 So we're going to shift gears to something completely different, H549 and act relating to the sighting of outdoor cannabis cultivation, which was introduced by Representative Lloyd Houghton, which is here to tell us what the goal is. Thank you. So Representative Lloyd Houghton, I serve the City of S-Extension. So thank you for the time to give very brief comments on H4-549. I want to be clear, the City of S-Extension is not anti-cannabis, but there are real conflicts between dense housing areas and outdoor cultivation. It's difficult of a city, approximately four and a half square miles, to achieve both state goals. So Rep Dolan and I on behalf and along with our municipality are asking that we prohibit outdoor cultivation in an area served by water and sewer or based on density. We do have zoning in our community that has a place for outdoor cultivation. Unfortunately, there is a site that is doing outdoor cultivation that is not in that zoning place. So we're asking that you look at the density and outdoor cultivation and make some changes. Thank you. Questions? I guess I'd love for you just to say a little bit more about the conflict or what you're trying to achieve. So we have, I don't know if you've been to City of S-Extension again with four and a half square miles, and so we have a lot of dense communities. You know, variance lines are about eight feet between property lines. And so prior to the city have any zoning requirements on cannabis, the state gave a person an outdoor cannabis cultivation license in a dense neighborhood. And so there has been conflict of having that outdoor cultivation in that dense place. And since the home act passed, we have changed our land development code or in the process of doing that to incorporate all of the home act provisions that in this neighborhood, one of the things would be that you could have a four unit building on a very small piece of land. So we expect density to increase within become more dense within the City of S-Extension. And that with some of the issues associated with outdoor cultivation, like being able to see into the cultivation site, noise, odor, lights, it's just causing a lot of conflict within the community. Thanks. Representative Stevens. Thanks, Senator. Apologies. I really don't know any of the rules about this whole subject area, but I'm assuming it's legal if a homeowner has like, if I recall correctly, they can have like two plants or something. How does this relate to that? This is the license, and I don't know the specifics. I'm sure legislative counsel will be able to help, but this is a license actually for outdoor cultivation where he is a whole settler. Got it. Okay, thank you. So you're referring to, thank you by the way, you're referring to someone that's cultivating more than two plants? Yes. Like maybe 10 or 20 or whatever to resell? They have, yeah. So I think it's, again, legislative counsel will tell you the growing amount that they're allowed. They also have 50 ducks on the, my understanding is right now it's up to 50 ducks on that same property because they're using the manure for the outdoor cultivation. So again, we're talking very dense neighborhood 50 ducks and quite a bit of cannabis grow. They're trying to grow wacky quacky. Thank you for. Thank you. Thank you. Oh, wait, tell me, put my finger on and kind of have a quick foot here. What exactly is the conflict? I guess, dense neighborhood, right? What's the root of the conflict? The conflict is that because of Act 270 that we passed last year, that this is being allowed in an area not zoned for outdoor cultivation. The area is very dense. There are odor issues. There is concern with security because you can see in to the operation. There is concern that it's only going to get worse as we actually become more dense. So it is a conflict between these two state goals. We have put both into land development and zoning code. We would like zoning to occur, I mean, outdoor cultivation to occur in the section of the city that is less dense. So just, I don't want to beat the horse, but I just want to make sure I understand it. If it were a community garden there, people would probably go great. I know there's something here. I just want to get it, get at what it is. Why is this objectionable when a community garden wouldn't be for instance? So community garden, odor, doesn't have the odor, doesn't have the sounds associated with the ducks, doesn't have the security issues associated with someone walking by and being able to see that there's an outdoor cultivation growing in that space. There is concern with children in the neighborhood, and there is concern that it's close to a school. That's what I was looking for. Okay. Okay. Couldn't that be addressed in Amunus, Florida? So no, because we passed Act 270, and again, this is where Legislative Council is going to really be able to help you. He, the grower, the outdoor cultivator, was able to secure an agriculture license as well. And so that allows the cultivator to do things is where, way outside of my knowledge, that conflicts with what we feel should be appropriate for an outdoor cannabis cultivator. Yeah. Yeah. From here, we'll have questions for Legislative Council. Thank you. And, yes. Thank you very much, everyone. Have a great day. Representative Dolan, I see you here. I guess we would have you, we'll invite you to introduce your two bills that we're going to take up. If you can be very brief, that would be awesome. So please join us, and we'll get into the walkthroughs, I guess. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Cary Dolan. I'm the representative for Wastefield War and face to more town in Dexbury with my co-summate over there, Representative Tori. And a former member of a different generation of this committee. Of a prior life to this committee. It's great to see you all. I'm introducing two bills, and I see that our council's here who will probably do the walkthrough, so I can skip over that section. You know, walkthrough them, please. We just need to know what the purposes of the bills are. Thank you. H586 is related to flood protection and climate resilience. It is to maximize the amount of new and existing federal greenhouse gas reduction and resilience funds that the state may receive. It's the intent is to have resources to finance Vermont's greenhouse gas reduction requirements in the Global Warming Solutions Act, as well as infrastructure needs for a clean economy and investments in climate resilience strategies. It is to maximize the opportunity to secure important public benefits, including economic