 Good afternoon, everyone, and thanks for being here today as we talk about housing, zoning, and permitting. First, I want to thank the group of stakeholders we have here today representing municipalities, businesses, nonprofits, and home builders. We're here because we all agree we need to make building housing easier, faster, and more affordable in Vermont. As you all know, housing has been a top priority for my administration since I became governor. Six years ago, I proposed and worked with the legislature to secure a $37 million housing bond, which at the time was the largest investment in housing the state has ever seen. And it leveraged almost $200 million more in private investment. At the time, we thought it was a pretty big deal, but it quickly became clear it wasn't enough. That's why when we first began receiving historic federal funding two years ago, I said we must continue to make housing a top priority, and we were successful in getting the legislature to agree. We now have what would have been an unthinkable amount of money just six years ago dedicated for housing to help address our critical need. But as I and many here with me today have said, money is only part of the answer. We desperately need to make it easier to build homes in our state in the places that need it most. Many of the decades old regulations we have in Vermont at both the state and municipal level were literally designed to have the opposite effect. They were written at a time when Vermont was growing too fast and their goal was to stop building. Well, they were successful, given a majority of Vermont's housing stock was built before 1960. But it's now 2023 and our problems are not the same as they were in 1973. So it's time we make meaningful, smart changes to address the problems Vermonters are facing today. You can talk to almost any home builder or developer and they will give you an earful about how difficult and costly we make it to build the homes we know we need. S100 as originally passed by the Senate Economic Development Committee struck an important balance to bring many stakeholders together and make improvements at the local and state level. And I want to take the opportunity to once again thank Senator Ram Hinsdale and members of the committee for their hard work on the bill. Now, not everyone was thrilled with every component of it. For example, there were pieces that were a big give from municipalities and I personally would have liked to have seen the Act 250 changes go much further. But the bill was crafted in a way that acknowledged both the state and municipalities have to give a bit and have a role to play. But simply what came out of Senate Economic Development was already a big compromise. Unfortunately, the changes offered by Senate natural resources have put this balance in jeopardy. If we're truly serious about addressing the housing crisis, we need to make it easier to build at both the state and local levels. If the legislature continues to ignore Act 250 reforms, I don't believe they can say they're serious about solving our housing crisis. Importantly, the changes made by Senate natural resources remove pieces of the bill that would help lower income families and rural communities. What message does that send to the communities and people who need our help most? We also have to recognize we can't rely on municipal reforms alone. We need to do our part on the state level to remove a few roadblocks as well. Because we're not going to solve this problem in less than the 33 square miles of designated areas, this bill will now limit us to. We need to put all the tools on the table and work together, and we need to do it this session. And this isn't a partisan issue. Many Democrats, independents, and Republicans agree we need to make smart reforms in order to help people who desperately need housing they can afford. With that, I'll now turn it over to Ted Brady, the Executive Director of the Vermont League of Cities and Tows. I'm easy to miss. Thank you so much. Let's start by the Vermont League of Cities and Tows wants us to be crystal clear. Local officials are in the front lines of Vermont's housing crisis, and we're eager to partner to solve that crisis. Municipal officials are the ones responding to hotels that are overfilling with the housing insecure, sending more police and more fire there than they ever have before, dealing with the density that has suddenly occurred through the pandemic. They're the ones that are changing their zoning laws at a really rapid pace to respond to the needs that are out there. And they're the ones oftentimes at the local level who are facilitating really innovative housing solutions with non-profit and for-profit developers. In some instances giving away land, creating housing trusts where taxpayers are putting money into great housing, you name it. Season towns are going to continue playing that role in addressing the housing crisis. And it's really important to know, though, as the governor just said, we can't do it without the state's help. The S-100, unfortunately as drafted, ignores the largest obstacle to housing development in the state of Vermont, and that's Act 250. Cities like Burlington, cities like Winooski, South Burlington have implemented nearly every single reform that's in S-100 when it comes to municipal zoning. Yet they still run into problems. They're still unable to build housing. They still have developers hung up in, you know, duplicative permitting processes. They're still paying tens of thousands of dollars per unit extra because of the duplicative process. We have 40 towns in Vermont that have no zoning. Those 40 towns don't seem to be solving our housing crisis, so it can't be zoning alone that's causing this problem. Nearly 100 communities have used municipal planning grants to update their zoning by-laws. Many of them including the recommendations that the Agency of Commerce and Community Development's Zoning for Great Neighborhoods Guide recommends. Some of those recommendations are codified in S-100. Towns are ahead of the curve in many parts of the state on contributing to solving the crisis. But year after