 All right. Good afternoon. And so we don't have a sub I'm here. Would you like to join us? Sure. I should grab another chair. It's good afternoon and welcome back to the House Environment Energy Committee. We're going to continue our discussion of age 687 and welcome Savannah Haskell and Peter Gill from the Natural Resources Board. Thank you very much. Chair Sheldon, I'd also like to take a moment to introduce our general council. Alison Goldberg is with us today. We've been talking a lot about the bill and moving forward with it and everything and we're very delighted to know that there's so much interest in making the necessary updates. So thank you for that. You invited us to talk about Tier 1a and B today and I just want to make some general comments about our study process. Again, I know you've invited us in here prior to talk about the overview and everything, but we see this as a framework, as you know, and that it would be important to integrate the designation, excuse me, in mapping studies. I hope that there could be a framework that gets legislated, if we will, this year and then the opportunity for us to take the time and have the input and conversations with stakeholders, our study partners, municipalities, our monitors about how the tiers will be set up and how the regional mapping will be worked. And so with those overview comments, I would respectfully ask that we could, first step would be to get a professional board so that they can be responsible for getting these processes and implementation into place. And I think we all recognize that there's going to be some complications and details that need to be worked out that we would bring to the legislature and with timelines and implementation. I was hoping to share an implementation timeline with you today, but we agree with others who have testified that, well, let me step back for a minute. We're hoping that these new tiers jurisdiction and mapping and everything goes into effect so that it's seamless with the ending or the exploration some setting of the home act exemption so that it just moves on. But we would, once the decision is made when those exemptions end, then we would do our planning for the timeline because right now, in your technical corrections bill, Senator Baumgart, there's a 2028 feels like it's way too far away, but that can be worked out and we will work with the timelines and come back and report to you on all of that. The tier one and B areas are meant to encourage compact growth where we want it and help keep the working and vast more rural areas of the state protected and also encouraging growth and housing and economic development in the more rural, excuse me, centers. Beyond that, I'm not sure I can keep going, but I think you've heard a lot of this before and I'm happy to answer questions. We are working on some draft language suggestions for you all and we hope to have those and by the end of the week fingers crossed. And maybe to just set back, set back really, really briefly if I may, on the tier one just reminder of the committee, tier one A and B kind of two different two different areas that were proposed under the study again for growth and compact settlement and to promote that and and basically looking at areas where there are zoning and subdivision bylaws, wastewater, water, but again depending on the either A or B, whether you fall into either of those kind of depends on some of those criteria. Again, the study got to kind of a broad level of what some of those criteria and standards would be, but didn't hone in on all the details and really again looked at the the mapping and the integration with the mapping and designations to help flush that out. And I think that goes to what Surbine is talking about in terms of setting up a timeline to make those decision points. I just thought of one more thing I'm going to cut you up, Paul. The idea is not to reduce reduce the criteria or have it have the criteria be overlooked that they that this moving on to these exemptions, the municipalities will be able to be able will need to be able to demonstrate that the criteria are being followed. And that's part of the reason why we need a process to set up the I keep calling a certification so that we know that they do what we think they can do in 1A and 1Bs. I'm sorry to interrupt. I interrupted the question. No. Okay, because then if that. Just need a quick refresher. This is this is about the professional board issue. Is there also a change in the process for making the appointments or is it just a more detailed description of the qualifications? I think there'll be a change in the how the professional board is chosen as well as in their qualifications. Okay, yes. And I think that it's I think there's still debate whether it should be a three person board or a five person board with a full time chair. And how that nominating committee gets set up and I can go into a couple of thoughts on that but I was going to do that on Friday. That's the level I needed to remind it. Anything else you would like us to understand about your proposed tier one and A and B? The only thing in terms of that overview is just the jurisdiction in those areas. Active 50B exempt from those areas. Sorry to remind you. Representative Bogart. So in tier one B, you have the units of housing with trigger. I'll take a comment. I think the committee is going to want to go as far as we can give definition now to exactly how this is going to work. We won't get everything done or we'll be a lot of work done afterwards but I think that I think for my part I don't want to kind of do only a little bit and then go back to a whole lot of we've been having public processes for 20 years on this and so we have to do more and actually get incorporated but I just want to send a signal that from my perspective anyway, I want to get as much definition as we can now so I want to really understand how we're going to do the one A and the one B and critical habitat, critical resource areas, our natural resource areas, our critical natural resource areas. So I want to get definition to that as much as we can now. I really want to get definition to the categories in the future land use maps and there will still be a lot of other processes involved in the mix of life bottom up and the towns meeting the regions and all of that going on at the same time but I just want to send a signal to the world that Mr. Bogart not interested in having us be totally not to listen to everyone other. I just want to make sure I heard you clearly that you would it would be your preference to have the definitions of tier one A and B in legislation this year as well as the other deaf as well as the other tiers two and three. Yes. Okay that I was not I guess that that's catching me a little bit by surprise because I think I personally think it needs time to be fleshed out but well I guess what I would say is I want to get as far as we can as close as we can and get some legislative definition for this. Okay. Okay thanks for joining us. Next up we have Catherine Dimitri. Thanks for having me back. It's nice to see all of you again. I'm Catherine Dimitri with Northwest Regional Planning Commission and I serve as chair of the Roma Association of Planning and Development Agencies as well. I just wanted to take some time to speak about tiers one A and one B as I asked. First I'll just note that the Regional Planning Commission's Future Land Use Study that you heard about earlier had some recommendations in it that would add definitions to these areas that I think could work quite well for a legislative consideration and Charlie Baker when he speaks will talk to that a little bit more we do have some language drafted that I think could be useful for you in your deliberations. The process that the Regional Planning Commission envisioned for tiers one A and one B were that the Regional Planning Commission's would do the planning work in cooperation with our municipalities to map these areas and in our vision once those maps and plans were accepted by this new environment the new ERB then tier one B would automatically confer to those planned growth areas and the smaller village areas. From there if a municipality wanted to demonstrate that they meet a certain set of criteria through local bylaws etc. then they could apply for and receive the tier one A exemption and the reason why we recommend that process in our report is really from an equity perspective for our smaller communities. I have some concern that the process laid out in 687 as drafted I know it's an early draft and would really be a challenge on a hurdle for our smaller communities to achieve the one B status which is why our recommendation was that the Regional Planning work would allow the one B status to confer to these areas upon approval and acceptance of our regional plan and a demonstration that those areas make sense and meet the statutory definitions. Can I just ask a follow-up before the one B currently has a 50 unit exemption which seems like a lot for these small towns. Do you have a different recommendation or perspective on that? I do have a different perspective I actually think that that makes a lot of sense and let me tell you why right now we currently regulate commercial development far less stringently under Act 250 than we do residential development so if you look at an area in a village that has access to water and sewer because of the home act that was passed last year the municipality has to allow 5 units per acre so if you want to take advantage of that on and like say a 9.9 acre lot and do 45 units of housing you would need to go through Act 250 but if it's a commercial project commercial projects up to 10 acres are exempt in communities with zoning and subdivision so you could do that development and so without going through Act 250 so you look at a 10 acre commercial development you know just under 9.9 acres that could go through without needing Act 250. A 50 unit housing development is essentially that same equal approach from the residential perspective because the home act would require a town to allow 5 units an acre so you're essentially bringing residential development to the same equivalent jurisdiction as commercial development so from that perspective I actually do think it makes a lot of sense. Maybe another way to look at that but I will. My opinion. Sure. And so because of that I could go into specific recommendations on some