vitality, clean air and clean water, and to support the coordination across government. In some, while many states are establishing what is known to be green banks or state climate mitigation and resilience funds to achieve these goals, this bill builds on the functions of existing entities, the state treasure, agencies, instrumentality of the state, and clarifies the eligibility and use of existing funds to meet the same goals of what a green bank could achieve. Why now? Well, we know that we have statutory requirements relating to the Global Warming Solutions Act. We know we need investments in climate sequestration and storage to meet those requirements. We know firsthand, after experiencing flooding in July, August and December, that we need to make investments in climate resilience in order to avoid or minimize impacts and drive down the risk to public safety, recovery costs to natural disasters, and minimize the disruption to our economy. We know that nature-based solutions are our first line of defense, typically the least cost option for climate resilience, and this is intended to enable municipalities to achieve greater resilience in the future. And I understand you'll be walking through the various sections of this bill. I do have a number of suggestions on who could be witnesses, and I could give that to your media assistant. And if this bill does become law, the value I see is that it will enable Vermont to make strategic investments meeting our greenhouse gas reduction goals and improving communities' resilience to climate impacts, including driving down the cost of recovery that is paid for by all of us taxpayers. Okay, that's bill number one. Any questions? So you can feel free to find me if you have questions. Now, I think there was a ploy or a kind of a fun kind of tease, and on the part of the perhaps our legislative council, but that bill was 586, and this bill is 568. This one, the second one, relates to municipal planning, the existing municipal planning grant. Now, this bill builds on the importance of an existing municipal funding stream, the agency of commerce and community development's municipal planning grants, by addressing resilience planning with additional funding. Why do we need this bill now? Well, similar to the last bill, flooding is Vermont's most frequent and costly natural disaster. And this year alone, we experienced substantial flooding in many parts of the state. Such flooding risks facing communities are not going away. And there are reports including the 2018 National Climate Assessment Report, the 2021 Vermont Climate Assessment Report that shows that Vermont is experiencing a substantial increase in the average precipitation rate since the 1990s. Flood impacts and their cost of recovery will continue to expose Vermonters and our communities to these heightened risks, to public safety risks, to property damage and loss, and economic disruption and high recovery costs. Since our municipalities are the first line, are on the front lines, when it comes to facing these risks, this bill seeks to help municipalities by helping them identify, prioritize, develop and implement project pipelines that will help them help themselves in reducing this risk. Why is this important? It builds on an existing program. It does not create a new program administered by the agency of commerce and community development. I recognize that their existing funding source is critically important now, now more than ever, in helping municipalities update their plans and their bylaws, particularly when it comes to addressing our housing needs in municipalities, especially in our downtown and village centers. This bill also recognizes that this particular funding program is highly subscribed. Their demand for these funds outweigh the available dollars, I think two to threefold. What this bill does is not replace, I divert those funds, but adds to the available funds while it expands the planning and implementation scope to include resilience. I understand you'll walk through the components of this bill, and I too have a number of important or suggested folks for you to speak with if you decide to take up this bill and happy to give your committee assistant that list. So in sum, we know that the recovery from tropical storm Irene was, that the lessons we learned was when we empower communities, offering them resources and technical assistance to address their vulnerabilities, we can make a difference in improving, helping them improve their resiliency moving forward. A great example and case in point is in Northfield, and the development and restoration of what they now call the Water Street River Park Project is what helped them improve their resiliency to such a level that they were able to avoid substantial damages from this current July flooding event, that part flooding. And so those are two important bills I see to address some important priorities that are facing Vermont and the municipalities across our state. Thank you. Thanks for your time. Okay, okay. On the site of council, would you please join us? Unfortunately, that's my iPad at home, so I won't be able to drive. Is that a problem? No, we can do it on our own. That's fine. Would you like me to start? Ducks and cannabis. Okay. Let's talk on text. First, municipalities do not have authority to regulate farming in Vermont. Farming is defined in several different ways under the required agricultural practices. One of the main ways it's defined is what's called the Noah's Ark, that if you're on four acres or more and you have over a certain number of animals, then you are exempt from municipal regulation. And the number for ducks is 100 ducks. But the parcel in that exemption at issue is one half of an acre or a little bit more than a half an acre. But you can qualify as farming if you sell more than $2,500 in agricultural products in a year, which I think a person with 30 to 50 ducks will be able to do with their eggs. No matter the size parcel, you can still be a farm. No matter the size of the farm. Make $2,500 or more. So that activity is exempt from municipal regulation, the ducks. Last year in H270, as referenced by Representative Dolan, you addressed the municipal regulation of outdoor cannabis cultivation. So a few years ago when you were first discussing whether and how to regulate cultivation of cannabis as farming, you said no, it wasn't going to be treated as farming. It wasn't going to receive all the regulatory benefits of farming. But then the next year, small cultivators came forth and said that that created problems for them because they