 Further out of the fund. Well, you know when we say 15 projects of a million and a half there they're all not going to be a million and a half I think westward was 800,000 for instance, and that's over a five year period. And so, there are still some caps which Graham could talk about in the overall to funding and. Okay, these would be paid back in five years not in the life of the bond for 20. No, I didn't say that I said the life of the pilot is for five years. So those 15 projects maybe three projects a year. So it's not like this 15 coming in every year, the administration. Okay, but but they they would be funded out of the Ed fund for the life of the bond which is generally 20 years. Right, but yeah, the scale, the way I like to think about it is, let's assume you had 15 at $1 million just to be round I think that's still pretty yeah. That's $15 million, compared to what we see in a lot of our tiff district so over five years you could cover 15 municipalities, which is probably comparable to what one tiff district might be. The administration, you know this is their initiative, the governor had a press conference on and he was very high on it to get some help economic development help to these small towns. Okay, Senator Pearson. Senator Sorok and how do we, you know, the, the theory behind our standard tiff districts is they elevate the property value right in that neighborhood and therefore in the, at the end of the payback period, the property, the grand list is inflated for the Ed fund benefits, etc. Taking the example of Westford which obviously I represent along with you so I'm interested in helping them. Why would we think a water investment in water district would would develop. I mean, there is that back development I just want to understand if, if we're, we're, I understand the idea to have flexibility for smaller towns smaller communities. I'm on, I want to know, are we still believing the same premise holds with these kinds of tiffs that overall over time. Absolutely. In town of Westford, they brought in schematics and a lot of plans and without this wastewater district this a few blocks around the center of town would not be developed without them having access to the wastewater treatment plan. Well, I know we didn't get to, I have to say, Senator ballot, you have to change that picture because I'm having trouble talking with you peering at me like that. quizzically. That's her what do you mean the dog. She said, I meet yourself. comparisons on there, the dog get your homework look. Okay, but the. So I think we understand that tips can't go for. Really they're complex enough. That's what I'm just saying. I think I'm just dancing that you really have to have a finance and a planning department and smaller towns don't I know East Montpelier could not put up senior housing downtown for the lack of a septic system. downtown area for, you know, for development. I'm sure there are other small towns that are there. I'm just wondering, but when you usually do a TIFT district, you have a project. You know, this hotel wants to go up this building, this facility, this company, and the value to the grand list will be that. But if, but there's a specific project, do the, do these smaller towns have to have a specific project or just say, if we build it, they will come? I'm not 100% sure. It's been a while. I know Westford. I know Westford, which was the one that came into our committee in detail did have multiple perspective tenants and builders for their block, where there's several block area around the town center. So they, they were able to show that if you did the infrastructure, it would benefit the grand list. I don't know if it's a requirement or not. We might want to get the, or I can try and get you the answer by talking to VepC about it and see how they, how they structure. I just, I just don't remember. Okay. We'll have VepC in. Okay. Senator McDonald, are you waving your hand or you shut yourself off for a minute? Okay. Madam Chair, this is a slippery slope. We started off with tips where towns were able to pay for projects themselves, which benefited their grand lists. And as I've said before, I thought it got a little out of control. And now we are debating this committee, whether the proposed tips that are being proposed are of value to the towns. This used to be a program where towns made the decision themselves, borrowed the money, and paid for it over time. And now it has been characterized as tips that this Ed fund is the state bank. And it appears we've got 15 pilot projects that go to the state bank, a pilot project. This is the whole graduating class of pilots. Tips were never decisions that the, that other, that the state made over whether it was a wise thing for the town to do that was the town's decision. And now we're now that we're bankrolling it, we were taken on a different role. End of my speech. Okay. Well, I just want to make sure that Senator McDonald saw the provision in the bill that you can only apply for these tips, if you don't have a traffic light in your town. That might help. I think. Thank goodness. But lots of collisions. The idea with tips originally was that you wouldn't be able to get your bond bond vote by the entire town, the town was poor, the town, you know, the folks in the hail weren't paying to fix up downtown. And that that's been, you know, one of the ongoing considerations, it's for a certain section of town renewal. And to just improving your grand list. I guess my question is going to be and I will wait for is the league supporting this. Whichever group is supporting it is why can't Westford just go out and bond to put in the filtration plant. We can get Westford in and yes the league is supportive of this. And I think you should hear from them. My recollection is that if they put in their sewer plant as in vision for the around town, there wouldn't be enough. There wouldn't be enough fees of people who could hook up to this to sustain the treatment plan, but we, you know, it's been a little while. I think that's right, but we'll have to we'll have to check on that. Why is this necessary. Becky, did you have your hand up. I got it. So I actually unfortunately have to testify in another committee in a few minutes. So let's finish with you. So, I think it might be helpful just to go through what is different from tips. Yes, if that works for the committee. Yes, I think that would be good language is just how tax increment can be set aside and used and that's similar to what this committee has discussed many times about with the tip district so I can point you to this is one being on page 13 subsection h under the approval process for these. And so, that's the project based on criteria. In the district, there are five criteria, their project and location criteria that need to be met with these projects. There's the first criteria that that the proposed infrastructure improvements and project development or redevelopment are compatible with confirmed and municipal and regional development plans and the project has clear local and regional significance for employment housing or transportation improvements. And the second is that development clearly requires substantial public investment over and above the normal municipal operating a bonded debt expenditures and then there has to be one of the four following criteria. Those are the, the first is either development includes a new or rehabilitated affordable housing. The third is that the project will affect the remediation and redevelopment of a brownfield located located within the district. The third is that the development will include at least one entirely new business or business operation or expansion of an existing business within the project. And so, that will provide new quality full time jobs that meet or exceed the prevailing wage in that region as determined as reported by the Department of Labor. And then finally, the development will enhance transportation by creating improved traffic patterns and flow or creating or improving public transportation systems. Those four rather than the five that are required for tip districts. And then I think. Madam chair. You have a question. Yes. I thought we had questions about the agencies that whose task was to build highways and remediate brown fields and stimulate investment to Vita and true of traffic traffic patterns, or other and, and that's a general fund responsibility. I'm going to let the thing to the end fund to fund these things. Right. I'm going to let Becky finish. We're going to hear from the league and write down your questions that Becky's just walking us through what's in there. Oh, we've met. Oh, no, that's the cat. Okay. Um, and then I think the last point I would make, um, they're similar reporting requirements for these projects, uh, but on page, um, 19, uh, so under the TIF districts, there's, uh, there's a TIF district rule, um, where Vepsie can implement that program. Since this is a pilot project, it, um, rather than adopting a rule, Vepsie is authorized to adopt policies that are consistent with that rule, um, to implement this section. Okay. Any requirements for the same auditing standards that we have in TIFs? Yes. They're on page 17 subsection. Yes, it's fine. Okay. All right. They're, they're a little different than, than TIF districts, but they're, they're also there is an audit. There are auditing requirements. Okay. Okay. Um, so that is that that's it for your sections of these bills. Yeah, that's it for me. Okay. So we'll get you to your other committee, hopefully on time. And we're going to have lost my agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Madam chair, before you. On to this, just to address some of the questions that have been asked about why this particular project and Westford and how these particular projects differs from others that we're considering the, the, the, the plan for these small districts, as I understand them, and the other members of the committee, uh, uh, Senator ballot and Senator Sorokin can chime in. If I'm wrong or put my memory doesn't serve correctly, but it seems to me that, that one of the big issues is that these small rural communities don't have the equity to be able to pledge to a project in order to borrow the amount of money necessary in order to do it, even though these are not huge sums, uh, like we've seen in other TIF districts. But one of the advantages of being able to do it in this way is by, by the community could get grants, uh, which require, uh, uh, a certain amount of money to be put, put up front, for example, in federal grant programs, and they don't have the equity to put that up. By putting it up in this fashion, they could be able to leverage funds in order to get, uh, uh, the, the match that they need in order to get a, a project started, uh, using other set of state and federal dollars. Uh, the, this is designed as, uh, an economic