of the standards in 687 if you prefer or I could follow up in writing whichever you prefer. I think if you've prepared comments we love to hear them. Sure and so a couple of things I'll point out in the proposed requirements starting on page 48 of the bill is for if you're thinking about these for the tier 1 a I have some concerns about what letter e means that permanent zoning that don't include broad exemptions for significant private or public land development. I think that's just a little vague and I'm not sure what the intent is there. I'm sorry I miss for letter c the flood hazard and river quarter bylaws just an acknowledgement that that's a hurdle that many municipalities would need to meet that would be a new standard that a lot of municipalities don't actually currently meet which frankly we're hoping moves in another bill. Okay. But it's in here. So I'll so ignore that. Yeah. That's what page you want. I'm on page 48 of draft 1.1 and hoping that's still a draft you're on. Okay good. So again letter e I thought was vague and it would just be interesting to understand the intent and could certainly make some recommendations to clarify the language once the intent is understood. For letter f the urban form bylaws I think requiring at least six stories would most likely be a barrier for many communities choosing to take advantage of tier 1 a exemption. I think it's it's makes sense in some of our most urban most dense municipalities parts of our most urban most dense municipalities but requiring reasonable allowance for six stories as a as a floor I think is a barrier that would be would prevent many municipalities from taking advantage of the 1 a exemption. So I'm not disagreeing with you but can you speak a little bit more about that. Why is it what would keep them from adopting that. I think because if you look at the way our downtowns have developed having a six story building would be immediately out of scale with many of these areas the broader areas not that it doesn't make sense in some parts of what might be a tier 1 a area but to have it be a blanket requirement I think it would just be out of scale. And letter 8. Jump in here on that. We've had got Celic in that seat over the course of a few years talking about the need if we're going to build affordable housing to go up. Yes. So when we discuss talk about within some places within those areas it doesn't you know at least it leads it up to the communities to decide where and I guess I I would ask given given that testimony that we've had over the years from thoughts in particular. If you think 6 is too high is 5 to 5. I don't know that I could give you a one size fits all answer to that question and I think that's the issue and as it's drafted right now make reasonable provision make reasonable provision. I don't know if that means reasonably allowed everywhere in the tier 1 a area or you know the one block in the downtown. I don't know what that means and so I read it as reasonably allowing it everywhere in the tier 1 area. What if it were the second because that's what I think. I have to think about whether 6 is the appropriate minimum and obviously in the places that it makes sense we want to be able to build up up up up what the right minimum is I don't know right now. So you know the intent here was to position that so the town had to adapt by some area but the walkability and access to services that would okay so now that I understand the intent a little bit more let me think on that. You know I need to answer that question under letter H I was just trying to understand the reasoning for having wildlife habitat planning by us in the planned growth areas simply because it would be the understanding where we are mapping these planned growth areas that that would be our highest most intense use and it would largely not include wildlife habitat planning areas and so just trying to understand the interplay between those two which seem at odds a little bit. I think we're just saying in the reality is that we I see the future as humans and the natural environment being more integrated and if you can imagine us restoring the river corridors throughout far worse built environment we're going to have wildlife and there was a moose killed in downtown Burlington this past year that the wildlife is there and I think we need to make sure that they can you know still travel through places we live. Okay it's not to say that it would be a priority in that area but where it was necessary habitat it would need to be included. Okay that's great thank you for explaining that so now that I understand the context I'll probably come back with some recommendations there. And then when it comes to the tier 1b so moving on kind of falls into page 50 tier 1b requires a municipality in this draft to have a municipal plan that's letter a that makes sense to have permanent zoning and subdivision under letter e which I think with some wording changes can make sense it also requires those municipalities to have permitted water and wastewater. I think it makes more sense to be flexible here for tier 1b to have it be water or wastewater or a demonstration that a community system can work because there's appropriate soils and there's great examples of this all through rural Vermont where you know recently Cathedral Square opened a fantastic housing development in the town of South Hero which doesn't have water and sewer but they had a community system and fire districts so they were able to make it all work so I think flexibility there is really important and then I don't think that it's important for tier 1b municipalities to have municipal staff I think that that is also a requirement that would get in the way of municipalities across the state from taking advantage of the tier 1b opportunities. So I'm happy to follow up in writing with with what I just sent you. So the tier 1b requirements are on the top of page 50 it kind of starts with bottom of 49 and rolls into 50 and it references back those letters in the previous section and the staff one is which letter J. So I don't think we were imagining the town would necessarily have to have staff but that the they would have access to staff like at the Regional Planning Commission so we're not anticipating necessarily that they would but that they had adequate support. Okay because right now it's drafted as municipal staff. So those were my specific comments on that section that tier 1b as drafted currently I'm happy to follow up with some after hearing some more from you and to answer some of your questions and I'll just note which I think I suppose are your earlier witnesses which is that depending upon the timeline I think it will be important to either extend or maybe even perhaps expand the temporary exemptions that were put in place through the Home Act to make sure that we continue to support the development of new housing in the places we want it. Thank you for your testimony I look forward to the written part we have a couple questions. I actually just want to flag the conversation I'm useful and the difference between what I'm hearing that was overdraft and it's like this year so RPC staff being adequate well ready to talk about it. Yeah and it so that feels like that's much more accessible but also needs a lot more definition. And that could be one place to get toward encouraging municipal participation in regional planning processes. Something you talked to me before. Good and shame. I do not live and breathe planning so sorry for this probably wow Gabrielle you should know this already. Question I guess for me tier 1b you only trigger act 250 if it's 50 units or more but I guess for me that seems concerning if on the other hand you're also saying that we're not sure they can actually jump through these hoops within this time frame like I don't know how to hold they can't handle jumping through the hoops to get tier 1b within this time frame. They can't have staff but it's got to have you know the only thing that's going to trigger act 250 is 50 units or more like I just I'm not saying I'm just sliding that that feels like a dissonance to me. Yeah and I could understand that how that can sound like a dissonance and I think where where I where I come down to is trying to bring parity and act 250 to how we regulate residential uses with how we regularly commercial uses. So right now that community could have a 9.9 acre commercial development. I can give a great example with 7 buildings 175 parking spaces and a ton of traffic and have no act 250 review and we've lived with that system and that's generally been okay and to me this is simply bringing residential development into that same parity that we have right now with commercial development. You know when act 250 came of age we were growing exponential rates with residential uses and I think that's one of the reasons why residential is regulated more tightly and we're kind of at the flip side now where we really should be thinking about how do we streamline the processes for residential and I think at least bring it into parity with commercial jurisdictional triggers makes sense to me. I guess and so you feel like that commercial level of trigger is appropriate and okay so therefore I hear your parity comment. Yeah I guess I'm just asking is that not being a planner. Right I think for the for the most part yes. Yeah I think just like with any process you are not going to devise something that perfectly captures every issue that should be caught in the permitting process and if you did you probably design your way out of a process that allowed anything to happen. So I think for the most part it has worked. Thank you. Yeah and really when we have these more complicated projects to get to that discussion of municipal staff often the municipalities will call us. We have an instance right now where we're acting as a town planner for one of our smaller towns for a very small subdivision that they thought was a little complicated so they called us and we come in and we help advise them. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have Charlie Baker. Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the committee thank you for the time today. So I guess I'll start off sorry Charlie Baker, Executive Director of the Shining County Regional Planning Commission and also Chair of the Government Relations Committee for our State Association and speaking to you I think we're from both those hats on. One thing I'll say first is I will coordinate in getting you written comments with Catherine so you get one set of comments from the RPCs. So we'll try to make that clear. And then I have sorry I'm not quite sure how to ask this and I hope it's not important. But we sent some language to last Friday with kind of the regional planning portion of what needs to change in statute and I don't know to what extent I was going to kind of maybe preview a little bit of that. That would be great. We haven't incorporated it. We haven't talked about it. This would be a great time to do that. Excellent all right we're on the same page and I'm happy to share with the whole committee if that would help or I don't know I don't want to get in the middle of your processes. Let me know. That's great. Share it. Please share it. Okay you want to share it. I will do that. Friday at four I was driving home. I think actually I'm probably still here. I'm so entirely driving home. Apologies for the I'm sure you got no emails over the weekend either. And so I'll talk a little bit more in generalities. So I'm not giving you a real specific comment shared on 687 but Katherine and I will coordinate on some of these. One is when we talk about both the 1a and the 1b hoping to see a little stronger connection to the mapping that we're doing other section of statute. And so and that might actually help reduce the number of criteria that need to be in this section of statute because we've already addressed some of those criteria when we're doing our planning and mapping work. So I'll express that as a hope but we'll try to be a little clear about that kind of process piece. And the other thing coming out of the NRB study and I apologize I didn't hear the earlier testimony. So I hope I'm not duplicating comments you've already heard. But the conversations we were having in the study committee process particularly around 1b was the desire to be as inclusive as possible. I'm a little concerned if we stay close to the criteria that's in there right now. It probably will work for Chittenden County and not too well for the most of the rest of the state. So I say that when my Chittenden County had on acknowledging like yeah that might work for us but I'm not sure it helps get housing in the rest of the state where we need housing everywhere in the state. So that's a little bit of a concern I think that we'll follow up on you know what other criteria and I think we were the conversation in those committees to my best my understanding was to try to be more particularly in 1b like almost any place that had a village center designation ought to have the ability or the opportunity to participate in having some housing growth to support their small villages because it's just I don't know how to think about that rural economic development but every part of the state ought to be able to participate in some housing growth that supports their villages. So that's kind of a general comment I wanted to make and sorry. I'm going to put you on the spot a little bit. Do you think that Act 250 is inhibiting housing growth in our small villages? At least as a perception so in and I ran a regulatory program before moving to Vermont. What's in our regulations does matter so yet to the extent that somebody might want to do a 10 or 12 unit building adjacent to a village or in a village I do think Act 250 is definitely a barrier for that. So we know the extent of that. It's kind of trying to prove a negative. So I couldn't I don't think there's a way to put numbers to that but I do think it's getting a lot of nine unit buildings in these villages. I guess I'm always a little stymied by this perception and our ability to play into it. I would suggest you talk to more builders and stuff. I'm not you know I don't do that end of the market but it is part of my perception. Representative Smith. Thank you. Would it be fair to say that Act 250 is not fair for the entire part to this date? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that but I think it's certainly potential. Well it's 30 miles between Island Pond and Canaan and there's a lot of land so anybody could build something in the middle of something. Burlington doesn't have that option or that luxury. So I believe that Act 250 does apply the same thing in Burlington area as it does in Asif County. Well should it? No I do think the study that you asked for which was kind of more location based jurisdiction. I mean the fundamentals of what are in the studies I think are trying to get at that like let's be more thoughtful about where are we trying to not encourage growth and where are we trying to encourage growth you know tier one, tier three right. So I do think that that is the right approach and that is certainly more traditional planning. You know right now Act 250 is very much an impact analysis right. If you cross a threshold you know 10 units or 10 acres or whatever the threshold might be there are quite a few triggers right. Act 250 reviews your impact on all 10 criteria but it doesn't have any place based association and I think when we were in here testifying a week or two ago to us I think this is really the opportunity to update the regulatory system to help support the planning processes that yeah have been required for quite some time for regions and towns. So this is why I think we're so excited and energized about the opportunity here to have Act 250 updated to better support the plans that are happening at the regions and towns. Yeah so Maritza I'll give it just I'll do kind of just an intro of some of the thoughts the key thoughts particularly around future land use element. So the language we sent you one particular thing it does is calls out a specific natural resources and working lands land use element. There hasn't been one of those required to date although there was quite a bit of language that came from Act 171 back in 2016 around forestry and things like that. So we're kind of retaining some of that language and having it be in its own element. And then what we're suggesting is a future land use element so actually I should for all of your benefit let you know elements are required in a regional plan. So we're suggesting there be a natural. What's that? Elements that are already required. Yeah. What are you following are you going through on the pages of your yeah I'm on page 14 of what I sent you if it's word is working. So number one is a statement of basic policies to guide future growth. Number two is currently the land use element we're suggesting that turns into a natural resource element. The third element is an energy element. The fourth element transportation. Fifth is utility and facility. So that's kind of all your water sewer schools public safety things like that. Number six is policies on rare and irreplaceable natural areas and quality of water quality. Maybe that should go into the natural resource section but I didn't mess with that too much. Number seven is kind of the section. Number eight is just about development trends. So a little bit of kind of analysis. Number nine is a housing element. Number 10 economic development. Number 11 flood resilience. And if you're not exhausted yet welcome to our world. We're proposing a kind of a new future land use element that would be very clearly dictate the nine land use areas that we presented to you. I can't remember when that was a week or two ago. So you know the planned growth area the downtown village centers and the one thing I want to call out to your attention is we did spend some more time trying to give a criteria to what should be required for planned growth area in our mapping and it's very similar to the criteria you were just talking about for one A and one B. So that's that's a place where I hope we can kind of get some statutory efficiency enough and make sure we're really lined up and talking about the same criteria. That's on page 19 to 20 of the draft that we sent. And so and village areas and those three areas are downtown village centers as area one the planned growth area and the village area which is the area around the designated village centers. Those are the three areas that we think encompass one A and one B the way they've been talked about. And the way we've been thinking about this I'm going to move past the centers because I think everybody's in a very good place around centers. The downtown board should still bless the centers for the tax credit programs etc. But the one A process in our minds we were hoping to identify the areas that could be eligible to apply to the NRB for exemption. And so we're looking at what they have in their plans. Are they planning for higher density? Are they do they have all the infrastructure that they need? Are they talking about meeting the housing targets that were required in the home act last year? Things like that. Are they trying to reduce sprawl and strip development? So in that area there is both one A and one B towns we think there's some that will have done the bylaw work. Again we're looking at kind of what the infrastructure what they have and their plans. Those that have done the bylaw work would apply to the NRB for exemption. And then the other plan growth areas that haven't done the bylaw work would be one B communities where they would get some level of exemption or some allowance of number of housing units that could go in. And then the village areas we have been thinking that those would be pretty close to automatically in one B just based on the criteria and the definition that we have here to be again this is all about trying to be as inclusive as possible across the state so that they would qualify for whatever benefits come with one B. So that's where we had been coming from in thinking in terms of supporting the NRB study work and what our municipality been planning for. Yes sir. One vision with one B though that perhaps to be that's not that they have to have bylaws and they have to have some parts in place because if we're talking about it like I do I do acknowledge Catherine's point about the 10 acre development, commercial development for this housing but isn't part of the goal here to get those towns to at least get them to move up the ladder a little bit and not making it onerous but making it making it possible but so you would designate them as eligible but then still a process. It's a policy choice. I mean we were on the kind of more inclusive side like if the