had such a small amount of land where they could grow outside that it was difficult for them to basically grow and do what they needed to do subject to municipal regulation. So you enacted a provision that said small cultivators, those under a thousand square feet, could receive the regulatory benefits. Some of the regulatory benefits of farming may be exempt from municipal zoning and regulation. They would be exempt from H250 and they would continue to qualify in the current use program. They wouldn't lose their current use ability or current use enrollment just because part of their land was enrolled as cannabis cultivation. So then what happened after that is that there were a couple of instances around the state where municipalities were not, they had voted to allow cannabis cultivation but they were adopting ordinances that were severely limiting on that cannabis cultivation. There was an instance where there was a cannabis cultivator licensed, had been approved by the TAM but then subsequent neighbors didn't enjoy the odor and other aspects of the farm and moved to create a 500 foot setback from the property boundary for any cannabis cultivation which would effectively have regulated that cultivator out of existence. So what you did in H270 was twofold. You gave all outdoor cultivation of cannabis the regulatory benefits that you gave small cultivators a year before. You basically said that they were exempt from H250, they were exempt from municipal regulation and they could enroll in use value. Can you rewind just for a second and explain what the small cultivators issue was that they needed something different? So it really came up with regard to use value. So they were in use value, they were going to cultivate cannabis that effectively was a land use change or development under current use which triggered the land use change tax which required them to pay for taking that land out of the world because it was no longer farming. You said that they could continue to be involved in current use and their cultivation of cannabis when it changed that and they came forward and they asked for those additional benefits of being exempt from H250 and exempt from municipal regulation. But what spurred the conversation was were they going to be allowed to remain enrolled in use value. So then H270 came forward and you gave those benefits to all outdoor cultivators. So they would not be regulated under H250, they would not be regulated by municipal bylaw, they continue to be eligible for use value, they were exempt from certain sales tax for things like agriculture inputs and then they were entitled to a rebuttable presumption that their cultivation did not constitute a nuisance, basically giving them the right to farm protection that all farming has. So that's the one part of H270 or Act 65. The other part is that you amended the cannabis control boards authority or municipal authority under cannabis control to say that they could not exercise their ordinances in a way to regulate a way license cannabis cultivation. It could not regulate a cannabis establishment in a manner that has the effect of prohibiting the operation of the cannabis establishment. So that's what you did last year. So to respond to Representative Smith's question why couldn't this be addressed in municipal bylaw or municipal ordinance because you said that municipalities don't have the ability to regulate that cultivation under the Act 65 H270 from last year and because that site qualifies as farming and they're exempt from municipal regulation as farming as well. So I thought we hadn't granted them like the status of actual farming but we gave them some of the rights of a farm. Gave them initially three of those what I call the regulatory benefits. Yeah. They still have to do things like get license plates for their trucks. They still have to get a licensed electrician to do wiring in their buildings. They still have to comply with water quality laws. The things that farming traditionally is exempt from these cultivators don't receive all of those regulatory benefits. Representative Smith. Thank you. Would that mean that if someone owned a 100 by 100 lot and they could claim that they're in agriculture they could build a structure without going through Act 250? Technically yes. It proved that they were farming under the RAPs. You have to be farming. So you can own 50 docks and claim that you're farming? The Noah's Archivist arose because of concerns like that. It was particularly an issue in Barry where a person was on I think it was like an eighth of an acre lot and that person had about 40 chickens and three roosters and the roosters were creating a lot of issues in the neighborhood. And the property owner said that the town couldn't regulate them because they were farming. And so that's when the agency bag changed the definition of farming to put in the Noah's Archivist. That's only on four acres or more. Underneath four acres you can still qualify as farming if you generate $2,500 from the sale of agricultural products. Is that a monthly figure or is that a yearly figure? You have produced an annual gross income from the sale of agricultural products of $2,000 or more in an average year. What's a year? All right. Thank you. Let's look at that. So but what really is the issue here and what H549 addresses is that the Cannabis Control Board likely never should have granted the license for that site or cultivation on that site. That it wasn't an appropriate site for cultivation because of the proximity of other residences, schools, et cetera. And so what H549 does, it doesn't change the regulatory benefits that you gave outdoor cultivation. What it does is it empowers the Cannabis Control Board to prohibit certain applicants for outdoor cultivation. Can I just you say they shouldn't have allowed it? Under what grounds should they have not allowed? That's the point. They say that they didn't have grounds to not allow. That's why they were allowing it because they didn't. They argue that they didn't have a criteria or application requirement that would allow them to disapprove of the license based on siting. So you're saying the resolution is that they should have and they should have not that they could have. They couldn't have denied it previous. That's what their argument was. I think if they had been creative they probably could have, but they didn't. So you see H549, the first section is the Cannabis Control Board's authority or criteria that it reviews when it's reviewing an application for an outdoor cannabis cultivation. And you'll see on page two