year, the state continues to study the number one problem, which is Act 250. Just not doing their part to solve this crisis. The Governor just pointed out that we here at the League have tried our hardest to get on board with some big changes and make compromise. Most of S-100 dismantles the work of local planning commissions that's been done for the past 50 years. Those planning commissions are tasked with determining where best growth can happen based on the natural environment and the built physical environment that's come over centuries really in Vermont. S-100 eliminates single family zoning in Vermont, making Vermont potentially one of the first states to do that in the country. S-100 requires five units of housing to be built per acre where sewers and water are present, regardless of a community's water and wastewater capacity. S-100 eliminates a community's ability to weigh in on where a homeless shelter is built, regardless of transit, water, sewer, police, fire, rescue and other municipal services being available. S-100 allows builders to build higher than current laws allow in those towns, regardless of a community's firefighting capabilities. S-100, and regardless of public transit and other non-existent municipal services, it proposes to do these things without a single study. Those are huge changes and they're things that Vermont League of Cities and Towns has come to the table and said, maybe we want to work with you to try to find a way to solve this problem. We've been working with legislators to make these preemptions palatable to Vermont's 247 cities and towns. In any other circumstance, we would be dead set against these preemptions. But our members have told us housings are number one concern, so we're not walking away from the table. We're trying to find a compromise that works for Vermonters. That compromise needs to include more meaningful Act 250 changes. What changes am I talking about, you ask? We're proposing that S-100 needs to restore. Important to say restore because the original version that came out of Senate economic development had some of these provisions and reimagined some of the provisions. One, we need to eliminate Act 250 jurisdiction in designated areas. Just a few years ago, this was a consensus talking point between environmentalists and developers. We want to facilitate growth where we want growth. Pretty simple concept. Two, we need to increase the number of units that can be built before Act 250 is triggered to 24. Did you know? I don't think most Vermonters know that there's just thing called the 5-5-10 rule, which means you can't build 10 houses in five years within five miles of each other. Why? Why five years? Why 10 houses? Senate economic development suggested a modest increase to 24 units. We need to get back to that. And not just in what the governor pointed out is those 30 some odd miles square miles in Vermont. We need to eliminate the ability of any 10 people to appeal a zoning permit. When a town democratically determines that housing can be built somewhere, there's no need to allow someone to appeal a development that meets the town's democratic process. We need to reduce the appeals based on character. Character appeals invite discrimination for no other reason than development is different, and worse yet, the people in that development are different. And finally, we need to delegate Act 250 review to municipalities with robust planning and zoning capabilities. Mayor Weinberger, the cities of South Grant-Wanusky, gave just that proposal to the Senate in the last couple of weeks, and it's only appropriate that we do that. Municipal zoning and planning takes into account in some communities every one of the 10 criteria in Act 250. I said finally already, but there is one more. What's the number one obstacle to building housing? Water and wastewater infrastructure. There is not enough of it in Vermont. The one provision in S100 that addressed this issue was stricken by the Senate Natural Resources Committee. It would have eliminated the need to apply twice to connect to a municipal wastewater system. Currently you have to go to both the state and to the town. Every legislator campaign to the promise to address the catastrophic lack of housing in Vermont, it affects every aspect of the economy. We hope the Senate will consider these changes to S100. Doing so will make sure that we're still at the table because we want to be our members are demanding of it. Sorry I went on so long Jonah, but it's now my pleasure to introduce Jonah Richard from Village Ventures. Thanks Ted. Good afternoon folks. My name is Jonah Richard and I'm a developer of small scale real estate projects based out of Fairleigh. I focus mostly on housing projects between two and 20 units located in our denser village centers. Next month my team will be putting the finishing touches on a nine unit housing project in Fairleigh. While very exciting it calls into question what are we doing next. As it exists today Act 250 effectively precludes us from developing another small scale project in Fairleigh as a result of the 10-5-5 rule. Of course as Ted mentioned the 10-5-5 rule is one of 12 triggers for an Act 250 review if a developer creates 10 or more housing units in a five mile radius in five years. So having just developed nine units on main street in Fairleigh it cannot so much as build a two unit duplex in town within the next five years without triggering Act 250. For those unfamiliar with an Act 250 application it's a very time intensive and potentially capital intensive process. The application itself is easily a 100 plus hour endeavor and requires additional submissions such as soil evaluations and noise analyses. These supplemental requirements all cost money that may ultimately go to waste should the application be rejected. As a small developer with zero staff I don't have the capacity to put that amount of time and capital at risk just for two unit projects. So instead I have three options. One tackle a larger project in Fairleigh that justifies going through an Act 250 review. Two look outside the five mile radius for a new project or three stop building. Option