development, uh, tool. And in particular, the example of the rich that, uh, Westford brought in is they have a, a downtown with a number of buildings, including some buildings that are functionally not usable because they don't have the wastewater and other capacity. Uh, they have, as, as I understand it, a particular developer who is willing to put in a, uh, cafe, restaurant, uh, complex in the center of Westford, which again would provide what essentially is the only significant business there and also add water to apartments in an existing building, but they need that wastewater in order to, to make, without that, the project won't go period. And so it will never be developed. And it's, it's those kinds of discrete things that are project oriented as opposed to their traditional tips, which are district oriented. And that's perhaps what separates them. And the notion is that, that by doing that, they will create a tax base that otherwise would not be created in order to provide funds to pay it back. Well put, Senator. Well put. Okay. All right. David Hall, are you there, David? I am here. Okay. And I've got you on both bills, but I think it would be a lot less confusing. If we, well, I don't know. Yeah. Let's stick to 237. And then I've got Ellen and I've got Chris corporate. And then we can get it. Well. If. That's 256 is just mine. And so if I did that one and then I did my part of 237. Ellen and Chris could finish you off. Okay. I think I, I think switching around between bills since. The committee hasn't dealt with it for a while and we've never dealt with it is just getting a little confusing. So. Sure. If we stick to one bill at a time, if we can do. 256. And get through that, then we'll probably be in good shape. Okay. Yeah. I'm happy to do that. So. Would you like me to David Hall legislative council. Would you like me to share my screen and go through it? Yeah. I think we can do it together. Yeah, I think that might be helpful. Okay. Committee, if you have a question, you can do the blue hand thing or holler at me. Okay. All right. 256. Just make sure that's what you're seeing. Are you seeing 256 now? Yes. Great. All right. So draft seven point one is what came out of economic development. And it's pretty straight forward. This is the. No, no economic development bill, the first piece. On a new worker recruitment. I'll just say quickly, this would codify and consolidate into one permanent program. What you have already adopted for the new worker relocation. And the new remote worker programs. So it would keep the same substantive provisions, the same grants, the same eligibility criteria. Consolidate the money. If you have a new worker, a person who qualified for one of the other would still qualify under this. It would just all be under the umbrella of one single program. Again, permanently codified in title 10. Under the agency of commerce. Given the circumstances, the economic development committee discussed this morning, whether new worker recruitment. Is a timely subject. So. I don't see any blue hands. Anybody going to holler. Okay. Keep going. All right. Don't get dizzy as I scroll through. What page are you going to. I am going to skip a lot. The reason being all of this is these first seven pages. And the next set of pages are all related to the project based TIF project, which right. Becky just covered. So that is going to allow us to, to fly across some more space. I apologize for the whizzing text. Yeah. All right. Do I think we're going to 18 for some reason? I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Even beyond. 19. Okay. Here we are. So I am now on page 19 of 27. Capital investment. Okay. I'm looking at section six. Yeah. So this proposal is. Part of the veggie program. And it's a proposal that. Within veggie. That is targeted really towards smaller businesses with the goal of getting them money. In hand upfront, rather than paid out over a period of years. And it's a proposal that. Way back when the agency of commerce, the company of commerce, the company of commerce, the company of commerce would be a little bit more. And then it would go to the legislature. For consideration. So essentially in a nutshell. What would happen is an applicant in for a veggie incentive would come to Vep C. Would do the normal application process. Would provide some targets, performance requirements. And Vita. And Vita would do its own analysis and application and approval process pursuant to its own underwriting standards. And if both. Vep C and Vita approve the project for funding. Then the amount of the projected incentive would be given to the company immediately upfront. So you probably are familiar with veggie at this point. You have to submit performance requirements. If you meet them, you file your report in April. And if the tax department verifies that you met the performance requirements, it gives you essentially one fifth. Of your. Incentive. And it pays the rest out over a period of years. And it would be in the form of a loan. Again, the purpose here would be to give you that money upfront. It would be in the form of a loan, but it would be interest only payments. And the interest rate wouldn't be more than 1%. And if after the three year term of that loan, you were still in good standing. So you still had. Maintain your performance requirements. And then that loan would convert to a grant. And Vita would be made whole by a payment from. The department of taxes from the withholding account. And for the business. And then, then the grant would be essentially the incentive payment. Written off by the agency. So it's not really a change in how much money you would qualify for. It's the same amount. The incentive would be the same value. It's really a timing question. Of when you get the money. And the period of time over which the, the loan runs. And then the payoff occurs. So I can go into more details than that if you'd like, or we can keep it at that high level for now. It's up to you. Okay. Right now. I get a Vita grant. And it is paid out to me. Every, every year for five years. So a fifth of it. And I have to meet basically the employment or the capital improvement standard. And if I don't, I have to. I have to pay the money back. Now this. So I get under the standard loan. I get a fifth of it. Every year. Are you referring to the current incentive program? Or Vita grants. It gets paid out. And if I don't meet the criteria I got the grant under, then I have to pay it back. I have to pay it back. And they claw it back. If this would give me all the money up front. So I get. Five years worth and one lump sum. And if I don't meet the criteria. Then I have to pay it back as a loan. Plus no more than 1% interest. Is that what it's doing? Sort of. Yeah. So you would go to. And you would submit your application for a veggie incentive. Right. As you said, you would specify payroll performance requirements. And. A jobs requirement. Also submit a capital investment. Requirement though you don't have to. Again. You would submit those targets for each year for which you were. Seeking an incentive. And so. You're one, you'd say, I'm adding 10 jobs and a million dollars in payroll. April comes around. You submit your stuff to tax. If tax sees that you added those jobs and added that payroll. Then they give you. You know, basically one fifth of the award for that year. And as long as you maintain those numbers, they give you another installment. Each year for four more years. So that's an incentive. If you don't. Make that incentive. If you don't meet those requirements. You do not get the money at all. If you don't meet those requirements. If you don't meet those requirements for a few years. But you do not get paid. An incentive if you don't meet your targets. In this program. And again, it's, it's geared towards small business and you do have to. Submit a capital performance requirement. They give you, if you're approved by Pepsi and Vita, they do give you that money upfront. If you don't. Remember that you have a loan right now from Vita. And that's all that you have. And so under the loan agreement, you are required to pay Vita back. Those first three years, which is the award period, it would be interest only payments. And again, the interest would not exceed 1%. And by the time, by the end of that three year period, you had not met all your performance requirements. It does not convert. And you just keep paying the loan. At that point, you would start paying principal and interest. But you are legally obligated to repay the loan to Vita. Unless. It converts to a grant. And it's forgiven. So. Yes, as you suggested, Madam chair, you are getting money upfront before you meet. The performance requirements, which is obviously a fundamental difference. With the underlying veggie program. But I think don't lose sight of the safeguard that. The loan has to be separately approved by Vita. Before you get any of the money. And it's going to be a loan on your books and theirs. Unless and until you meet your requirements and it converts. Okay. Any questions from the committee at this point. I just think. If I'm, if I'm remembering correctly and reading page. 22 correctly is. When it says the limitation is $150,000. Is that a limitation on the. Size of the loan that could be turned into a grant. Yes. Yes. There are. There are many details in here. I'm happy to dig into sure. That's one of them. You'll see hopefully on your screen subsection C here limitations. So the, as Senator Schrockin indicates, the amount of the incentive would be capped at $150,000. And here under C2. As you're probably aware, there is an annual statutory cap on the total amount of incentives. That Betsy can approve through the veggie program. That's initial $15 million and a final $10 million. So of those statutory limits, this program is capped at 1.5 million. So that's not an additional 1.5 million to the statutory cap. That is part of the statutory cap. So those two limitations. In addition to limiting the eligibility to businesses of 30 or fewer employees. Do narrow the scope of the program. So that's one of the things that's considered to be a pilot program. Given the small number of incentives that would be eligible. If I might jump in and just say in our committee discussion this morning, as I previewed for you, there are things in this bill such as this particular program. That were put together before we knew of COVID-19. Our charge may have changed quite a bit in terms of a potential piece of legislation that deals with recovery that we would like to work with the administration on. And this may fall by the wayside, this particular one. It was proposed at very different times. And we may have very different and broader or bigger. And more immediate needs to, to address. So I just want to put that in perspective. I was just thinking this might be the one with the best chance of survival for exactly those reasons. Well, it may be, but we just look at, you know, how it fits in with other, other proposals we might want to do. It reminds, it looks a lot like the PPP program in some ways that, but it may fill in some of the cracks that PPP didn't. It might be a vehicle. I know the governor has an economic recovery task force. And it might turn into a vehicle. It might turn into a vehicle. Or part of, you know, an economic recovery program. Something to think about probably more so than many tips. We like many tips. I'm, I'm sure you do. I just need to be sold and I'm the one that loves tips. So. I also have my $50 million deficit in the ed fund. So that tempers my Amherst feelings towards tips. Okay. Okay. Any questions for David on these. Committee members. Okay. Not at this point. Any questions on this entire bill that we need to get. And they'll have to get. The things on my, my list is an update on the. Projections for the property transfer attacks. And then VEPC. And I think that's for the next bill. And then VEPC and Vita, and probably the agency of community development on. Both of these bills. At least on the, on this bill. finished this bill yet there. Okay. Yeah. I'm Chair. Senator McDonald. Just say this bill, it has two halves that has the many tips and it has the new Vita grant possible grant program. Is that correct? No, there's several. There's more. