel. When you take out a full time family that lives there that has kids in the schools that is a neighbor who gets to know the other neighbors, I mean, we hold neighborhoods and communities are changing as a result of their being gutted of full time people who are renting or owning it. So it short term rentals aren't just a having a huge impact on many of our gold towns in terms of losing housing but we're losing the quality of our neighborhoods we're losing big financial impact. In terms of tax revenue of residents and kids in our schools. So it's, we've got to figure out how to get a handle on understanding the financial and community impact of short term rentals on our communities in addition to the obviously loss of housing. Yeah, and I am I don't know. I mean to me I wonder is there a way to tax that kind of use differently so that it's so that those resources if they are going to happen if those those activities are going to happen in that housing is lost. There is a public, there is a public loss as you just described, you know, and we have, as I was talking about infrastructure and buildable locations, right we have a limited number of those spaces and if we're, we're not replacing those homes. We've got the public has lost something and so can that use be taxed in a different way and can that revenue be used to support, you know, new housing to be built or, or, or other housing to be maintained or converted. If they be used, you know, yes, ADUs are great there's been a lot of room to increase the flexibility of allowing those in different locations. I think it's still a heavy lift for most homeowners to go through a permitting and construction, and it's a really heavy lift and so. So, that's right. Yeah, that's just a challenge about how do you, how do you, how does that process gets simplified enough that is successful for people to really achieve. Right. Well we want to make it. I think the time has come ADUs have been around for 15 years we were ahead of the curve in the country. We first made them legal under conditional use so we got a foot in the door now we need to provide some technical support and maybe some financial support to build upon those past laws. I'm going to tag on what you just said Michael, I don't think a building an ADU should be any more burdensome than turning a piece of your house into a short term rental I mean because you're right the plus of short term rentals for some huge house owners who's still there as a solo person and that makes great sense to help keep them in that house, which we shouldn't make it and they should be equally challenging I mean there's construction involved in both but the, they should be equally, you know, sort of more equal in terms of effort. Okay, Nancy, thank you very much. Nancy that was great. We're going to move on to one of my favorite planners. I've worked with her decades. And one thing I could say about Peter is he's really grounded in looking at all sides of things and coming into thoughtful conclusions so willing to hear if you have some creative ideas where we can go and whether where we're going already is, is in the right direction. Thank you Mr Chair members of the committee it's it's great to be back here and I want to thank you for your past work on this issue. It's, it's a huge crisis has been for a long time and mentioning the short term rentals that's just yet another hammer over our heads and dealing with the shortage of housing so I want to also thank Nancy for her great work through the years and her partnership I appreciate that. Hi, I'm Peter Gregory director of the two rivers out of creature regional Commission, I'm here speaking I think generally for all regional planning commissions on most comments except near the end will have some suggestions that are my own. But I would like to say that two rivers has had a regional plan that I would consider pretty robust as far as anti sprawl. And it comes into play in act 250 certainly we've been very aggressive in that regard, and also in town plan approvals we've been aggressive and actually disapprove some town plans because they have not addressed housing adequately so we have taken some tough positions. So I appreciate the committee's interest in dealing with housing from a smart growth perspective that's the right thing to do so I appreciate that. We've also conducted a multi regional housing study in the upper valley including the RPC in New Hampshire, where we've course kind of identified the huge gap in numbers of units but also the quality of housing certainly came out as a huge issue. And I just, you know, it's not just the upper valley but certainly it's one that we studied extensively and the quality of the existing housing stock certainly needs some attention. So very briefly I'd like to say, we all continue to support this committee's work on s 101 and the version that did pass the Senate. We certainly hope that that can continue moving forward and the way you had intended initially. It's I guess now that's to 10 certainly to rivers were testified in support of that last year and certainly advocated with a governor's office not to veto that piece of legislation because we felt it was an important piece and hope that that can get across the this year. I would like to just reiterate how important it is to adequately invest in the repairs that are needed when problems are identified I know this is not a money committee but the need for improvements in rental properties is so great that we want to make sure we have a registry that identifies problems, but then also has a mechanism to help fix those problems. And then, finally, House 511 representative of bomb guards bill. We were involved in helping create that bill over the fall. We support that and if this committee is so inclined and jurisdictional issues are worked out. We would love to see that part of your work so that can move as part of the omnibus I think that we'll make some good changes again, a lot of them are small but I think in total they continue moving the ball forward and