one going bigger is difficult for smaller developers. Larger projects are obviously more capital intensive. We're talking roughly two million dollars in equity needed for a 25 unit project in today's market and that's just not feasible for many. More importantly these larger projects don't always fit the character of our village centers and they certainly don't solve the problem of filling in the numerous small vacant lots peppered throughout our towns. I ended up choosing option number two for my next project finding a site six miles away in Bradford to create six units. But this isn't a long term solution and I cannot realistically move further and further away with each subsequent projects. Unfortunately developers quickly end up at option number three. They stop building smaller projects and in doing so we collectively lose out on the creation of the small scale buildings that give our towns their character and charm. That's one hundred addresses these issues and makes it possible for small scale developers like myself to continue building projects in our core town centers. Specifically it looks to extend the ten five five rule to twenty five five five that is twenty five units in a five mile radius within five years. This is a subtle but powerful update to act two fifty. Most importantly it does it in a way that preserves the original goals of the legislation. It maintains the land use patterns that make Vermont a special place. With that I'll pass it off to more Collins of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. Thank you. Thank you Jonah. As he said I'm more Collins with the Vermont Housing Finance Agency. We are a statewide nonprofit lender focused on the housing needs of low and moderate income Vermonters. VHFA isn't normally at the state house as much as we have been this year. But as everyone knows housing is having a bit of a moment and it's a top priority of everyone. And I've learned that those who hang out at the state house many of them are here can say how all consuming it can be. It's almost like a casino with out enough windows. It's easy to lose track of time and days. It's a really bizarre place. And things that happen here make sense when you're in the thick of it. But when I go home and I try to explain this to what goes on to my family my even my understanding really kind of fades away. For example when the legislature began I was very optimistic that we were going to make meaningful progress on making housing more affordable and accessible. Because lawmakers told us that they all heard the same things on the campaign trail. They heard from constituents who were told of stories of aging parents who were living in unsafe housing. They heard countless stories of grown children even lawmakers grown children who wanted to move back to Vermont but couldn't afford anything more than their parents basement. Small employers who talked about their inability to be open seven days a week because they didn't have enough workers. And I know I've heard Sean tester from Northeastern Vermont Regional Hospital speak repeatedly at the legislature about losing well paid medical staff because the candidates couldn't afford housing in the Northeast Kingdom even with substantial salaries. And organizations focus on racial equity have repeatedly talked about the disproportionate negative impact that the housing market is having on the people they serve. And it's not just stories the data backs these Vermonters up. Last year the largest jump in home prices since the tax department started collecting the data in the 1980s. Half of the new homes listed with realtors now cost over five hundred fifty thousand dollars. And if you're a white Vermonter you are three times more likely to own your home than if you're black. Renting in Vermont is no better. The prices of building affordable housing has increased by more than 30 percent over the last few years. And demand for all types of housing is growing because the rate of people moving into Vermont since the pandemic began has almost doubled. And here at the state house where time and money move at a very different pace. The HFA was thrilled to see the housing opportunities made for everyone bill pass out of the Senate Economic Development Committee. This was a smart growth bill that balanced the needs of animal habitats with human habitats. It has strategic investments in award winning programs and folded in new innovative ideas. And as a key provision it changed to 50 to allow for up to 25 homes to be built before needing a state permit which was an increase from the current limit of 10. And as the bill is winding its way through the process you've heard it's evolving. It and its broad statewide impact is now being limited to only a few select communities. It's looking more and more like the legislature wants to concentrate dense affordable housing in our downtowns which limits opportunities for newer Vermonters who are far more likely to be people of color. It also leaves our smaller smaller rural towns behind further exacerbating the urban rural divide that Governor Scott has long talked about. When we go home to our families or our constituents I wonder how we're supposed to explain this outside of this building. Maya Angelou said it perfectly. We do the best we can until we know better and when we know better we do better. We know better it's time to do better. Oh I'm sorry I was a little wrapped up in my moment. I'd like to introduce Catherine Catherine Demitrick the executive director of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission. I'll probably get wrapped up a little bit too. As Boris said my name is Catherine Demitrick. I'm the executive director of the Northwest Regional Planning Commission and I'm here representing the perspective of the 11 Regional Planning Commission directors across the state. Regional Planning Commissions in the absence of county government in Vermont really serve as a connection between municipalities and state and federal government. We augment local capacity with our staff and we see issues like housing from both a regional perspective and a statewide perspective. As part of this