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Keep going. Sure. So I've just skipped over some other VEPC. There's two other VEPC pieces, both are reports that would go along with the convertible loan program. But one is about the implementation. The other is a study in a report concerning its internal audit procedures, its review of the but for process and other things. So that's section eight. Okay. Section nine is an increase to the downtown and village center tax credit. And obviously this goes up from 2.6 million to 4 million. So don't miss that. No. Okay. And then there are appropriations. Are you interested in hearing about these? We might as well know what they are. They're not jurisdiction, but we should know what's in here. Okay. Very good. So in section 10 here, there are a lot of appropriations currently in this bill for FY 21. The first is $1 million to the Secretary of State to complete the work it is doing to design and implement the one-stop business portal for businesses. That's been several years process, and this is funding to complete that. So division two, $600,000 to agency of commerce. This all relates to the small business innovation research program. That's a federal grant for small businesses. So there's two pieces to it. A, 200,000 of it would be for technical service providers to assist business applicants for the federal grant. And then the $400,000 would be to provide a 50-50 state match to those businesses that are successful in receiving a federal grant. The state portion of that would be not more than $50,000. So division three is $250,000 to the Department of Tourism for Marketing, both Tourism, Economic Development, and Outdoor Recreation Marketing. And then subdivision four is $500,000 to VEDA for interest rate subsidies, loan loss reserves, and the cost of administering the capital investment convertible loan program, which we just discussed. Okay. Any questions? Any questions there? Okay. That's 256. That's not us. Okay. That's 256. Any questions? Committee on 256. I'm not hearing any. So we can go on to the next bill. The next bill is 237. That's the housing bill. And if you take the second part first, which is my part, then you can get to Ellen and Chris on all the land use, and resource planning, and things. I have several discrete pieces that cover different subjects than their pieces. Are you ready for those? Yeah. I'm on 237. What you're starting with? Section 17. 17. Okay. This is not working. What page? Page 33. I got a long way to go. Okay. So we're going to have a requirement that we only have one drafter on any bill that's brought to us. If we had a single subject rule in our Constitution, that would work. Okay. We're off. Interrupting. David, would you like to pull it up and share your screen? I believe that I am. Okay. Can people see Section 17? Are you on the right page, David? Oh, yes. Okay. There it is. Yeah. Sorry. Thanks. Does everybody see statewide housing study? Yeah. Yes. Okay. You could hit a couple of little pluses there, David, and make it a bit bigger for us. You'd like to see bigger? I was just going to say the opposite, but that's fine. About here? Yes. Superman down there with X-ray vision. I've got it on my computer, so I can read it. Okay. Off we go. So Section 17, as the subject title indicates, is the housing study. It would be done by DHCD working with Dale. But it's a housing study to evaluate current and projected needs for age-specific housing in Vermont and would include recommendations for age-specific housing plan and policies, measurable objectives that are focused on older Vermonters, in particular of those of very low income or are caregivers of people living with disabilities. I'm sorry, I think there's a parade. Sorry. I don't know what's going on out there. Well, are we protesting something or celebrating? I'm on North Street, Madam Chair. I don't know if it's coming. No, that's not the place where you should get it. Any parades can steep the march up. Right. So Section 18, Becky already addressed. This is the VHCB funding section. So I'm going to skip that one. The next two pieces, sections 19 and 20, deal with short-term rentals. So in Section 19, this is giving DHCD the authority to adopt emergency rules to collect data that will allow the state to understand the impact of short-term rentals on the availability of housing, balancing the privacy interests of short-term rental operators and guests. It would call for a report next January to committees of jurisdiction, including information about the data it collects and any housing needs assessment that the department is doing right now with VHFA and VHCB, compilation of legal frameworks adopted by US states, regulating short-term rentals, and then recommendations for any statutory municipal regulation of short-term rentals. So this, again, in large part, this process is underway at DHCD, but this authority to give them the ability to do emergency rules and collect data is to just be sure that they have all the underlying information they need to evaluate short-term rentals in its place in our housing profile. Okay. Could I ask you a question about that? Yes. David, I'll look at the language more closely, but I understand I think what we're after with this language, but it's not only one-sided coin, right? The short-term housing rentals bring economic activity, boost the tourism sector, et cetera. Is that meant to be studied here or somewhere else? Or are we just looking at simply the sort of occupation, the housing being occupied piece of the coin? I think that the purpose here is to look at short-term rentals in the broader context of the housing portfolio of the entire state. And I don't know that it speaks really to the economic development side of what short-term rentals bring to the state so much, but I think it's more geared toward understanding the breadth of the usage of properties for this purpose and frankly, whether or not and how the state should take a broader role than what it currently does in regulating them. I think that's the real thrust. As you probably are well aware, right now there's a just minimal amount of involvement at the state level of short-term rentals. So this really is about the scope of the practice and then whether the state should regulate them more. Madam Chair. Yes, Senator McDonald. In one sentence, what is the short-term rental? It's a short-term occupancy that you would, for instance, on Airbnb or VRBO, fewer than 30 days, non-permanent occupation. So renting a house or a room or an apartment now on a short-term basis, usually through one- I think it's the fewer than 30 days, isn't it? Fewer than 30 days, yep. Thank you. There's actually a definition in the next section. Our statutory definition begins on line 10. It's a furnished house, condo or other dwelling room or self-contained dwelling unit rented to the transient, traveling or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year. Thank you. Sure. Okay. So that's a good segue into this next section. So section 20, we're in title 24 now in section 2291. This is the place in the statute that governs ordinances and what authority towns across the board have to regulate certain activities. Being a Dillon's rule jurisdiction, the municipalities only have the authority specifically dedicated to them by the state. So that happens in one of two ways. You either have charters, which are specific to particular municipalities, or you have other general authority that applies across the board, usually through ordinances or bylaws. This would authorize all municipalities to regulate by means of an ordinance or bylaw, the operation of short-term rentals within the municipality, provided that the ordinance or bylaw does not adversely impact the availability of long-term rental housing. So this allows the regulation of short-term rentals at the local level. No guidance there, just says the town can do what it wants. As long as it does not adversely impact the availability of long-term rental housing. I'm assuming that's not defined. It is not. Okay. I guess initially I have some concern about something that wide open and the potential for discrimination. Certain sections of town might be banned and not others. I'd like to talk a little bit more about that. You do it for all short-term housing, I suppose, you know, universal ordinance, but if you just, as you do with zoning, say not in this certain section of town, is it allowed? That has some concerns. Okay. But that we can talk about. Okay. All right. The next piece switches gears to homelessness prevention. So in the first instance in A, this is directing human services to take reasonable measures, including increasing case management services under the housing first model to reduce the loss of specialized federal rental assistance vouchers. You may remember reports of this much earlier in the year in a different lifetime where there, it looked like Vermont was leaving money on the table because of the way its services are arranged and offered through some of the systems we have now. So the purpose here really matches with an appropriation later in the bill to try to align our services with federal standards to get as much of that money as we can. And then in subsection B here, really the duty to report back to view committees of jurisdiction on what progress they made on this front. Okay. In section 22, we pivot to mobile homes. So this piece deals directly with the Department of Environmental Conservation. And it charges the department to basically work with