NRB approves our regional plan and the map that includes these one V village areas that they would automatically qualify but that's a policy choice. I mean that would be more inclusive. You could make it less inclusive very much a big favor of the housing. Don't you have to have some review mechanism for that. I know you have an honor but you know we have a wide variety of rural towns so we were trying to just be as most inclusive as possible. The way we phrased it right now is very broad. It's really around the village center. You know if they got a village center designation then they probably ought to be able to support that village with some housing adjacent. It's kind of where we're coming from. What we came up with is a definition in talking to our peers across the state was a very broad or criteria water sewer or bylaws. So they have some they got something that will allow some ability to grow but not all of them. So again I think that's the crux of the policy debate here. How you know open or how easy or hard do we want to make it. And your village centers that you're referring to are designated through the future land use mapping. We would we would delineate them on our maps. I mean right now of course I've been approved by the downtown board. We're still thinking that the downtown board would have you know some role in reviewing that but at least the NRV would approve our maps so that that the staff at DHCD isn't spending a lot of time kind of debating with towns on maps. We're doing that at the front end. I know you're using this for designated. I mean one of the whole purposes of the work we're doing is that the downtown board was not isn't isn't a land use regulation body and that we're hoping that some more robust planning happens. And I just I don't want to I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I mean are you talking about verling every village center that's already existing into this 1B automatically? That is where we were starting from. Yeah yeah I think this kind of came from you know and Catherine got asked her to pipe in but you know as we were talking about this over the summer and fall you know I think every RPC has small towns that you know in their town plan they talk about we'd like to have more housing growth adjacent to our village or in our village and you know it's just something that we could do to try to encourage that. That's where we were coming from. Yeah I'm going to representative Stebbins dissonance observation of I mean if you don't have water or sewer how would you possibly be able to support 50 units of housing? Well I mean that's a max number right? And so I mean maybe it's only six units and they're on septic because they have good you know the soils work there and we were like that's okay but six units there great and which could happen now? It could happen now is my point. He's not keeping those from happening. I agree with you. I agree with that point and this is you know I think there's just some optics too about like no we're trying to say no you're you're this is a place we want to have housing. And so does that answer your question? So Catherine anything that I miss speak at all? I think that's what's in our report. I'm thinking of ideas too. I've been thinking starting notes for ideas to address these questions and concerns. Thank you. How big a housing unit could you put out in a 10 or a 20 acre or a 30 acre field? That could build its own sewer system and sustain? Is there such a thing or would it is it even possible? Yeah, depending on the soils I mean how many bedrooms you want? Soil perked perfectly. Can you build a 50 unit complex and and build a sewer system that would accommodate it? I would not be surprised if there may be some community systems here that probably are around that size. Yeah I mean obviously doing wastewater I mean you know we're talking about community septic kind of system in a way. You know is a very expensive thing which is why you need a lot of properties to do it you know versus a centrally piped you know sewer system right? But I think I think there's a wide range of things that can happen. Would you say that chances are no one is going to want to build a 50 unit complex that's off municipal sewer? Yeah I would hope not and they're going to trigger act 250 if they're not in 1A or 1B right? So there would be some barriers financial regulatory and others to doing that and I think that's really what we're trying to I think we I say we very royally the conversation is you know how do we influence the private sector behavior to get more of what our plans are calling for and so that's that's kind of where we were coming from. I agree with you it doesn't make anybody do anything doesn't make any doesn't make a 50 unit development happen just because up to 50 is exempt from act 50. It would just make it a little easier if they were bumping up against some barrier so. Representative Tori. Just a question here so I heard 18 months for the future land use mapping process. From Peter this morning? Okay and I'm wondering so you're talking about local plans that are currently envisioning where growth might be but often that's not informed by any soil testing. There may not have been much spent yet about that so as town plans get updated and I'm just wondering how does the border what if a town were to have a very robust community visioning process after flooding for example or you're really thinking about where is it safe to to live maybe it's not. That kind of determination could take some time on the local level. Are the maps going to be dynamic to account for on the ground local agency around this as their insights and planning kind of matures? Yeah I think we've been viewing this all very iteratively and it's going to use the term ladder but I think it maybe it's been getting used in the designation process too so I won't although I just did but that there's a path for moving up this this hierarchy of places right and it is iterative and dynamic although it sometimes slow but you know every time I think we've been talking you know we're kind of anxious to get started doing this work so you know we want to have as clear direction and statute as we can both in tier one and tier three. Sorry I know we'll talk about that another time but because we want to get started doesn't mean that everything has is resolved and yeah and if we let's say we got a plan up our plan updated in 2025 and we're now coming to the NRB asking for approval of our plan the town could very well be updating their plan the next year or so and then you know we're always interacting with our towns as that's happening before they even start the planning process and certainly you know if this is starting to require them to get the plan approved great so you know we would kind of like be kind of capturing notes of like things that we need to update in our next cycle and we were trying to outline a process where kind of small amendments could happen quickly to our regional plan without having to go through you know the two public hearing this six-month process that we typically have to do when we do the full plan update we'll follow up with that draft bill language and some more specific comments on since 87 right the draft bill language that you sent us or that okay yeah and there was some stuff at the end of that sorry just transparency that where we were starting to try to address some of the other issues that were coming up like how VTrans engages right now they they engage through Act 250 if Act 250 is not there how would they engage with municipal permitting processes things like that and even for RPCs having a voice in municipal permitting for significant regional impact projects SRI projects like without Act 250 that goes away so there was some stuff at the end there that I will call the thoughts half-baked but we were trying to kind of flag there are some other parts of statute that we probably need to address as we think about this whole system I've had some more conversations with VTrans I think they'll have some more specific talks about their particular section of statute but great thanks for your testimony yeah thank you very much appreciate it first we're going to take a brief break till two we're going to reconvene our hearing and our next witness is John Groban VNRC thank you for the opportunity to testify so for the record I'm John Groban I'm the policy and water program director for the Monathe Wreath Associate Council so you've already heard you know you know you've heard a lot about the specifics of 1a and 1b so I just want to start by saying just for the record that you know VNRC as a member of the NRB steering committee support the tiered approach the jurisdiction feel that it makes sense to alter Act 250 to create jurisdiction based on location tier 1a and 1b based on planning and the RPC mapping work which I'll talk about a little bit more as I drill into how the designations are going to work for those tiers you think that makes sense to make it up based on planning for both the 1a and 1b areas and importantly for tier 3 as well the critical resource areas so we think this is a good way to proceed but there are some details that are not in the NRB report and then there's some there's some provisions in there about process that I just wanted to raise as you're writing legislation to implement the tiered review that I want to put on the table for discussion and I think need to be fleshed down the legislation but first I want to say that so VNRC the NRB report with regard to 1b the discussion that you just had with Charlie Baker so we support 1b areas having zoning and subdivision bylaws water sewer or the soils that would support development you know the NRB report doesn't we didn't talk about you know village areas that didn't have you know water or sewer qualifying so I just want to note that I mean we support what's in the report and the reason you know I think for the 1a and 1b exemption areas really you the principles are you want to make sure that the towns have good zoning good subdivision for 1a they have to have a high capacity to administer that zoning so they'll be providing the protections and they have infrastructure to support the development and we're taking advantage of the investments that we've made you know I think it's appropriate as the NRB report outlines in 1b because they're smaller villages if those villages can take advantage of alternative