effort Northwest Regional Planning Commission with an initiative in our region called Housing for All the Working Communities Challenge we recently completed a housing needs analysis of Franklin and Grand Isle counties. If I could summarize the results of that analysis it said we need more housing of all types and we need it now. Specifically we found back in 2020 this is the data that was used 43% of renters were currently in an unaffordable apartment and 100% of homeowners were in an unaffordable house. Additionally 7,600 people were currently under housed in 2020 meaning they were in something that was unaffordable, they needed an accessible apartment or home and they weren't in one or they were unhoused or they were living in not an ideal situation where they'd like to be living somewhere else. 7,600 individuals in the small region of Franklin and Grand Isle. S100 tries to address this crisis and tries to do it in a smart growth way. Housing is complicated we're not in control of many of the factors that impact housing but we are in control of some of them and permitting is one of them. S100 as it was drafted had a balance between local regulatory changes and state regulatory changes and that balance is important because both of them impact how housing is built, how quickly it is built and where it is built. S100 addressed smart growth principles by making it easier to build in our growth areas. It sets goals so that we could track progress in meeting Vermont's housing crisis. It respects our state land use goals and it supports other goals that we have as a state like our climate goals by encouraging dense housing it helps facilitate public transit, biking, walking, vibrant communities where people want to live and stay and it also maximizes our investment in our public infrastructure in our water and sewer by making sure that that infrastructure is used to our advantage by building more homes. Housing is complicated and reasonable people can disagree about the solutions but we are in a crisis and business as usual is not okay. We need compromise but that needs to be part of bold action to make changes and I urge state leaders to take these actions to make changes at both the state and the local level because we need more housing of all types and we need it now. Well thank you all very much and just to put another exclamation point on this. I was in Bennington yesterday for the public safety forum. There were probably 80 members and they feel as though they're forgotten in Bennington so I thought I'd bring some of Bennington here and there was 80 people there, a lot of local community members, local officials, state officials and state employees and they broke out into over the last month or so. They broke out into six focus groups and one of them they all read their statements, their problem statements as a starting point and I thought I'd read one because I think it really does put a fine point on everything we're talking about today so I'm going to read it pervade them. The Bennington community is facing a severe housing crisis that demands immediate attention. Market failure has resulted in a lack of appropriate housing at all income levels which is compounded by challenges such as zoning regulations, limited funding and a shortage of workforce and services. Moreover, high crime rates, drug abuse, hoarding and mental health problems are exacerbating the situation. Resolving the housing challenges in Bennington requires a comprehensive coordinated approach that involves regulatory changes to streamline the development process, increase funding opportunities for developers and a more collaborative approach from law enforcement. To ensure that everyone has access to suitable housing, more focused data is needed and the community must work to combat the stigma associated with developers' role in the community, affordable housing and mental health issues. It is also crucial for state officials and lawmakers to be involved in the effort to support the community and provide the necessary resources for development. Addressing the housing crisis in Bennington demands a coordinated approach to tackle underlying issues, promote growth and development and ensure that everyone has access to healthy and safe housing. By addressing the underlying issues, establishing shared goals and developing a vision for growth and development, the community can overcome these obstacles and thrive. And I think that pretty much sums it all up. And I'll now open it up to questions. On topic first, if you'd please. This is for Governor Orton. Mr. Brady, water quality advocates like James Ellers say that S100 increases downtown housing density without offering solutions to the likely increase in stormwater and septic overflow problems. What are the solutions in S100? Do you want to take that, Ted? Sure, I can try. You know, S100 tries to strike a balance between facilitating housing growth, protecting the environment and recognizing the unique nature of every one of our communities. And we have historic growth settlements that are unfortunately in our river valleys. It's kind of the curse of a couple hundred years. So over the time, there have been a lot of measures put in place. Zoning, local zoning tries to look at that. The current Act 250 program tries to look at that. The state has passed plenty of laws to protect river corridors. And S100 really focuses on facilitating housing growth where we want it to happen. And doing so in a really environmentally sensitive way, by not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. There's something else to be said. Sure. As most of you know. I did it. I'm not going to try and balance that. Governor, if I could add just one other point. Yeah, let me just maybe you can feed off from this. As most of you know, when we received all the historic federal funding, the ARPA money in particular, I had asked that we separate this in buckets. And some of it was for climate change, mitigation, housing, broadband, and stormwater, and water and sewer as well, that infrastructure. So about, I'd asked for $215 million to be dedicated for that. And we were mostly successful in