the town of Brattleboro and the Tri Park Cooperative, which is a large mobile home park in that area, which faces a number of issues concerning homes in the floodplain and the need for infrastructure upgrades to allow a large portion of those homes to continue to be occupied. So DEC is charged with working with them to implement the Tri Park Master Plan and the Tactical Basin Plan, both of which have provisions and a timeline on how to ameliorate these issues, including through loan forgiveness or restructuring of state revolving loans. And it's two specific loans that are through a particular revolving loan fund and additional loans to allow for the relocation of homes in the floodplain and improvements to wastewater and stormwater infrastructure needs. That's one. Two, to provide similar assistance to the extent possible to similarly situated mobile home parks that also have relocation or infrastructure needs. And three, to identify statutory and programmatic changes necessary to assist in the implementation of the plans and approve access in terms by the parks, other communities in the Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund, the Water Infrastructure Sponsorship Program and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. So that's a lot of gobbledygook but basically the Department of Environmental Conservation administers these revolving funds, they're largely federally funded. I don't recall the amount in them at this point but it's sizable in the millions. And so essentially trying to encourage the department to be flexible in the administration of those funds and whether that's through loan forgiveness, restructuring, low interest loans or even if possible, changing over to grants may not be possible, but it's directing them to explore those steps and try to get more of this money to mobile home parks that have these infrastructure needs. Okay. Those are the revolving loan funds I was thinking of during the mini-tiff discussion. Sure. I thought we did, I knew we had ways to fund clean water and wastewater projects. Those funds do have money at this point. The next piece, similar vein, this is what was codified in 10VSA 10 as the, this is basically the 10% for Vermont program in the treasurer's office, allowing the treasurer to create this credit facility for local investments. I'm sure you've heard the treasurer's report on this over the years, but this specifically goes to mobile homes. It adds to the statutory authority here the ability to use amounts available in this credit facility to provide financing for infrastructure projects in Vermont mobile home parks and modify the terms of financing in the treasurer's discretion as necessary to promote the availability of mobile home park housing and protect the interests of the state. I think there's a pretty solid argument to be made that the treasurer could already use the credit facility for this purpose, but obviously adding mobile home park housing and infrastructure needs specifically to the statute places an emphasis on that purpose. David. I guess one of my concern that came out during Irene and we were rehousing, we lost a lot of mobile homes parks because they tend to be in less desirable, i.e floodplain areas, but this is housing that essentially doesn't appreciate. It depreciates its housing, but it's not the investment that stick-built housing is that generally appreciates. And we were in response to an emergency then, but I, at that point, I think it was Sandra Lucy who was down the other end of the hall was trying to talk about, do we have any way of starting to get people into affordable stick-built homes? They probably wouldn't have to sunken tubs and skylights that some of the double-wides now have, but they would be an investment for people, which especially a single-wide is not. Maybe it's for Senator Saratkin. Has anyone given any thought to how we start moving people out of mobile home parks? Well, the rest of the bill, which we'll get into, deals with your concern about creating more affordable stick-built housing, but we heard some very compelling testimony, especially from TriPark about people who are being immediately dislocated from these homes, and this is their only asset that they have, and they're trying to find ways to accommodate it. We viewed, I think, mobile homes as quite differently as potentially as a very affordable form of housing for certain locations and certain populations, and we felt that that choice should still be made available to them. So direct answer to your question, I don't think there's anything in this bill to try and get people out of mobile homes into stick-built housing. Right, no, I think it was just, is there thought as we're investing, and I understand right now, we're investing because this is people's homes, but this is about the only form of housing that depreciates, even if it's maintained, it depreciates, it's harder to get loans for it. I'm just wondering, as we go through our thought process and move into the future, if we're thinking about affordable, and that would probably mean something you could afford once it was built. Well, we did a housing tour this fall when we're all around the state, and yes, we've heard about ideas for much smaller units, trying to cut back on regulation and open up their spaces to make homes smaller, more affordable. I think we also heard pretty loud and clear that at least presently, mobile homes, one of the more affordable options that... Oh, they are. ...monitors have. So until we, yeah, it'd be great if we could do that, and I think you'll see in the rest of the bill that we're trying to move in that direction, but for the time being, we don't wanna see people displaced from their mobile homes. Yeah, no, I'm just saying. One of the things, Chair, that we're also, excuse me, that we're also considering is the fact that we have an immediate housing crisis. And when we start talking about stick-built homes, particularly in the way that we do it with the affordable housing apparatus, we're talking about years to get anything done. Mobile homes can be purchased and put on site in 30 to 60 days at a price people can afford. Yeah, that's why there are so many of them. Okay. And so if I could, Madam Chair, this is Becca. Just to, I know that the whole Economic Development and Housing Committee felt pretty moved by a number of folks who came forward during our road trip to talk about really what their mobile home parks meant to them, that it wasn't just the housing itself, but it was the environment in which they were living. And they felt like they had some of the most beautiful spots in the woods and really tucked away. That's definitely true about the mobile home parks here in Brattleboro. Of course, the challenge going forward is that a lot of the land is in the floodway and not just here at Brattleboro. So, but I just wanted to make sure I brought that into the conversation. There were a significant number of people who really don't want to move. They like where they are. They like their situation. Yeah, exactly. So thank you. Okay. David, are we still on you? We are, I'm almost done. The next piece you may have already seen because it has been percolating now for a couple of years. It's the Vermont Housing Incentive Program. This is a program through DHCD to provide grants to landlords to make improvements to their rental properties, obviously subject to conditions. It's basically money that would flow through the Department of Housing and Community Development through regional non-profit partners to landlords. And it's based on, I believe, the NeighborWorks model down in Rutland, I want to say, but we'll see there are grant requirements. And these are a little bit different than from a version that was passed previously. And still the case that a property has to be in need of rehabilitation in order to come into compliance with code. So it can qualify as vacant or blighted or you'll see in line 11, otherwise it does not comply with applicable rental housing health and safety laws. That is an expansion from the version that has passed the body before. The reason being that if this proposal was being worked through in conjunction with the change in the rental housing health and safety inspection system, and the thought here is that if it's vacant or blighted, that means it's not habitable and bringing that back online is the goal. But if you want to be able to make substandard housing better and in compliance with code, that is not an eligible use of the money if your standard is only vacant or blighted. And so this third category was added that it may otherwise not comply with applicable housing health and safety laws. Under two here, the owner of the landlord still has to match the value of the grant at least two to one. And it has to be through his or her own funds not through services. It still has to have a weatherization component. And it still has to be the work has to comply with permit and other applicable laws and requirements. Okay. Under three, the department and the owner have to ensure that not fewer than half of the rental units improved with grant funds have rents that are affordable to households earning not more than 80% of area median income. And they have to remain affordable at that level for not less than seven years. You'll see in four, if they don't or if you sell or transfer the property within that seven years, you either have to give the money back or you have to covenant with the buyer to ensure that it remains affordable at the level for whatever the remaining period is of that seven years. Okay. The last piece, the definitions of blighted vacant, those are the same as previously not fit for habitation or hasn't been occupied for 90 days. David, may I ask a question? Yes. Just an interpretation. I know I think I asked this before and I think I remember the answer but I just want to make sure. If you take a look at page 41, beginning line 19, subsection three, shall ensure that not fewer than half of the rental units improved with grant funds. If a, and I know that we have a four unit or smaller piece here, but if an owner improves a single property, does that in fact mean that 100% of the properties he's improving have to meet those affordability criteria? I believe that that unit will have to meet the criteria. Yeah, as opposed to overall, these of the 40% or rather overall apply to a certain percentage of the gross program as opposed to each individual owner. Well, it's the number of units improved with the grant funds, so. But is it for each individual property owner who as an example has just one property or is it for the overall program that have the rental units of the overall program meet that but an individual property owner might not? That's the essence of the question. Yeah, I believe it's per property owner, not for the entirety of the program. Okay, because the duty to maintain that affordability flows to and through the property owner for as long as, well, if, you know, for the time that they own it and then also that duty would flow to the next owner if that seven year period has not met. So to me that says this is an individual property owner requirement, not a program wide requirement. Thank you. Okay, because when you first read it, I would have interpreted it the other way. So I think that should be very clear before we go forward. Yeah, and you would be the exception. I suppose, yeah, if you had one or two units, you'd have to have at least 50% of your units because you can't get, you can't rent a section of a unit. I don't think. Okay. So in line 20, it could say half of the property owners rental units, if you wanted to just be crystal clear there. I hear- Or it'd be of the improved units, right? Because they might own buildings in several cities and just improve one. Sure. I mean, you have to say half of the owners rental units that were improved with grant funds. Yeah. I hear you. All right. Might have some high end units somewhere else. Sure. The last piece, the appropriations, I'll cover those quickly. So 150,000 goes to the municipal and regional planning fund to the RPCs to assist municipalities of getting their bylaws to include inclusionary housing bylaws, sort of goes to Ellen's pieces. Another 150 goes to the municipal planning commissions to assist municipalities of getting their bylaws. 