waste disposal mechanisms that are allowed under ANR rules so we think that makes sense but I just it's hard to envision towns not having water or sewer being able to you know qualify so I just wanted to note to note that also so with regard to 1a you know one of the compromises in the study is for these Act 250 exemption areas where you do have to jump through you know hoops that are significant quality zoning quality subdivision the ability to administer those programs it basically is the core area around like what right now are our downtown areas and our village centers and then an area that can accommodate 20 years of growth so that's significant and we did agree to that and we do agree to that but we do think that there needs to be in the legislation clear guidance and criteria to the rpcs and the state designation board as to like how those boundaries get drawn for 20 years because that you know that is there's no real limit to that area and so I think there needs to be thought and you know discussion between the NRB and the rpcs you know and and the vnrcs planners will provide input but I do think that should be in the legislation some sideboards you know around how those areas getting on to 1a in 1b it doesn't it doesn't speak to specifically how wide those areas are you know as a starting point right now we have a neighborhood development area designation which I think in our view is the best designation program in terms of dealing with development issues it's this it's the last designation program we created and it was created you know with the idea of not duplicating efforts if towns had good land use programs you can maybe have exemptions from act 250 and in that program there's a quarter mile the quarter mile radius from the downtown center or village center that kind of goes out and that encompasses the mapped exemption area so we think that the starting point for that discussion should be the nda program with 1b because those are towns that the zoning will not be as high quality um and the capacity to administer the program won't be the same as 1a so I wanted to put that out for you just to think about it for discussion I have a question yes it's 20 years of growth when we see growth ebb and flow quite dramatically over the years what does that mean to you I mean I think it's a good question and um you know I think the rpcs might be better answering it but I think it's based on projection with growth and census data and projections of housing needs and other needs in the community but it is an estimate and it's you know it's an analysis that is a planning analysis basically I think it's interesting because we've seen our housing stock actually grow while our population hasn't grown commensurately because of things we've been talking about like short-term rentals and potentially fewer like people living in larger areas but I think we're building houses but our population is pretty pretty stable uh yes turbulence that's the razor hand I don't know how this works I mean yeah I think it's a good question I I would start with the rpcs you know they would they would be drawing these boundaries initially um but it's clearly allowing for a latitude and that's why we're saying that the legislation should have some sideboards and guidance about how that analysis is done do you have thoughts on those sideboards I I need to consult this is why it's a little like I I'm a I'm not a plan I'm a lawyer and a water policy person and Brian Schup and Katie Gallagher are really expert we can provide that information but I prefer I like to consult with them great thanks we look forward to getting that yeah you have something to ask uh just I think uh household sizes have been going down pretty dramatically over the last few decades so even if we have the same amount of houses or slightly more we have a large amount in sizes a lot so perfect yeah I don't I don't dispute any of that the other thing yeah we're thinking about is talking about 20 years of growth implies they're just going to get bigger we also need some way it seems to me to ensure that they are truly fully utilized or and so generally thoughts about that because you know we have I really I really I don't think I'm the best person so again this was added to this but I mean I just like from common sense I think I can cut a lot of 20 years of growth the projections can be you know that there won't be that you know that you know there'll be times when you won't project that much growth but I agree it's uh it's it's it's it's not a clear analysis and how it would be done I think the idea was to make room for especially the amount of housing that we think we need but I think that varies from region to region and area to area but I think it's something that needs to be nailed down as you go and you try to take this report and make it make it law um similarly in the 1v tier so the NRB report says if you qualify for 1v that one project could have up to 50 units and not go through active 50 and we support that but one thing we talked about at the NRB and it's not reflected in the report but I don't recall that there was really great objection to it was I think the idea is to have denser developments you know and I don't we talked about the NRB steering committee even the housing developers didn't think you'd see one project 50 units that's pretty much the upper limit from what we heard we've heard from Kathy Byer was sort of the afford it was the affordable housing representative and she was saying 30 maybe 40 units is what she would think we would see we talked about making sure that was dense so we were we're thinking that maybe in 1v it should be 50 units per project but on 10 acres so not spread out so that 10 acres is a lot 10 acres is not small but 10 acres is these are 10 acre towns these are towns with zoning and subdivision under active 50 so for commercial development it's a 10 acre trigger so we're just looking for a way to kind of keep make sure we have denser more affordable housing in these 1v areas so we wanted just to put on the table that for consideration as we're writing this into law 1v if you're designated 50 units but one project on 10 acres not sprawled out over more than 10 acres and finally which is in the report and I think this I hear a lot of support for this is that you know it didn't name the nrb as the designation authority for the tier 1a and 1b and tier three areas but we think it should be the nrb if we're going to professionalize the nrb and invest in the nrb um and have qualified people um on the nrb per the uh the bill that you that you that that has been introduced in this committee um that has the environmental review board I think the qualifications and the process for appointing that board would be the same let's use it for these designations not we can debate the appeals part of it I know that's going to be debated separately but at a minimum the nrb should do these reviews it should be a process it should be an outline through nrb or the erb whatever we ended up calling it rules about who could participate uh the nrb steering committee report envisions that these designation decisions because they will result in exemptions for map 250 would be appealable decisions so there'll be a lot of accountability built in and we support that but we think it's it's really important if we're you know creating the system where we're going to we're going to have these tiered jurisdictional areas and active 50 and areas where activity won't apply so the last thing I want to talk about is is the process for um drawing these tier one a one b n tier three areas um and the design and the designation process and so to have been thinking about looking at the nrb report looking at the Vaptor report that includes the future land use mapping which you've heard a lot about including today is I think as we as this becomes legislation we should create an efficient process and not duplicate efforts I think everybody wants this to move forward you know as fast as as it can you know with good planning work done and the way the way the reports read together now is that the rpcs working with the towns would create these future land use maps which would include boundaries for a number of different categories but including what would really be analogous to the one a one b categories in the the growth areas the planned growth areas and the the core sort of downtown and village areas and then the nrb report says that you know towns could apply to the state board for an active 50 designation for one a one b or tier three but it leaves it up to the town entirely and it says a town could either go with the rpc recommendation or draw its own map and I just I think I want to put on the table for discussion if that that's the right way to do this because if the rpcs are going to spend all this time like drawing these maps and working with the towns and going back and forth and we want to go fast both on one a and one b and on tier three protecting their critical resources why don't we use that as a starting point like why would we want to let the towns kind of rework that like why wouldn't we want to say that those rpc boundaries once approved in the regional plan is what needs to go to the state board for the designation and not like rework not kind of have like this debate between the towns about what the map should be for tier one a one b and tier three to get their critical resource designation so I just want to put that on the table I think it's really important when that part of the bill gets drafted about the process from going from the regional planning commission and future land use mapping up to the designation board for the designations that we don't duplicate efforts and we kind of we move we move this along and the other the last thing I want to say about this is um and you know I I think you also like what's it's been a problem because the towns haven't taken these recommendations for designations to the right now is a downtown board that does these designations and there is concern and we're concerned that you know these recommendations from the rpc won't be implemented um and we've seen this before you know in the water world but we have a watershed plans basin plans watershed basin plants where there's a lot of planning work and they say well this is a high quality water that should get the class a highest quality designation this is a class one wetland that should get the highest