that in the following areas of the municipality, when the property is used for outdoor cultivation, this is where it shall not be allowed. Well, this is actually, I'm sorry, this is where it will be allowed. So reading cultivation cultivation of cannabis shall occur only in the following areas of municipality when the property is used for outdoor cultivation. An area with a population density below 500 persons per square mile. So much of say, you know, Chittenden County in the more urbanized areas, it would not be allowed in that because the density would be greater than 500 persons per square mile. It also would not be allowed in an area that is served by municipal water and sewer infrastructure or an area that is prohibited from cultivation by the Board. So that would give the Board the ability to say no to certain cultivation applications. And then in section two, this is the Board's authority, the Cannabis Control Board's authority to adopt rules. And on page three, you give it authority to adopt rules regarding location or siting requirements for outdoor cultivation, including areas where outdoor cultivation is prohibited because of population density or other criteria. Further questions? Representative Ungertz. What is an area? That is not defined. It could just be the site or the applicants, you know, close cultivation site. But that wouldn't have any density. That wouldn't have any density. It's the site itself. So how do you figure out what the area is? And the bill would take effect on passage. In response to your question, Representative Ungertz, how did you define an area for the purpose of the Home Act and areas served by water and sewer? Because that's the term. What is the area? An area that's not secure, I mean, it's water and sewer. Same clarity as a block. So the Government Operations Committee is typically the ones that address cannabis, but this is, you know, a bill that's clearly in our area of land use as just brought up at a previous exchange and how it relates to, well, also, I don't have this. I haven't calculated the 500 people per square mile, but someone mentioned to me, it would be over 20 towns in the state that would be prohibiting outdoor grow. So I think just some interesting things that get brought up by this challenge. Representative Ungertz. Thanks, Representative Ungertz. It's interesting too because I recall my first year there were at least a handful of bills on the House Transportation Board and the answer was generally for some of these bills, you know, we don't pass law to address one problem. And I guess I feel like this raises a lot of questions, so I need to like read it and sit with it because it feels like the little, you know, you do this little thing and then this thing and if it's one problem, is that when we start crafting state law? I don't know. Well put, I guess I'm going to ask you, Michael, if you, is there, I mean, you suggested that the solution would be to allow the Cannabis Control Board to limit, but are they, they're not really a land use regulation body and how are they going to choose where to allow or not allow? Well they get their authority from you and if you want to have, let them have authority to, to deny someone based on their location, you can give them that authority and specify for what reasons, I mean, they exist because you authorize them. And so their authority is well within yours to change. Yeah, and I mean that this property with the ducks qualifies for being a farm. And so then we reach into that kind of area as well in the definition of what is agriculture in the state of Vermont, which in fact, you suggested that the Noah's Ark came out of a particular suit, but as I recall, it also came out of the Clean Water Act and small, the definition of a small farm. No, the definition of the small farm, the numbers are much greater. Oh, and you remind me that Noah's Ark is. So for cows, you can have 199 cows. For chickens, it's in like the 700s. No, but that's before you become a medium farm. I'm talking about the minimum threshold to be a. There is no minimum threshold under the Clean Water Act. It's zero to 199 cows. It's zero to 699 chickens. Okay, I'm just kidding. All right. Yeah, I'm going to theme upon representative Steppen to comment as well. I had that same concern. If this bill was to pass, would this particular site be grandfathered because they haven't just although when the next time their license comes up, it would be denied. They would most likely not be able to qualify. And it was this legislature, maybe not this year, current legislatures that passed this. And some of the conditions he talks about with Dr. for example, which is arguably agriculture, unsightly smell, future expansion. What's to say a municipal municipality has regulations, but we're trying to push the expansion out or growth in certain areas. And we determine there's an area that's maybe cultivating cannabis now, but we've just said, no, we're going to expand our number of homes we can have there. So now would have put this example in violation in the future. I'm concerned about that. We increased housing in a particular area. And I would sense, well, you have to be more than 500, but I just, we should have known these things when cannabis was approved. And now we're trying to micromanage. I just, I stumble with this a lot. Representative Stibbett was saying, is there a sense of not in my backyard? Is this currently being litigated? Do you know? I don't know if there's litigation. There's definitely dispute. I have heard several things, including that the property owner is seeking another site. But I'd also heard that the property owner is defending his rights as a farmer in a licensed cannabis provider. And they required to, she mentioned, Brooklyn mentioned security. So is it required to be fenced? There are some fencing requirements. I would have to turn to Michelle Childs on that. She's typically the cannabis staffer. I got this because of the docs. I was just going to ask, why did you? And if this, I mean, but this property, even if we adjusted the cannabis grow part of it, this person could still be a farm with their ducks. Yes. All right. Do members have further questions on this? Representative Stibbett. I mean, if we are going to take this up for a passage, I would love to hear from the cannabis control board, probably the city and probably the farmer, maybe an agency bag. I mean, if, if you were to take this up, the agency bag would be the first place for the duck issue. And then the cannabis control board, I would bring in Pepper Brinn, talk about that, what