50,000 goes to ACCD to provide technical assistance to homeowners and developers who seek to develop ADUs, accessory dwelling units for existing properties and for small residential projects of less than a million dollars in construction costs. Subsection D, this $800,000 goes along with the homelessness prevention for wraparound services through AHS, and then the last piece E is $1 million for that VHIP program. That's it for me. Okay. Questions for David at this point. Okay. Thank you. We'll go on to Ellen. And Ellen is here. Okay. What section is yours, Ellen? What page better? Start right at page one. Ah, I'm on 38. This'll take a minute. Okay. That goes faster that way. All right. Do you want me to share my screen too and go through it that way? Is that helpful? Yes, it is. Okay. That's helpful. Very helpful. Sorry, I'm figuring it out. All right. Here you go. Okay. So Ellen Tchaikowski, Office of Legislative Council. So there are a lot of sections in S237 related to municipal zoning, land use and Act 250. So starting on page one with section one, we actually, right before the building closed, I walked through these sections with you. And so I don't know if you remember, so I'll... I don't. Okay. And I have 33 pages of this bill, so it is a lot of information. Okay. So I'll go fairly high level and we can talk about the details if you prefer. And if this starts drawing people's memory and they're getting bored, let me know and we'll tell Ellen to jump ahead. All right. All right. So section one, we're amending the section related to municipal plans and we're requiring that they add onto their utility and facility maps, water supply and sewer lines, facility and service areas. These are details of information that are helpful and the would be information that would be beneficial to have on the maps. So that's added on page one. Okay. Next on page... What if they don't know? I mean, I literally had to cite a filtration plan I was trying to in a town where there were several. Actually, there was a section of town sewer but a whole lot of private septic systems. That may have disappeared by now but not all towns have municipal systems and a lot of towns have private water systems. I don't know if they know all of those either. Do we know that? I'll ask the league. I don't know. And Chris Cochran may have more information on that. Okay. I'm hoping he's listening and he may know that. I don't know. I know recently there are towns that have all private water systems meaning systems that serve sections of town not just private wells. So we'll see what he has to say and if not, we'll ask the league. Okay. Okay. All right. Page two, we're requiring still that the housing element of the town plan comply with the requirements of section 4412 to provide affordable housing. So we'll discuss that more momentarily. It's an expansion previously just was requiring accessory dwelling units. So just slight expansion based on these changes. So as we did, I thought there was, I remember being on a committee for a town plan or maybe it was just a municipal plan. You did have to have an affordable housing section. Did they not have to do that now? And this is putting it in because I know it was there once. It was required but we're adding new sections to 4412 regarding affordable housing. Okay. So I think this is just to sort of broaden the scope of what needs to be addressed in it. Okay. Section two, so now we're in 24 VSA 4412. We're talking about municipal bylaws. So we're adding new language at the top of page three that requires that if there is a regulatory district that allows multi-unit dwellings as opposed to single family dwellings, you must allow up to four units. So you can prohibit more than that but up to four units must be allowed if it is a multi-unit district. Okay. So you can't just have townhouses with two districts. All right. Next is the section regarding ADUs, accessory dwelling units. So we're changing the definition of an accessory dwelling unit here. So first we're striking the requirement that the single family dwelling unit be owner occupied, which is the current law. It has to be on an owner occupied lot. So that gives some flexibility of where the owner can live. Next, it clarifies that an accessory dwelling unit should be subject to the same level of review as the single family dwelling unit, not more or less. We then also strike the requirement that the unit be an efficiency or one bedroom apartment, just that it be a distinct unit to again provide more flexibility of what these units can look like. And then we change the size cap slightly. So the unit will not exceed 30% of the total habitable floor area of the single family unit or 900 square feet, whichever is greater. So this was in response to concerns that small homes would not be able to add much in the way of an accessory dwelling unit. Next, onto page four. This is just saying nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a bylaw that regulates short-term rental units distinctly from residential units. Next, we're adding a slight change to the regulation of existing small lots. So a municipality may prohibit development on a lot not served and able to connect to municipal water and sewer if it is less than one eighth of an acre. So if it connect those small lots, they can't prohibit development on them. Now, I know there's lots sizes and frontage sizes. I know in my neighborhood, there was one lot that now doesn't qualify as a lot. It's been divided amongst the neighbors. But if that definitely can hook to municipal water and sewer, could those neighbors now say, look, I own this lot. You prohibited me from developing it. And so I pretty much gave it away to the neighbors that abutted it. But now you say I could have developed it and I've lost value. As we're saying that if there are very small lots and I have three acres zoning or one acre zoning in my section of town, if there's an eighth of an acre that could connect to municipal water and sewer that the town has to let the eighth of an acre hook up. Yes. Yes. And could you subdivide your one acre lot into eight mini lots? I think that's a totally different question that depended upon subdivision rules. Yeah. So this is just if there's a lot sitting there. Exactly. Yeah. It hasn't been subdivided, but if it just happens to be there, then I would have to let it be built on. If it could connect. Great, if it could connect, yeah. Are we doing away with the state sewer hookup charge in this bill? Not that I'm aware of. Don't want to go. You have to pay a hookup fee to both the municipality and the state. Jeff Winberg and I both tried to get rid of that. We actually do something in terms of eliminating duplicate regulation. I don't know about, yeah, I guess so that you would get rid of the fee. Good. We have gotten rid of it, yep. Okay. Yes, those are the last sections of my section. You made that in my vote. All right. Okay. All right. So then on page five, so page five is a new program. We're calling inclusive development. So this is what we're sort of talking about as an opt, a required, but opt out program related to municipal bylaws. So we're going to require that all of the following bylaws apply municipalities. They don't go into effect for three years, however. So they're initially voluntary, but after three years, they will be required. However, at the end, there is an opt out for municipalities that claim to have, that establish that they have a substantial constraint that won't allow it. So first, no bylaws shall have the effect of prohibiting lots of one quarter acre that are able to connect to water or one eighth of an acre that are able to connect to water and sewer. So you could have a quarter acre lot with a septic system. It's municipal, sorry, it's municipal. Where is it? No, why do you say water and sewer on an eighth of an acre and only water on a quarter acre? Yeah, so that would imply I could have a septic system on a quarter acre lot. Right. Did we check that with septic regulations? I can look into it. I would check on it, because I think you would be pretty tight in getting a leech field on a quarter acre. This is Chris Cochran here. If you install water lines, you can do higher density wastewater disposal on site. Okay, can you do it in a quarter acre? Yes. Okay. Not in my backyard. It's still bubbling. Okay. Okay, water. Oh, because you've got to have the separation with the well and the septic. All right, I got it. Okay. Next, B, down on line 17, shall condition any subdivision approval on obtaining a state wastewater permit under 10 VSA chapter 64. Next, no bylaws shall have the effect of prohibiting or requiring conditional use for duplex units that are able to connect to water and sewer operated by the municipality to a greater, to the greater extent than a one unit dwelling would be. Okay. Understood. Can we move back to B? Sure. Appropriate municipal panel are missing. As applicable, shall can, no, it's a shall condition any, so they are required to get a state wastewater permit. Yes. Or are they prohibited from making their approval conditional on getting a state wastewater permit? So I'm a little confused with this language. Also, the wastewater permit language that we're going to talk about towards the end was added towards the end. And I am wondering if this conflicts with that because this is requiring obtaining a state wastewater permit, but later it seems that we're turning that power over to the