protection it's in the plan and then no one goes to the agency of natural resources to do that designation and it never happens so it lies in the plan we have all this work that's done to identify these important resources and then they're not protected because nobody takes action on it and so I I think we should talk about what that what the process should be one idea would be the rpcs as they're doing their mapping evaluation and I think charlie actually alluded to something like this when he testified before me was that they would identify hey we think you're a 1a town hey we think that you're a 1b town we think that you got good zoning you know we think you have the capacity to implement the zoning you know you have water or sewer the infrastructure and you know we should talk about if they make that recommendation should the rpcs and take that like not just wait for the towns to do it should that go to the board so we make sure we get the designation and not just for 1a and 1b but for tier three I'm you know really concerned about the tier three resources being identified by the rpcs you know being mapped out and then nothing happens with them and then we don't really get a locational jurisdiction at the end of the day right if none of if this doesn't go all the way through we basically kind of we're we're wherever you are today you know so I just like in the last few days reading all these things together and this is something that's really kind of grabbed me and now that we're writing legislation I just think it it needs to be discussed and debated like what's the approach to this both to not duplicate efforts between the rpc mapping and the mapping of the designated areas that go to the board and making sure this actually happens and that we just don't get a bunch of great maps and plans that aren't that aren't acted on thank you for your testimony basically what I have today from representative bond guards not acted on by by the people the way the way it's kind of set up now would be by the the town wouldn't bring it forward the towns don't bring it forward then it doesn't happen you know to the state designation board it'll get in the plan they don't have the towns don't have a choice about that they will be engaged the rpcs it's will work with the towns in drawing these maps and boundaries and identifying these critical resources so that has to happen but then the designation step I'm thinking about this had been back if it's on the future land use map would at least have responsive regulatory effect in the activity process it's when it's been adopted by the town or not so think about whether yeah I mean yeah I just think how to do I think we really want to see these destinations occur and so we have look we have true locational jurisdiction and so we can build housing in the 1a and 1b areas and it's not duplication whether it doesn't need to be and we're protecting the tier three areas and we just don't have great plans that yeah that don't that don't really aren't fully realized representative severely done what problem do you think we're solving for communities with these proposals that communities want us to solve I think that there are communities that all over the state that do need more especially multifamily housing for seniors for affordable housing that doesn't it doesn't exist and I don't think you know I don't think you know actually 50 is the is created a housing problem and I don't think all these changes will solve it but I think having policies that encourage multifamily denser housing in areas I think community need that you know I think communities realize they need that I don't know that all communities make the linkage up with their zoning and with land use necessarily and I don't know you know I could only like I live in Marshfield a really small rural town northeast of here and you know I've been on the planning commission for years I've been on the DRB we have our plan talks about we need more affordable housing we need multifamily senior housing and identify all these needs but we don't that's all in our plan and you know but it doesn't really you know we need that but we you know we're not getting it you know I don't know that these changes will it's not going to make it magically appear but if it does encourage developers to come in and say you know we we have water and sewer in Marshfield we have decent bylaws and subdivision maybe we could be a 1D town if we attracted a developer to do you know 30 units of housing and not go through FD 50 I think our community needs like a couple apartment complexes and multifamily housing so I think that's the that's the that's the need I think this will help I don't think it's a panacea I don't think it's going to magically solve that problem so can I ask the question on this we're just a little behind so if you all want to just wait outside get one more witness on this we'll come get you thanks I'm very intimate I didn't know what was happening I thought I might be getting arrested like it's finally happening this will be on YouTube so you know as I'm thinking about all of this and you know I shared some of this frustration with the chair just my sense of you know I think our communities need a lot of help with climate change adaptation and I also think they're trying to figure out housing you know in my area of little towns you know I think of all of the things that would come before we would ever even get to an active 50 permits that are pretty huge barriers for them and so just I'm I'm sort frustrated I feel like these things are coming together in a way that is not actually helpful in explaining what we're doing to communities I think there's a real urgency around explaining need for climate change not the need communities need help adapt to a change of climate and and these regulations are things that will I don't think we're doing a good job saying that's a problem we're hearing and seeing that we're trying to respond to and we're kind of riding it in the back of housing which is also a issue and and trying to act too you know like fact 250 goes away we're not going to magically have housing I agree I mean so I'm so I'm so I'm so I'm really like I'm struggling with these things the way that they're connected I see that there are connections but I'm really struggling and I'm struggling with that being really the best explanation that we can give to Vermonters about what we're doing here so just want to give that a sweep yeah I hear you I mean I would you know I said listen we we're trying to remote towns for good planning as well you know and say if you do the planning and zoning and you invest in the infrastructure you know you know though there will be you know a clearer path if you still need a developer to want to come and build you know multifamily housing and affordable housing and I to your point I mean the other part of it is there are critical resources like from the climate change I think the good planning in here will you know the river corridors and the flood plains and wetlands will be carved out from these growth areas so there'll be an extra layer of protection there are bills that are in this introduced in this committee and that are going to come over from the senate about you know river corridor and wetland protection and make them over from the senate over from the senate but it all related I think that this is an opportunity that's really exciting like the agreement that let's you know if we reward towns for good planning and investing in infrastructure and identify some critical resources that you know act 250 would be helpful in protecting and make sure we're not developing on steep slopes in our forests and our head waters you know and causing pollution and you know exacerbating the potential for mudslides and all the things that we've seen like using marsh field again you know marsh field happens to be we bought the grondon state forest marsh fields uh zoning is 80 percent of our town is a conservation district that is land that is on steep slopes and forests that just bought above the grondon state forest you go look at the forest block maps we have giant intact forests everywhere so I think we've done a good job like in marsh field you know we have some visionary people from goddard college like in 1970 that wrote the zoning that way but not every time did that right and um we also had our own version of the road rule where the forest district basically starts I think 800 feet from any road so that's how we did it I wasn't there you know I am old now but I was not around in 1970 when they wrote that zoning but for the towns that didn't do that act this will provide protection you know for those issues as well thank you we need to move on yeah thanks for your testimony we look forward to welcome Megan Megan Sullivan hello Megan Sullivan vice president of government affairs for the remand chamber of commerce thinking for having me back in I'll give a similar caveat that I am not a planner also not an attorney which maybe will be endearing um I you know I've spent so much time working on the this study and so I really appreciate the opportunity to keep coming in to talk about the various parts of the nrb study and the bill we're looking at I know that some folks that have testified before me have talked about some of the concerns with you know if um if towns are going to be able to manage the level of requirements that are listed to b1a or to b1b I think you know for our perspective it's it is critical that communities have have the ability to to access this or to see the potential to access it so if they are not there now that that it's still achievable and so really looking at you know are are all of the pieces that we're asking for you know do they serve the purpose that we need should does the town need to be responsible for this piece are there other state agencies that are doing this work are the RPCs to mean this work um and then you know I think concerns on the timeline that um if a board has to go to every municipality to talk about this um unless the board is hitting two municipalities a day this is going to take a long time um and I think there's um a level of urgency in trying to make progress understanding good planning takes time um and and not trying to diminish that but there are I when we have some concerns about the timeline that could come from having you know the board needing to go to every municipality and so I