that's what we need to do. We've been in this business long enough that we don't always hit a home run but if we continue to hit singles year after year after year over time we're making some some good headway. I'm going to transition into some some ideas that some you've heard before in the in the preceding couple of days from very good speakers good good thinkers that I will just indicate I support and these are again not from all regional planning commissions but from from me. One is as I think Nancy mentioned you ought to take some testimony if I may suggest on prohibiting single family zoning in areas where there is infrastructure. Not a blanket prohibition single family because we don't want to incent multifamily in areas that are far from downtown far from infrastructure so very targeted approach I think it's something that would be useful here in Vermont would be smart growth supportive. And then we get at the use of the infrastructure that the public sector has already invested in so I think it's a, it's a time we really look at that I know there's going to be immediate pushback from usual groups and municipalities but if this is a crisis like I think we believe it is. We can't be timid in our suggestions and our responses. Second thing I would suggest that we all look at the department as well as as this committee is the effectiveness of the bylaw modernization grants. We want to thank you for the effort and the legislature for the funding this year, but let's take a look at what actually occurs at the end of the round of grants that are out there. We want to make sure that the municipalities are one adopting changes and making sure to that the changes are adopting are not just, you know, ineffective little tweaks but but real important things I mean there's really, we want to make sure that the public investment in this incentive program is actually working. I suspect it will be but I want to make sure that we take a look at that I think that's important. The last question is I think we, the legislature ought to look at providing some funding to the department housing development to undertake a modernization of the planning side of chapter 117 title 24 chapter 117 has got the planning side for municipal regional plans and the bylaw side. There could be quite a bit of modernization on the planning side, certainly related to housing and your jurisdiction but also on climate and other things it's just woefully inadequate and not comprehensive enough and does not address the things that are facing us today so it's not a sexy thing, but it's not an expensive thing but I think it's an important enabling change that we ought to look at. The issue of consenting behavior versus mandating behavior this is always a tough one given the political tradition of the Northeast and Vermont particular. I've been doing this as you know a long time, and I've seen the results of incenting and enabling good planning behavior, and I've seen how it's gone and run its course and gone about as far as it is going to go. The bylaw modernization program, I mean there were opportunities for decades to make changes that were effective in incenting more housing locally, but it never happened. We're lucky we have the funding right now to provide these incentives but for those of us have been around for a long time. We remember when budgets, you know have been incredibly tight and we couldn't even do the basic human needs much less things like like other bylaws. So I think I think we need to be. I think we need to really look at mandating if incentives are not working. I know there's a huge pushback on that and the timing has to be right, but we need to have those discussions. We can't force it maybe the state withhold certain dollars and grant programs to communities that refuse or are unable to make the changes that we know need to be made, especially since public tax dollars have gone into their downtown and with their sewer systems and all that. It's just an ineffective and inefficient use of public tax dollars here for sending money out the door here and not getting the results we as a state need. And then finally ad use and short term rentals. Those are issues I think can be tweaked and we stand ready to assist this committee if you get into those issues and a little more detail at some point so with that. Thank you for listening and take any questions you have. That was great Peter. So when you talk about incentives versus mandates. I thought this committee came up with a creative idea on bylaw changes. Last year, the league was opposed to it, but it was sort of a soft mandate where it said over three years. You had to make these changes and then you could still get out. If you, if you wrote some sort of letter saying why it was difficult, or if you had an absolute right to get out. And did you did your group or planners support. I think we voted out successfully and got watered down by the house or maybe even before it got out of the Senate. Is that a kind of approach you would have support. Oh, I did. I certainly did support that. I suggested in testimony that the department actually be required to determine whether or not the out that a municipality sought was actually justified. I didn't want to be in that position, but simply writing a letter or something I didn't think was enough but yes I think I think that was the proper way to go. I mean that was not that that was sort of like a combination of incentive and mandate, you know, so it was very, very simple very easy bar but I think it would have effectuated some decent change on the ground over time. And I look at that again. Okay, any other questions for Peter, I really appreciate that testimony Peter Nancy. I'm glad I, I know it's going to be at the expense of our next few minutes but it's good to have it on the heels of Wednesday's testimony and not let it just linger there so I appreciate you coming in. And unless there are other questions let's see what time it is now we have about it's almost time for the floor. All right so we have it.