municipality. So I have flagged that as a potential issue. I think now you have to get a state wastewater permit. Correct. When you're creating a subdivision. Right. And this would give it to the municipalities. All right. But this, yeah, that would definitely be a conflict if that's what you're going to do further down. Okay. All right. So C is about requiring duplexes to have the same level of review as one unit dwellings. And then D relates to parking space minimums. So it would, I'm going back to C. Yep. Yep. If you are putting up rental housing, you have to have sprinkler systems. And I don't know if that, if two duplexes are excluded, I don't think so, but you don't, even in the city of Montpelier now, have to put them in single family units. Would this exclude duplexes from having to put in those kinds of fire codes if they're going to be rented or would rental still prevail? That's just a question I did to look at. Maybe Chris knows when Chris gets up, maybe he knows. Okay. Montpelier has a specific ordinance that requires sprinklers that are higher than the rest of the states. Yeah. We get away with the single family. The need for sprinklers. You don't have, I think if you, at least if you change a single family into rental unit, or if you are doing a rental unit or condominium, there are much more inclusive fire codes. And I just wonder if by saying duplexes and single units are the same, if I'm doing three sets of duplex condominiums, am I excluding those fire codes? That, because I don't have, I can do whatever I want in my house. I can't in a condo because there's joint ownership. I can't, I don't think in an apartment that's rented to the public. And just wanted to make sure we know what we're doing here. But we'd be happy to confer with fire safety to make sure that this is working. Thank you. Right, so then D is about parking minimums. So if there is a parking minimum for residential properties and the parking spaces will be leased separately from the units, it shall count as two spaces for the purpose of meeting the parking minimum if located within a half mile of a transit stop. Okay. Are we gonna do anything about parking impact fees? I assume we still have those. I think you asked me that the last time and I don't know anything about parking impact fees. They were the thing when we were trying to discourage development and you could do a recreation, a school, a parking. And the idea was it went into a fund and eventually we would provide parking, but we had a local doctor who was up in the thousands of dollars because he bought the house he'd had his office in and then put two apartments upstairs and it was downtown. And it was a ridiculously high fee. And I'm just wondering, I'm assuming some places like Burlington, some downtowns may well have those still. Just worth, we'll ask the league. To check that. So yeah, so we are amending a municipality's ability in regards that we're just changing the calculation here. Right. So they probably still have that ability elsewhere. But that might be more of a deterrent to downtown development of especially rental units. So I probably should check on it. Okay. Okay. All right, so those four sections do not go into effect until 2023. So they're voluntary, but after that point they will be required. However, starting on line 15, a municipality may opt out of those requirements if they file a substantial municipal constraint report with the Department of Housing and Community Development. So if they can establish that they have constraints on municipal water, sewer, or other services that would prevent this, they can file a report. Give it about the state of Vermont. What? No, we do this Montpelier water filtration plant by state regulation had to be sized only for the growth that the state thought projected we would have in Montpelier in the next 10 years. We are thus unable to provide water to the town of Berlin even though we take it out of their town. There was a time when the state didn't want housing developed. Only a few of us have probably been around long enough to remember it, but I know for a fact that Montpelier's filtration plant was reduced in size by the state of Vermont, so that we wouldn't be tempted to sell water to other municipalities. So that may be out there in other filtration plants or wastewater systems, just sins of the fathers. Okay. Right, so a lot of those provisions above are encouraging more dense development. And so if there are constraints on the water and sewer, there may be reasonable reasons why they can't have that extensive development. Okay. So the department will release guidance and a template on what should be in the constraint report by January 1, 2021. The department will post all of the reports on the website and provide copies to the Regional Planning Commission, State Program Directors for Municipal Water and Sewer Funding, Vermont Community Development Board, Downtown Development Board, BHCB, and NRB, as well as anyone requesting notice. Any person may provide comment on a municipality's report and the department will post the comments on their website as well. Municipalities are required to update their report whenever they update their plan or bylaws and failure to do so will disqualify them from the incentives in the next section. So there are incentives with adopting these bylaws. On or before July 1, 2021, any municipality that requests technical assistance in updating their bylaws from the Regional Planning Commission shall receive priority technical assistance through additional funding that David mentioned earlier. So there are two appropriations related to this so that municipalities can update their bylaws. And then also for municipalities that are actively pursuing updating their bylaws to comply with this section, they will receive priority funding from the State Funding for Municipal Water and Sewer Systems, the Municipal Planning Grants, the Vermont Community Development Program, and the Neighborhood Development Area Tax Credit Program. And then the last incentive relates to restrictive deeds and covenants. So in a municipality that has adopted the Inclusive Development Bylaws, deeds may not be restricted by covenants, conditions or restrictions that conflict with these bylaws and if they do, they will not be enforceable. So this section below, section three, lays out the language related to that. So deed restrictions, covenants or similar binding agreements added after July 1, 2021, that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under the municipal bylaws in a municipality that has adopted the Inclusive Development Bylaws shall not be valid. This section shall not affect the enforceability of other property interests held. So the rest of this language was suggested by some of the advocates, VHCB, wanted to make sure that some of their restrictive covenants were exempt from this, but the intent is related to preventing people from overriding the Inclusive Development Bylaws through deed restrictions. So the deed restrictions on my deed that says I can only put up colonial architecture would be overridden. So that's not really what we're talking about. We're talking primarily about sort of the small lots. So I can't subdivide. I can't have more than one acre lot in my subdivision. No mobile homes allowed. That's frequently in a deed for land. I'll sell it to you, but no mobile homes allowed. Is that what you're getting rid of? I don't think it's gonna apply to mobile homes, but they, and there are going to be new deed restrictions. We can't invalidate already existing deed restrictions, but moving forward, deed restrictions that seek to override the denser development provisions in the Inclusive, those will not be valid. Okay. So I can't sell an acre of my land and say, but you can't subdivide it into eighth or an acre lots. Right. Right. So like if a developer is developing a neighborhood can't include new deed restrictions saying only single family housing on one acre is allowed. Okay. But if he builds only single family housing on one acre, he's all right. Potentially. Okay. Okay. All right. So section four is a report on municipal constraints. So the department will come back in 2023 and report the number of municipalities that have reported constraints, what the constraints are, the impact on developing housing in those areas and recommendations for reducing or eliminating the constraints. All right. So that, so now we're gonna shift to the language related to the Act 250 downtown exemption. So this section is going to exempt designated downtowns and neighborhood development areas from Act 250. It does a couple of other things also. So first there is a technical correction related to the definition of mixed income housing needed to adjust the definition to reflect changes in the calculation that have been made by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. So owner occupied housing in the county so owner occupied housing at the initial time of sale at least 20% of the housing units meet the requirement of affordable owner occupied housing under subdivision 29A of this section adjusted for the number of bedrooms as established and published annually by the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. Similar language for rental housing as well. Then there's a change to the definition of priority housing project because currently under the Act 250 definition it relates to projects located within designated downtown or neighborhood development areas. So that language is stricken because we're exempting wholly those areas from Act 250 in the next section. So in section six, we're in section 6081 of Act 250 which is the exemption section. So subdivision O says that if the designation either of a downtown development district or a neighborhood development area is removed subsequent development will need to go through Act 250. And then in P is where we exempt neighborhood development downtown development districts and neighborhood development areas from Act 250. And upon receiving a notice and a copy of the permit issued by the municipality in the next which we'll talk about in the next section the Act 250 permit is extinguished. So that's also a substantial change here. Okay, so if I had an Act 250 permit and it got extinguished then I would not have to abide by all the conditions of that permit unless it was required by a municipal permit. Correct, we do address that in the next section. The municipal permit is supposed to take on the Act 250 permit conditions unless they're no longer relevant. Okay. Okay, so then we strike language in subdivision V that's related to downtown development positive findings and conclusions which is in section 6086B which is a current process, an expedited process for downtowns that already exists. But if they're gonna be exempt from Act 250 we can strike that language. Further in section seven we repeal to other sections related