think you know as John was talking about using these the regional planning commissions to to um be not a proxy but to really congregate some of this information engage with the towns um I think is important I need a little clarification you say the board needed to go to every town what does that mean there's oh I wish I had the page there's a piece of the bill that talked about after the towns created their map for the district the board would go to each municipality to review it in a public hearing and the public hearings have to have a certain amount of notice um say what do you mean rpcs what's that mean rpcs you know that's not the language that I saw said that the the board that's reviewing unless it meant the rpc board and I misread that yeah we need to get clear on that just okay get a chance and just yeah I'll send you the specific line but that okay so good I'm glad that's could be fixed because that was a concern um I do want to some of the questions that came up I was excited because there was sort of more in my wheelhouse so I want to talk a little bit about that um you sort and I think it's a really important question you know when we say grow over the next 20 years um what does that mean and I think it's important we have a lot of plans in the state that um that the legislature is passing we need to have a plan for um you know efficiency and climate change and um child care and a lot of plans um and we don't necessarily have a housing plan in place with targets um based on data that we're measuring when we pass housing legislation is this did this help us meet our goals when we can sort of say like yeah that was great but if we don't know if it's creating the change that we're looking for um it it's hard to really know if if we're on the right track um so in you another house committee in um house general on housing they are looking at a bill that talks about setting a housing goal and then creating um the reporting to know our how are we meeting that um and that's work that the vermont futures project has also done a lot of work on in sort of identifying um what are the needs that we have in the state around people in places um not just for our current population but if we're looking at um a vibrant economy in the future as our demographics are getting older um we have 14 000 people retiring 5000 first graders um we need to be filling our population um and and so that requires people and housing um and I think you know representatives Sibelio brought up that our housing needs have changed you have a lot more people who are staying single longer and need an apartment or um two household families um so those have changed and housing units that we have are coming offline as they're aging because we did a lot of building in the 70s and those houses are are aging to a point where they're not necessarily staying on the market and so vhip is doing a little work to try and bring some of those back some are just going online so um I think the the housing needs assessment that bhfa does is a good risk has so much data and is a good resource to understand you know if our population is stagnant and we do build 2000 houses housing units a year what where is this coming from and they do a lot of work to define you know how many housing units we're losing every year um just from age um and then how housing needs in the community have changed um so you know I think to to answer some of that question those are um that's a good resource to look at um but I would also recommend talking to um the house general and housing committee about their work around housing targets because I think that these all are interconnected if we're saying you know that that these current designation areas aren't necessarily built for where we need to grow in 20 years we also need to be thinking about well what does what do we need to what is growth for the next 20 years and not be guessing um and I think the rpcs are engaged with the vermont futures project as well as with bhfa in their mapping to sort of look at the data that some of those organizations have um and they might be able to speak more to that but I think it's an important question um and there is there is from from the data that we've seen there is a need for for growth um and some and that should be infilled that should be up um but there also needs to be account for out as well so that we're not building the same houses and the same floodplains over and over again there's going to probably need to be some adjustment continue areas um and um to the question of you know what is this in response to um I think of um you know jono richards who um has been in the news that a small developer from fairly vermont who has said you know I built nine units of housing I could have built 15 in a small community but I didn't want to trigger act 250 um and so some of it's in response to that right I think active 50 is not what's stopping housing it's a piece of it and it has whether real or reputational it can have a chilling effect especially for a small developer who doesn't have the staff and and capital um and is more nervous to go through that process um to say I'm just not going to to put the houses in this community that the community needs and is asking for um because they don't want to go through that process um and if we can solve that in one way in our smaller communities by by making those smaller communities open to if you can if you can do 15 units there and that can be supported by the community it can be supported by the systems in place do 15 units there because we'd rather have those 15 units there than building them further out now um but if you are um you know going to be building them further out now it may need further reviews to really say can we incentivize building in our village centers um and in our downtowns um I think another piece is when we're talking to our members um they're telling us especially in rural communities that a manufacturer in Morrisville may have um staff coming in from the northeast kingdom because they can't find anywhere to live closer to their place of employment and that means that they need an extra two hours of childcare because they have to drive an hour each way uh and that means you know if they're you know just out of high school and getting their first job in manufacturing um their car has two extra hours of travel on it um and that is really challenging and so understanding um and this is an you know looking at the tier one a where there's certainly more overview um but those exemptions of saying are we building complete communities where um we're communities are being thoughtful about where is our industrial and commercial and residential um and how do we incentivize those to be done in a smart way um you know you don't want slaughterhouse next to an elementary school but where you can still have that industrial use in a way that's um that people can get to so your employees can get there because we're investing in housing near where those employment areas are and we have employment areas all over the state incredible businesses all over the state so I would say that's that's part of that why I'm sort of gone all over the place but thank you for your testimony I'm sorry we're a little bit of time that's okay I'll be back tomorrow we'll hear you yes thanks thank you and I'm there please thank you sure if anyone's following me we're going to shift gears and um and welcome the the CUDs in to give us an update welcome Ellie so do you uh do you have the slides to be sent to her um we probably have the slides yes usually we have but there are those I can't see them from where I'm sitting we usually have if you want a slide do you put them up yourself so um okay thank you okay well I'll get going while we're trying to get the slides organized so um so I'm Ellie de Villiers I'm the chair of the Vermont CUD Association Pocuda and I'm the executive director of Maple Broadband so thank you very much for the time today so I think we're here really just to give you an update as to where we are at this point and some of the challenges going forward um so 2023 so you guys all know what's what's the CUDs are um we sent through some slides that you folks can have as a reference but just to remind you um under act 71 we all have a universal service obligation to make sure that's every um every on-grid address has access to high-speed broadband upgrades so if you could go to the next slide please so these are the these are your CUDs there's 10 of us I'm going to fly through the the first bit because we have very limited time next slide and this we presented this slide last year so through just a reference to remind you of what we are as municipal entities and the mission and our obligations and if you could go to the next slide please I really want to get to the meat of what we're here to talk about so um here's a couple of testimonials I'm just going to read one of them to give you a flavor because I think we all understand the importance of high-speed broadband to the rural areas importance it is to uh to to be monitors but just to take the time to read one of these broadband internet service for the DB5 it was a key factor for me starting my own business and prevented us from moving elsewhere we didn't want to leave for nods but needed work and finally came to the decision that it was our only option to survive our line of work was associated high quality high-speed internet for remote work opportunities so again not to belabor the points but we all understand the importance of the mission what we're trying to do next slide and this is showing some examples of 2023 success I'm not going to go into the details here again limited time but really 2023 was the year that's many cities either kicked off construction or took construction started the previous year and actually launched active service so NEK Broadbands one example they have over 202 miles of active service my cd maple broadband we have 112 miles the time that this slide was done I think there's a few more now adding service all the time and so it's it's great to see things that have been in the works for some years actually hit the ground and so that's one of the messages is that the funding we've received and strategy to better public infrastructure it's working we're rolling it out and CDs across the states are busy in deployment and getting people connected and that's great but we're not done and there are