authority they think they lack or don't, to address this type of issue. And then, you know, the farmer and a six junction officials. But interestingly, the bill is addressing the cannabis, not the ducks, and doesn't actually have anything to do with the, you know, whether it's a farm or not. That's correct. That's what the sponsors are looking for after their consultation with their municipal officials. Representative Von Garns. Would the same person have, instead of any of this, had pigs on that property? That the person made $2,500 a year from? This is not the first time that small farming activities have occurred on small parcels and have created conflict. The most, the most called from my experience is small farm in the Brattle Barrow region. They were on, I think, two acres, maybe three. They had crops. They had animals. And then they started a logwood cutting operation. And the logwood is really aggravated the neighbors. That's not farming. And so the municipality got to regulate that. Representative Smith. This sounds like a one-issue deal that we should be regulating. Used to be farmers had respect for the neighbors, but apparently this duck farmer really doesn't. We had to consider rationing to find an alternative business, I think. But we shouldn't be addressing one issue. I don't think. I mean, that's a valid argument. The response to that is that the land is expensive. And if people want to get into farming, they're going to try to do that on whatever land that they can get access to, to do it. And sometimes that will create conflict. The land, traditional ag land right now, depending on where you are in the state, is selling for unbelievable prices. So the government operations committee was intending to pursue some updates to the cannabis section of statute. And they've asked for this possession of this bill. And I wanted us to opine on the ramifications from our perspective in terms of land use and zoning. So that's why we're looking at it at this moment. So members, keep thinking about it. Let me know. You have further thoughts. Representative Sacker. My only thought is just that here in the bill, it would add restrictions to where you're able to grow cannabis. And maybe a middle ground would be to just give municipalities a little more flexibility that they could prohibit based upon some of these new criteria, but wouldn't necessarily have to. All right. Thank you. Now we'll shift gears to Representative Dolan's bills. Should I just go in numerical order? So that brings you to 568. As Representative Dolan noted, there's already a grant fund in statute. It's called the Municipal and Regional Planning Fund. It receives 17% of the revenue from the property transfer tax. That money is then used for three different significant sources. 10% goes to the Vermont Center for Geographic Information. Then 70% is dispersed by ACCD for performance contracts. It's really performance grants to regional planning commissions to provide regional planning services. Then 20% is dispersed to municipalities as a municipal planning grant. What Representative Dolan's bill would do beginning on page one, section one, is first rename the program as the Municipal and Regional Planning and Resilience Fund. And then on page three, in what the disbursements to municipalities would be authorized for, on line 17 would be to allow for funds for municipal planning and resilience purposes. And then on page four, again, for what the municipalities could use the grants for, page four, line 17, they could use them for flood protection and climate resilience. And then on page five, in section two, it's session law. The agency would be directed to rename their municipal planning grant program as the Municipal Planning and Resilience Grants Program. And then there would be $1.5 million of general fund money appropriated to the Municipal and Regional Planning and Resilience Fund for the grants for the following purposes. To assist municipalities to support resiliency planning, identify the plan for resiliency projects to reduce damages from flooding and other climate change-related hazards. And to fund regional planning commissions, increase in staff in order to support municipalities in conducting climate resiliency planning, project development and implementation, and hazard mitigation locally, regionally at a watershed scale. And on page five, section three, there would be new positions. There would be one position at ACCB for the Municipal Planning and Resilience Grant Program and one position at A&R for the Water Investment Division at DEC for purposes of assisting in financing climate resilient projects from the Special Environmental Revolving Fund. Does everyone know what the Special Environmental Revolving Fund is? Well, there's actually several of them. Several of them don't have any money in them. But a couple of them do, most notably the Clean Water Special Revolving Fund and the Drinking Water Special Revolving Fund that are funded through EPA funds. Those funds typically fund in assortment of projects, water treatment, storm water. They do some flood mitigation already. They do some flood resilience already. The Agency of Natural Resources has an entire division that's largely dedicated to moving that money to municipalities and in some cases private individuals. And so that's what that division does. It moves that EPA money, which is cost shared with capital funds from the state to municipalities and qualified private entities. Michael, did you draft a larger resilience bill, the 723, I think it is? Is that the Washington County delegation? You did draft that. And is this language in that bill to your number? No, not exactly. There are a couple of different programs in that bill that are similar. That's one of my concerns is the sort of keeping track of all of the positions that Regional Planning Commissions and ANR, how to track that. Again, this bill I think was requested by Ways and Means. Representative Sebelia. Madam Chair, who is taking the lead in the Legislature on recovery bills? Well, we've had one meeting among the chairs who've received the different bills to try to figure out what's out there in the universe and how that should happen. That feels problematic. Also, it depends on how you define response. Because the Senate bill is largely devoid of money, but it's policy oriented. Is that response or I don't know how you're defining it? Members have questions on this bill? Senator Morris and Bongart. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious. We're putting, this bill puts up 1.5 million, it's proposing to put up 1.5 million from the General Fund to the Municipal and Regional Planning and Resiliency Fund. And the Planning, those Planning Grants are usually done from the Regional Planning Commissions. So, we have this pot of money and I'm thinking it would be distributed municipalities or the Regional Planning Commissions for the purpose of... So, there's three different ways that this fund gets used right now. Ten percent, stop the pot, goes to VCGI. Then, 70 percent is passed through ACCD to the Regional Planning Commissions. And then, 20 percent passes through ACCD and grants to municipalities from Municipal Planning. So, my question is, are the two positions needed? The 125 projected proposal for ACCD and the other 125 for ANR. Is that administration of that disbursement that required two additional people? Maybe you can't answer that. I mean, the argument is you're giving them 1.5 million dollars plus the existing revenue stream of 17 percent of the property transfer tax is probably going to require some additional staffing at least during that 1.5 million to get that money out the door. For ANR, there's always a long line for that program. Whether or not that line is because of staffing or because of the demand on the relatively little lack of funds. I mean, it's millions of dollars but there's tens of million dollars in need. And so, whether they need somebody else, I don't know. I think that's a question for that. Thanks, Senator. Thanks, Senator. I'm sorry if I seem to be pretty slow today. Clarify, 1.5 million for ACCD to essentially go to RPC staff to help me need. That's the first bit. Am I getting that right? So, the 1.5 is on page 5 and it goes to ACCD and it's for it's for different, there's two different ends. It's assistance to municipalities using municipal planning grants for resiliency and then there's funding to the RPCs to increase staff to support the municipalities and their climate resiliency. Okay, so there's 1.5 to ACCD to help and then to increase staff to RPCs in some. Then we have 125K to ACCD for a new full-time position and then 125K to A&R to help make sure we get the EPA dollars. Okay, I mean, how many times do we hear that in particular our small towns and communities don't have capacity and we know that the federal government has rolled out multiple millions and billions of dollars that we know in particular our smaller towns aren't able to access. So, I mean, knowing the bill's sponsor, she usually does a lot of homework and doesn't make things up. I'd be curious to hear more from some of our communities about whether this is helpful, whether or not this is something that is needed. My guess is it probably is giving how much flooding and how much communities have said we would love to get this funding or this funding, but we don't have the staff, we don't have the resources, we don't have the time or the expertise. I don't know if any of us have worked on EPA grants, they're pretty miserable. I don't mean miserable, I just mean they are intense efforts. So, I don't know if it's the correct framework, but I guess I just say if I connect the dots between what I'm hearing from smaller towns and rural communities and places that have been completely underwater, I'm certainly hearing a need. I don't know if this is the right one, but Representative Fongard's going to do it. Just to make sure I understand this, for the last few years there have been line items in the budget for municipal planning grants. Is this really the same thing except adding resiliency to what it can be used for? Or as the positions? The positions are because you had the two things going on, the 1.5 is really the equivalent of what we've done in the last couple of years where I forget what the numbers have been, but it's been in that range. And we're just adding that that can also be used for resilience. So that's what we're doing. In a way, this is just a, this could be looked at, that part of it, could be looked at simply as us saying continue what you did the last couple of years to do some planning grants and provide this addition, this ability to add. With the nuance that you're now caveatting that line item that's going to be used for the grants and for RPC assistance to municipalities for resiliency. So you're limiting that line item more than you would have done in the past. Okay, it's actually limited. I thought I was thinking it was more expanse, expanding saying and that's what I think, but not what I hear what you're saying. If you look at page five, that 1.5 is going to be for assistance municipalities to support resiliency planning and identify a plan for resiliency projects to reduce damages from the municipal planning grants from use for more than that. So it's limiting not expanding. Okay, that's it. So I want to see. Yeah, I guess I would agree with representatives sevens that there's a lot of need out there, but this does kind of feel disconnected from anything strategic and contemplating kind of the massive scale of work that is necessary out there. So just kind of struggling with that. Yeah, what this could get connected to. Well, I think that the Committee on Ways and Means would like to connect it to a larger support for our municipalities, which is why they asked for it. But as far as how it's connected to supporting policy that may be under discussion in Senate or that interface between the money to support some of the policy changes. What's missing? Money is the piece that is missing. Well, the interface is what's missing. Yeah, I think that's what you were saying. Yeah, I'm saying yes. Yeah, so it's hard for me to say we should fund, right, which something that is question about the clearinghouse and I think ways and means and appropriations will always be the clearinghouse on the money pieces of it. Then the rest of us do the policy work. Okay, so to that extent then the policy in here, us to see, I would like us to connect that to something. If we in fact are passing out a land use bill, it seems like it would be a good bill to incorporate, land use in this moment and going forward. I mean, it's our 250 bills for all, going to be about climate and protecting climate and safety. So I don't know, I guess I'm just kind of reacting to actions they react. I'm just wondering where's the bigger plan here? Formulating it. Great, that's awesome. Thank you Madam Chair. I think I got my just my question just got answered with that piece about ways and means, but page eight, line 20, is the use of at least $5 million to be made available to leverage existing in a new federal state ministry. Might be in the other