to these areas. Currently neighborhood development areas have a reduced fee as an incentive so we're gonna strike that language because they will be exempt. And section 6086B which I just mentioned related to positive findings and conclusions that language is also repealed. So then section eight is in 24 VSA 4460 so appropriate municipal panels and this is where we're giving we're turning over the power to the municipality. So we're talking about projects that already have an Act 250 permit and are located either in a downtown development district or a neighborhood development area and they've applied for a permit or permit amendment under this section. So they already have an existing Act 250 permit and they're located in an area that is now exempt from Act 250. So the appropriate municipal panel which is either the planning commission, the board of development review or the zoning board depending on the municipality they have the power over these permits and they shall include conditions contained in the original Act 250 permit in the new municipal permit unless it refers to one of the following things. So the condition should be transferred to the municipal permit unless it relates to the construction phase of the project that's already been constructed. Compliance with another state permit that has independent jurisdiction, federal or state law that is no longer in effect or applicable. An issue that is addressed by municipal regulation and the project will meet the municipal standards or a physical use or condition that is no longer in effect or applicable. So the conditions should be transferred to the new municipal permit unless it refers to one of those. The municipality shall provide notice and a copy of the permit to the Natural Resources Board that the municipal panel shall comply with the hearing requirements in 4464 and provide notice to the parties under the Act 250 statute in 6084B and reference the existing Act 250 permit. The municipal panel's decision shall be recorded in the land records and the municipal panel shall make decisions, shall make a decision and include specific findings with respect to the conditions and then the final decision shall be recorded in the land records. So section nine. So the following sections relate to downtown development districts and neighborhood development areas and there was concern that by exempting them from Act 250 there may be a loss of an incentive to develop affordable housing. So a number of these provisions relate to making sure that downtown development districts and neighborhood development areas have an affordable housing component. So first we're adding the executive director of VHCB to the downtown development board and that's the board that approves the applications to be a downtown development district or neighborhood development area. Next in section 10 in the language related to downtown development districts, we strike the reference to Act 250 and then we add this language in subdivision four and five and I'm on page 17 for people following along. So division four and five, this language is also added later in the neighborhood development area, but it requires a housing element in the plan that achieves the purpose of 4302 and includes clear implementation steps for achieving mixed income housing, including affordable housing, timeline for implementation, responsibility for each implementation step and potential funding sources. Also the district shall have adopted one the following to promote the availability of affordable housing opportunities in the municipality, inclusionary zoning, a restricted housing trust fund with designated revenue streams, a housing commission or an impact fee exemption or reduction for affordable housing. Yes, your impact fees. All right, let's see. And so those two sections don't go into effect until July 1, 2022. And that is because some, we wanted to give some of the district's time to adopt those programs and there are a number that will come up for renewal or review imminently. So we pushed that requirement out until 2022 to give towns time. Next in section 11, we're in the section related to village centers. And all we're doing here is we're streamlining the language to refer that a village center designated is eligible to receive incentives and benefits, including the downtown and village center tax credit program. And we're not changing any of the language here, we're just condensing it because it was a bit wordy. Next in section 12, we're in the neighborhood development area section, the requirements for that. So first, so applications for neighborhood development areas have to include the following things. So this first change relates to development in flood hazard areas. So we had extensive discussions about if there should be a greater ability to allow for infill development in the flood hazard areas in the neighborhood development areas. So the addition of the language here allows that neighborhood development areas must exclude areas identified in the flood hazard or fluvial erosion areas, except for those areas containing preexisting development and areas suitable for infill development as defined in the rules. So there's information about that in the Vermont flood hazard area and river corridor rules. Next, they should avoid or minimize to the extent feasible areas in the flood hazard area and river corridor. Then on page 21, if the neighborhood development area includes flood hazard areas or river corridors, the local bylaws must contain provisions consistent with A&R's rules to ensure that new infill development within a neighborhood development area occurs outside the floodway. New development is elevated or flood proofed at least two feet above base flood elevation or otherwise reasonably safe from flooding and will not cause or contribute to fluvial erosion hazards within the river corridor. If the neighborhood development area includes flood hazard areas or river corridors, local bylaws shall also contain provisions to protect river corridors outside the neighborhood development area consistent with A&R's model river corridor bylaws. And? Yes, Senator Peter. I have to jump off for a meet or a few minutes I have a meeting at four, but the back 250 changes here, I remember we started talking about this. As I understand it, most of these provisions are also part of the larger Act 250 bill, but it's not the full package. And I guess I have some concerns that that package was a balancing act. And so carving out parts of it necessarily doesn't have it in balance. And I just wonder if you've had discussions with leadership or if that's something I wanna make sure we're aware of that and if anybody has a strategy around that point, I'd be glad to understand it. That's probably a question for the chair of economic development. Yeah, I was trying to find out if I was muted or not. Yeah, we talked about that precise point this morning, Senator Pearson in economic development and while some of the environmental groups supported these housing provisions and as they related to Act 250, it was in the context of the Act 250 bill moving as well. So your point is well taken and it's something we have to update and look into and see what the likelihood is of that bill passing and whether this in isolation should pass. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And this is Ms. Naukrem. If I could add that the language in this bill was substantially reviewed and improved by consultation with affordable housing groups. So when those two pieces do come together, this is a more refined version of how exemption would occur within these centers to ensure housing affordability is maintained. Okay. Chris, any other questions? Chris Pearson, any other questions for you? Not a moment and I'll be here right till four, but... Okay. I'm gonna have to go. Okay, Ellen, let's... And Madam Chair, just so you know, I have a meeting with the corner office at 415. Well, let's move this along then. Ellen, how much further we got to go here? We have 11 more pages, but we are through the bulk of it. Okay. So let's go through these because I wanna get Chris... Corcoran in here too. Sure. Before I lose my quorum. Okay. Yep. So we're still in the neighborhood development area. So this language on page 22, within the neighborhood development area, bylaws allow minimum lot sizes of one quarter acre or less. We strike the reference to act 250 at the bottom of the page. And then we can skip a few pages. The language at the bottom of page 24 and onto the page, top of page 25 is the same language I mentioned with the affordable housing requirement in the downtown development district. Again, it is pushed out until July 1, 2022. So that times towns have time to adopt those measures. We strike reference again to the act 250 district coordinators. And then we move on to the tax credit section, section 13. So... Okay. Yes. So first, what this does is it extends the downtown and village center tax credit program to include neighborhood development areas. So that's right there at the online 21. Yes. And then we also on page 30, we add a new type of tax credit for qualified flood mitigation projects. So that includes any combination of structural and non-structural changes to a building located within an area, subject to the river corridor rule or flood hazard area as mapped by FEMA that reduces or eliminates flood damage to the building or its contents. So this is a new type of tax credit just to flag as an issue. So this bill has a lot of moving parts. And in the draft that passed, we actually missed the rest of the language that actually authorizes the tax credit. So I have that as an amendment if you would like to pursue this, but it does add additional language for this type of project. I think we're a long way before we start authorizing foregone revenue this year. And the last I heard the administration was sweeping all unused revenue just to balance the books this year. I don't know what it's gonna look like next year, but we are definitely in a different fiscal time than when this bill was originally presented to us. So we'll have to do what we can to comply with the new reality or wait until the reality changes. So we'll see, okay. All right, so then the last set of changes are the section related to wastewater connection permits on page 31. So section 14 and 15 relate to this. The intent was to reduce the sort of alleged duplicative nature of having both a state wastewater connection permit and a municipal connection permit. I have consulted since with Michael Grady in my office and we have some concerns about this language. And so it may need to be rewritten, but it was intended to reduce duplicative permitting. And then there's a report in section 16 related to this issue of whether to extend it further to have municipalities also have jurisdiction to issue permits for subdivisions when the law is served by