challenges to come next slide so again many CDs are in active construction right now you can see in the first bullet CB fiber DB fiber EC fiber of course and maple and NEK as on the previous slide and auto creek CD in the wild fiber net will be starting construction this year and may even finish construction this year southern vermont's wrapped up last year exact 71 obligations and then northwest fiber works is expected to they just put through their construction grant applications so they should be getting going this year as well and going forward the next federal program we have is federal bead program it's very different from the ARPA program in that there are there are a lot of rules and restrictions that came with federal funding and so the state of Vermont's BCBB has spent a lot of time last year putting together the program rules that that's essentially let them do let them follow through on the state strategy within the boundaries and restrictions of the federal funding so this is a very different program it's much more complex than what we faced in the past and it's a competitive program so there's no guarantee for us the CUDs that we will necessarily receive this grant funding because it has to be a competitive program with a private sector so it's a very complex program and it's new for us and it also comes with a variety of requirements including match requirements there's a 25% match which can be inclined or cash and so this is this is a big thing for us this year is the BCB actually is launching this program in the first half of this year we're all going to be sitting well I should say all but many CDs will be submitting bids and we want to make sure that we are we're placing successful bids so there's a lot of effort going into that program and then finally yes the CUD is doing our best to make sure that we are as efficient as we possibly can and working together and not reinventing the wheel and breaking down those silos and making sure we're collaborating and efficient and cost efficient next slide okay so this is the this is the meaty one this is our this is our challenges that we're currently dealing with so I mentioned the bead program earlier the second one is really that as the CDs are for the most parts EC5 or is notable exception and not every CD has exactly the same model but for many of us we are essentially startup infrastructure businesses and yes we're spending money yes we're building the network yes we're getting folks connected it's very rewarding but we are also startups and we don't yet have the turnover or the balance sheets that's enabled us to do some of the things that our beat competitors can do and so this is this is really this is the challenge that we're faced with so I think the other the other point here is that Act 71 required us to build to the unserved and underserved for any routes necessary to get to them and this is actually the opposite of what you do if you were a commercial company building a viable business you would start with a denser more profitable areas and then once you had a solid business under your feet you would build to the less profitable or unprofitable areas we've actually built the unprofitable areas and at the same time again we're in a competitive market the private sector realizing that if they didn't do it we would it's built out in many in many cases some of the most profitable areas of our district which take them off the table for us so that means that's our the need in terms of where we need to bring CUD five or smaller but it also means that the business footprint is different and I don't want to say weaker because not was necessarily weaker in some cases it actually can make paradoxically for a bit of a stronger business case because you can be a greater percent grant funded but my point is it's a dynamic environment and just as a policy matter it's important that you folks appreciate that some CUDs are building or have built in the rural less profitable areas and so these areas the cost to build is higher there's fewer people incomes tend to be lower and so any sort of ongoing taxes and fees that's that hits predominantly rural areas that are based on things like hole for mile or miles of infrastructure in rural areas they'll disproportionately hits business cases which may be weaker overall because they have more rural miles so I apologize I'm really flying through this because I know that we're kind of under the gun here in terms of timing and to find that finally that brings me to affordability so affordability is it's not a new challenge as you folks may all well be aware the federal affordable connectivity programs projected to run out of funding in April of this year unless Congress somehow manages to extend it which is probably somewhat unlikely so what that means for Vermont is receiving about nine million dollars a year from the federal government or Vermonters are rather as credits off the broadband bills it's about 25,000 Vermonters just over the receive that benefits of which under 200 are CUD customers so that shows that a lot of the people receiving the benefits are in the towns of the cities so affordability is a challenge it's a CUD challenge but it's actually a statewide challenge and if you were to take just the 10 percent Vermonters give or take 10.4 percent that are at the federal poverty line in order to replace that subsidy that's on the order of about 24 million dollars and that's really if everyone were to be enrolled in an ACP equivalent 30 dollars a month and so that's really just a floor because again poverty line at 100 percent of poverty if you're at 150 percent of poverty line you're still struggling to pay your bills and again in the rural areas your broadband bill maybe 60 70 dollars a month 30 off that may still be unaffordable so affordability is is a big challenge and something that we wanted to be raising and discussing with you folks because there's only so much that we can do again as the startup businesses and as businesses that are serving these these difficult economic areas so that's that's pretty much at the last slide is really just talking about how what you all know but CUDs is a great combination of professional staff that have been there done that as well as the volunteers and the local founds we have 213 towns and members of CUDs and and again you all understand the local governance aspect of that and that wonderful unique mix that we have in Vermont so is that fast enough for you that was great thank you for your testimony I would love to just take a second to have folks introduce themselves who you brought with you say maybe what town you're from and also which CUD you're from you don't like don't start effects yeah sure fx swim I live in Hartford in a quiche village area I in the chair of the governing board of the east central Vermont telecommunications district which owns and operates the business you know of the cc five my name is Christa shoot I'm the executive director for any pay broadband we cover the counties of sx caledonia and spore leans and the town of will fit in the wind in man wearing I'm one of the founders in now the vice chair of db fiber we're 24 towns in three counties in southeastern Vermont and a former representative and a former rep you have to follow that I'm Lisa for medium and I'm with I'm the executive director at the Fibernet which is the Loyal County plus a portion of waltz and a little bit of fletcher and I pick up my mail and stuff that they'll have their cities rapids keep program staff for the cuda the association of the 10 cities and I set up shop in Athens Vermont which is actually detailed territory and I'm raw fish I'm the deputy director of the Vermont community broadband board I'm the current law for coming in do members have questions me yes if I may speak a little bit about the legislation that we have for you is a h755 introduced by a representative mazlin this is largely technical corrections in the cb governance provisions and I believe that the senate version introduced by senator Clarkson s199 is probably going to be the one that gets processed and comes through and and as that happens it'll it'll go to senate gov ops and then probably into house gov ops because it's mostly a gov ops thing so I know you guys are really super pressed for time so I would just throw that out there that that said it's less of a that it's less of a cd thing more of a more of a government operations type of type of legislation yeah I actually think seven five five is on our wall and it'll that the senate bill will probably come here too but yeah so so I know you have jurisdiction and all I'm just suggesting it's not so much you know energy and environment related so in lieu of that tell us why you support it well I drafted it but what's important okay it's important the crops it's trying to solve and if it's it's so the original cd legislation was based on the 23 town contract that formed dc fiber mec fiber bylaws well it turns out that not every one of the new cds wants to have their annual meeting on the second tuesday of may so the new legislation says the annual meeting shall be the second tuesday of may or as otherwise provided in the bylaws or as so there's a lot of or as otherwise provided in the bylaws there's also a section on how to merge two cds and then there are also provisions about allowing us to have virtual meetings without needing to have a physical place which is how we've been operating you know from basically you know once everybody has uh so you know that's why I say most of the stuff is touching on dub ops type things yeah and then the mergers piece is actually somewhat time critical for us because you want to have that's the sort of thing that you want to have in place before you need it not after you need it and especially with the bead program this year to make cds more competitive cds may wish to merge in order to put together a more competitive bid therefore be good to get this done so that's it's there in place when cds needs rather than having to wait for the next legislative session and this would be stands for sorry a bid is broadband equity access and deployments that's the next round of federal funding okay that's great thanks for your testimony and you're all your hard work thank you very much thank you very much thank you for the time thank you members it takes us right up to about four times because we will adjourn for today and reconvene tomorrow morning