five, 36. Oh, I'm sorry. The numbers. Okay, okay, here mine. Next representative story. How about that? I was just thinking about my regional planning commission is how they have a limited term position for a climate and energy plan who's been doing and raising more supporting returns. So I see this as really playing into a role in making it a more permanent thing that our towns are reading operations really need that staff capacity. And I'm also thinking about the climate action office and the municipal tool for what they're working on to really make it easier for municipalities to do more climate planning local. So to me, this seems like a really well timed effort with an existing thought and existing tool that is oversubscribed right now. So the Washington County flood recovery bill has a different way of doing exactly what she just describes representatory. It would just provide funding, the full time fund those climate mitigation staffers at the regional planning commission, because right now they're half time max. And so the thought is that they need to be full time. And so the Washington County bill, this could definitely be used for that. But the Washington County recovery bill mandates that there's money for the sole purpose of fully funding those positions. Thank you. That's where I've seen it. And is there just drawn general funds? Is it drawn what? General funds to fund it? I think so, but I can't recall. There's a lot of funding in that bill. There is. Further discussion of representatives? Yeah. So with regard to the regional planning commissions, and I, you know, I hope and expect this will come up as part of the Act 250 conversation in the end resilience. It's really my sense and I've been spending a lot of time working with the regional planning commissions that they are not properly configured. They do not have the proper governance or interface with our communities for the scale of the work that we are asking them to do or contemplating that we might pass in some, you know, some of these massive changes in Act 250 and the incredible need and urgency that we have with climate change. And so, you know, I really want us to think about how the RPCs are structured, what support they currently have, what engagement levels they have with their municipalities, what kind of accountability there is, what kind of consistency there is across. I know that they themselves are asking some of these questions and working with their national organizations on this, but I think it's really important for us to kind of dig in here if we are going to, you know, before we're adding any more money on top of this, let's really understand what's needed. Any further comments or questions on this bill? Okay, let's see any. Let's take our last break to what we've been going on. Well, let's look at the next bill. 586. So, 586 does several things, seven different things. It creates a new special fund called the Climate Infrastructure and Resilience Fund to provide loans for climate mitigation and resiliency. It amends the Clean Water Board funding restrictions to increase the cap for water quality enhancement grants, 5 million to 8 million as a cap. It amends the Clean Water Service provider model and the authority for Clean Water Service providers to direct that they will prioritize projects for climate mitigation and resilience. It amends the water quality enhancement grant program to allow for use of that money for climate mitigation and resilience. It calls to fully fund VHCB and to give VHCB authority to do climate mitigation and resilience specifically. It amends the basin planning process to require A&R and the basin planning to identify projects for climate mitigation and resilience. And then last, it requires that the flood risks in the state be mapped fully. And there are a couple other things. So, let's start with a refresher on the water quality enhancement and Clean Water Service provider model. So, a few years ago, when the state was faced with meeting the Lake Champlain TNBL and after a couple of years of the implementation plan, it was determined that the state was not going to be able to reach those goals in a timely manner without more on-the-ground local implementation of water quality projects. But the state just didn't have the staffing and the resources to get that money out for the more local projects. So, you created the General Assembly created a model where there would be for the impaired watersheds, what are called Clean Water Service providers, that they would be a local or regional entity made up of multiple players that would be granted money to then award for local water quality improvement projects. There are a couple of different grants that were created underneath that program, one of which is the Water Quality Enhancement Grant, which would be grants directly to, well, pass us through A&R to the New Water Service provider for the Clean Water Service provider to award to for the different types of water quality projects. So, what Representative Dolan is proposing in H586, and I'm going to skip over the first two sections, is beginning on Section 3, the Clean Water Fund and the Board is required to recommend to the General Assembly the use of all the money that goes into the Clean Water Fund. Part of what they're intended to recommend is the amount of water quality enhancement grants that go out each year, provided that they've capped that youth, the General Assembly, has capped the maximum amount of water quality enhancement grants at $5 million per year. It can be less than that, it just can't go over $5 million. And what Representative Dolan is proposing is that that it be capped at $8 million a year, and that's largely because on page 5, Section 4, he's expanding what the Clean Water Service provider and the Water Quality Enhancement Grants are going to be used for. It's not just going to be about water quality anymore, it's going to be about water quality and climate resilient watersheds and mitigation. So, you'll see that in page 5, Section 4, lines 18 to 21, about when a Clean Water Service that will Clean Water Service provider picks a project, they will prioritize one that has either water quality, climate resilience, or supportive ecological health and states water. And then similarly on page 6, same type of proposed change and project identification prioritization selection, they will pick one, a project that's water quality, climate resilience, or ecological health. And then in Section 5, the water quality enhancement grants may be used for in addition to water quality, which is already