municipal water and sewer. So that's the end of my sections. Okay, I think that's the end of walking through the bill. And since we're starting to lose members I wanna get Chris Corcoran up. Chris, you've been here, are you still here? Where's Chris? Is Chris here? I see him. I can see Chris, yep. He's there, there he is. Okay, Chris, the floor is yours. Hey guys, long time. Oh, I know everybody's running really soon. So in a nutshell, I know a lot's changed since we started working on this bill, but we've always had a need for a housing. And what this bill aims to do is align our regulatory programs at the state and local level, along with new funding to create new housing opportunities in the right locations. And making these big system wide changes now will be really important, I think in the age of COVID as we prepare for kind of the next normal of what our communities are gonna look like because it's gonna enable our communities to bounce back more quickly. As Ellen explains, it's a pretty holistic package of a lot of different changes that we're talking about. Local land use changes, local at 250 changes, changes through state permitting programs to make sure that our land use goals are supported. Some of the biggest costs in housing are land and infrastructure and permitting. And so if we can align these programs to get the outcomes that we need, more affordable housing in the right locations, I think we can finally begin to crack this nut. It's been an affordable housing crisis in Vermont since as long as I've been here for 20 years, but I don't think we've ever really taken kind of a systematic look at this. A lot of this effort was largely informed by work done out West and in the Midwest, you know, looking at how do we make it easier, pardon? I just years ago, I was on some affordable housing task force at the state and Jesse Ventura was the governor and he did, it was called worker housing. But a very big effort, I think it might have been Michigan to do worker housing. And I guess that's my first question is, are we talking affordable as in subsidized or are we talking in affordable as to your teacher, your average worker, your average wage earner in the state could afford the housing? Or are we talking, because we traditionally think of VHFA, we think of housing that's built and then rented and people can't afford the rent it would take to pay the cost, the mortgage basically on the house. We're, I know we've got an income level, but where is that really focusing this housing? So some of the provisions in there, as far as the funding for the provisions, they do have targeted income levels. So the program VHIP is looking at certain income levels. VHCB funding looks at certain income levels. The tax credits that Ellen talked about are not related to income. There's not tied to any specific type of income. Stepping back from the whole thing, we're just trying to create an environment where it's easier to produce housing where we have sewer and water systems where we have made these investments in these areas. So the bigger frame is really agnostic to affordability, it's just saying these are the right locations to develop housing close to our businesses and our stores and our shops. Let's see what we can do to make this happen by making systematic changes. And then once they're enacted over time, it will make for more competitive to many of its other states. We're trying to attract new residents, trying to attract visitors to their bottle downtown. So it is a big change. It is a lot of change. It's some bold change, but I think it's changed that's necessary and made more urgent by the pandemic that we're sorting through now. We want to be ready to create new housing opportunities through the God of the desert community. I've got a question about what we're going to learn from the pandemic, which we won't learn for a while. But I guess my concern is, well, A, there can be a municipality zone, a large section of open field as open space and not permit anything more than like three houses on a hundred acres. And they just say, not that that's ever happened. I mean, this is walking distance to downtown. It meets every definition of smart growth. Can the town leave that on the books as zoned, whatever, but essentially non-developable. So what the provisions do, if it's a residential area, is you have to allow smaller lots if they're served by sewer and water. Now, just allowing them doesn't necessarily mean it will happen. And this was the experience in other states. Oregon enabled ADUs and made more permissive regulations. And it wasn't a groundswell of change overnight, but it did over time add new units here and there in the right locations. But I could still, if I don't want, mixed income or lower income housing, walking distance to downtown, sidewalks, the whole water sewer, it's all there, at least at the road. I could zone that as non-residential open space and not have to comply. OK, so town's having out there. The other question was it said in doing, I think it was a designated neighborhood plan, I had to have a certain percentage of affordable housing depending on the definition of affordable. Because I know we did a calculation in Montpelier just on raw materials and labor charges and land and came up with a $300 minimum cost, $300,000, to put up a house. Raw materials go up, copper, plywood, basic materials. And if I get to and I've got a developer and they're ready to go and VHCB doesn't have any funds this year, does that stop the whole development? It's hard to answer that question. More broadly speaking, we can't do much to control the cost of materials or the cost of labor. But what we can do is use our land and resources more efficiently to lower those costs. There's not a direct linkage between the Neighborhood Development Area Designation Program and VHCB, so they're independent. What we're hoping, though, is by making it easier to develop in these areas to make smaller units more and easily permitted with water based models, that your $300,000 house can actually be a $250,000 house or less. Or it's a multifamily house, which is more efficient, so you get more value out of that same quarter acre, eighth acre land. But I can still require cement sidewalks, granite curbing, open space, all of those other nice things. All the things the municipality wants to have are not going to be affected by these minimum density requirements. So it can say it needs to look like this. It needs to setbacks need to be like this. A lot of those things will still apply. OK. OK, because those are some of the additional costs. In some places, sidewalks aren't that necessary. I live on a horseshoe, but it's off a main street. We do not have sidewalks. They weren't a requirement when this development went in. OK, I think that's my. I could talk more about the section. I think everybody's leaving. Let's get into that time of day. How long has this been at this since 9.30 this morning? I think it's just me, personally. No. Something about a computer screen. It's a long day and there's no breaks. So I've learned in my many Zoom times, I just turn off the video and it's not as exhausting. So that's not that you have that choice, but no. Chris, could you talk? There's McDonald's cat. He hasn't paid us a visit yet today. We're meeting many nice pets on Zoom. So Chris, because you've been at this for six months or probably almost a year now, can you, you know, this proposal came to our committee as a priority of the administration as a housing long term housing solution. Can you just tell the committee a little bit about what went into the development because I attended a number of meetings and just so many people involved in this process? Yeah, we started off with reading all these articles about what these other more progressive states were doing to solve their housing problems. And we convened stakeholders and had series of conversations over the summer. We talked to the League of Cities and Towns. We talked with private housing developers and we talked with affordable housing developers. We talked to the municipalities. We, you know, the whole package, you know, went through a lot of stakeholder engagement involvement. There was a big committee meeting that the senator attended in December where everybody kind of added a final comment. So there's a huge group of advocates that do support this bill. So I think it's, I think you're going to hear candidly some concerns from some municipalities that may don't want to welcome housing and don't want to change anything. And I get that. But I would say for the most part, we have a lot more supporters than we have the tractors. Okay. Becca, do you have your hand up or you? No, okay. Yup, it was hard for me to hear Chris. I was turning up the volume. Okay, it's hard to tell sometimes. We just see hands moving. All right, any questions for Chris? Okay, committee, I think we're at the end of our tolerance. Thank you, Ellen. You put in the bulk today. I think the question for me that everything begs is given all of our housing for years has been at promoting greater density and development in downtowns. The virus seems to be most intense in highly dense, highly developed areas. I've heard several people say, oh, well, New York City might start moving up here and we'll get more telecommuters and they might. But I think the question it begs is, are the realtors that are still selling going to be able to start selling those farmhouses on 50 acres that they haven't been able to sell for a few years because today's generation of home buyers want to live near cities. That remains to be seen, but it is definitely a possibility that's out there. And I think we need to keep it in the back of our minds and just monitor, probably monitor home sales. If Marshfield starts to peak and the kingdom starts to peak, then we know that different housing decisions are being made because people are moving more than 15 minutes out from population areas. So we'll start to, we'll just have to watch it. Okay, we're back to broadband on Tuesday. Then I think we'll take up the nursing compact next Thursday and perhaps do some more work on broadband on Thursday. I know a lot of the stuff that's coming in with COVID is very time sensitive and if we're going to do anything, especially if there's a lot of work to do, especially if there is another flare up in the fall and we're back to homeschooling and more telemedicine and closed medical offices, then we're going to want to have a little more than we have now in place. So I think we might want to start steering the discussion and what can we do in six months and how do we do it? And then we'll go from there. So thank you. It's been a long day. Thank you, Madam Chair. And we will see everybody, some of you all see tomorrow, some not until Monday or Tuesday. So have a good weekend if I don't see you. Thanks. And may it not snow. Ending live.