authorized to achieve water quality, climate resilience, or supportive ecological health. So what could a Clean Water Service provider do is more than just water quality, it could be climate resilience and mitigation or some sort of ecological health project. So that's the change to that program, existing program, existing Clean Water Service provider, existing water quality enhancement grant and be used for more than just water quality. Section 1 and 2 creates a new program. There would be a new special fund that would be created and you'll see on page 2, lines 10 through 12 to enable the authority to make loans and provide other forms of financing for climate change mitigation and resilience projects. So what is the authority? Well, the authority is made up of a climate infrastructure and resilience fund board consisting of the Treasurer, the Chief Executive Officer of BIDA, the Executive Director of BHCB, one person appointed by the government, one person appointed by the Speaker, and one person appointed by the committee on committees. And they shall develop a statewide strategy for the authority to finance climate change mitigation and resilience projects and they'll have an authority to recommend as part of that strategy how to leverage existing federal, state and municipal private resources to support investment in climate change. Now this next part, I don't really understand and that is that the fund shall consist of two and one-half percent of the state's cash balance. Well, I told the sponsor I didn't understand that and she said that that is language that the treasurer had recommended. I don't know what that means. I fully admit that I don't know what that means. And so I think if you're going to pursue this, finding out what that means, whether or not it's a consistent revenue source or not, I don't know. This is a loan program, right? This is a loan program, yes. And so those are the key parts that the rest of it is really, you know, the fund can accept any sources of money going through the regular approval process. The general assembly can appropriate money to it, direct revenue to it. And that's, those are just kind of whether plate language is special for them. And then section two is to create positions for this program. So in addition to other appropriated for the following state entities in fiscal year 2025, there are funds appropriated for this program. So 125,000 to VITA, 125,000 to the treasurer, 125,000 to VATB, 125 to the Department of Public Service, 125 to ANR. Did you get the name of all the sections yet? There's more sections, I think, right? Oh, yes, there are. Folks have questions on this. This is a section that Representative Dillon would think referred to as like generally a green bank. So the next major section, page seven, line seven, section six, VATB's authority would be amended to give them a specific authority for planning for climate impacts and approving climate resiliency. And then in section seven, VATB is by statute supposed to get 50% of the property transfer tax annually. They never do. You not withstand that language in the big bill every year. And so this would direct in fiscal year 2025 that they receive all of that 50% and that it be used for the following climate change mitigation and resilience activities, page eight, line 14, continuation of their work to achieve more efficient weatherizing climate resilient housing, expansion of support for environmental infrastructure investments to improve climate resilience, expansion of support for working lands businesses to achieve climate mitigation improvement of soil health, and the use of at least $5 million to be made available to leverage existing and new federal state municipal et cetera resources, basically to cost share and employ innovative financing mechanisms to support promote investments in nature-based climate resilience projects. What percent do they get now? Ends on year to year. But in statute, what is supposed to get 50%? This is reiterating. All right. Questions? All right, moving on. Center seven. Thanks so much, Chair. I feel like the number like around 20% is that I know you said it varies here is that I'm just looking for a range. It's like 17 to 20. Okay, thank you. Moving on page nine, section eight, the Clean Water Act, the Federal Clean Water Act requires states to do a continued planning process. A&R fulfills that requirement by doing basin plans for all 15 watersheds in the state. So section eight directs A&R as part of its basin planning process. You'll see this on page 11 to identify beneficial flood mitigation projects or practices that will store floodwaters and mitigate impacts to communities from severe weather. To extend, they already do this, but this is really just to clarify that it is mandate of all basin plans going to the future. Section nine is the directive to VCGI to use available LiDAR to develop flood risk maps for the state of Vermont. And then in sub B to direct A&R to complete the mapping of foreign hazard areas for municipalities in the state. So many years ago, you directed A&R to do what is called river corridor mapping to map not the inundation flood risk that FEMA maps map but to map fluvial erosion hazard risk, which is fluvial erosion flooding is discrete, intense storms, which cause scouring flooding, not inundation flooding. The fluvial erosion basically creates new waterways or water paths. That's the greater risk of flooding in Vermont. There is inundation flooding in Vermont, but fluvial erosion hazard flooding is more common, especially now these days. And A&R is directed to map them. They have been mapping the river corridors for fluvial erosion hazards, but they're not, they're not done. And so this would direct them to complete those maps. And then the last section would page 12, section 10, it would direct A&R to develop a statewide green infrastructure for climate resilience program to basically incent green infrastructure for the management of stormwater and downtown villages, how to reduce heat islands and how to avoid the social and economic disruption of climate impacts. There would be a staff person appropriated funds for age 12, line 15, 125 to A&R to full-time staff that program. And then that's the bill. The bill does go into effect on passage as directed by the sponsor. You might want to look at whether or not some of these things could get stood up in the timeframe that you want them to get stood up on. Any questions on this one? I think we've exceeded our normal break bandwidth. So we'll take a five-minute break and then come back with council overriding.