doing that. And so we have a lot of money that is available right now to upgrade some of the sewer systems and so forth. Now we also have other money that is flowing in, and so forth by partisan infrastructure bill that passed the Congress. So that's going to bring even more money. But here's what we have to watch out for and something that I warned about like three or four weeks ago. And some scoffed at this because I said, we need to watch for the match money that we're going to need in future years for this stormwater, water infrastructure and roadway projects. And some had said, well, we do this all the time. We'll be able to do it. And the legislature happens to agree with you that we need this money set aside for our match in the future years so we don't run out, so we can keep this economy going when there's a downturn in the economy. And there will be a downturn in the economy. So at that point in time, we didn't hear much. I mean, I was hearing some from the legislature on this. And it appears that's happening. I think we'll hear about it more in the next couple of days, but they're not going to provide the match money that we need in outlying years. They might go for next year and maybe the year after, but next year. But that's not going to do it. We need to put this money aside so we make sure we have the money we need for these investments that are critical for the housing that we need as well. And that includes, again, water sewer and storm water. So that would help address these needs as well. What are you doing? Sure you don't want to add anything else? S-100 has always been a bit of a tenuous, fragile bill, the compromise going forward. Are you sort of laying out today that if the legislature doesn't reverse or the Senate natural resources committee doesn't reverse course under the changes they've made that you're pulling your support, you're kind of pulling out of that compromise? It didn't sound so fragile when it came out of the committee. They had a press conference on it. Many of our folks were involved and I think BLCT was there as well. Everyone was singing kumbaya. This is something that we could all get behind. It didn't get fragile until it entered Senate natural resources. So there's still an opportunity to turn that around. It hasn't gone to the floor yet. We're hopeful that they'll have second thoughts about this. But it's suffice it to say, I think I said it last week, I'm with BLCT on this. We need meaningful reform now. So we'll see what happens with the bill. I'm not going to threaten anything, but at the same time, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity here. And if we all agree that there is a housing crisis here in this state, then when there's a crisis, you have to do extraordinary things. Governor, can you or maybe it's a question for Nora as well, explain should this bill pass in its current form with the 25-5-5, which some sets after three years, I believe? Two years, I believe. Two-year pilot? Three-year pilot? Can you just explain or help us visualize what types of housing we won't see? What physically, I like more as a casino analogy. What will this not do? Well, again, I think between the two of you, I think you explained some of what we'd see. Nora? I think it's hard to talk about, you'd have to talk with different housing developers to know exactly what they have available to them. Land is expensive, and land connected to sewer and water, as we've talked about, can be expensive. We have long-standing housing policy goals of smart growth, and I don't see that changing, and this 100 largely protects that in terms of really concentrating of the 54 pages of the bill, it's largely focused on the designated areas that the state has where municipalities have taken the time and gone through a thoughtful local process to design where it wants to see housing. And so when builders have opportunities to find a piece of land, especially when it's affordable housing, it's often connected to public transportation, it's served by water and sewer, and also often adjacent and nearby jobs and amenities like schools and hospitals, we want to encourage that kind of growth and development. And so to artificially limit the housing developments to a number like nine units does not seem to follow the same kind of smart growth principles that we need to embody to address climate change where we can encourage density and as much density as possible. If it's possible to go up one more floor and add three more units of housing, we should do that because going up, going vertical is going to have far less stormwater runoff implications and encourage the kind of density that we often want to see in Vermont. And if there was an inability to go up one more story because a developer felt capped at nine units for the reason Jonah described, they can build more than nine units, but when you're taking on tens of thousands of dollars of permitting fees, when you're taking on the risk of six months or longer in drawn out permitting process, it is an economic decision the developers have to make. And I think that especially small developers get really crunched in this way. As an affordable housing funder, we are very used to working with a lot of the same applicants for our government sponsored programs. And they are sophisticated, mission driven, wonderful organizations that are the backbone of our communities in the state. And yet, it was VHFA that came out with the estimate that we need 30 to 40,000 more homes in the state. That means that we need to about triple the amount of homes we're bringing online each year. And that means that we need more participants in this marketplace. We need more developers, smaller developers who know these communities. Jonah knows Bradford and Fairleaf are better than I ever will. And I trust that developers like that who are embedded in our downtowns will work through the local process and should have the ability to increase density and build the kind of housing that those communities have planned for and honor those voters in that community who have designed those areas. And so I think you'd really have to talk to each developer to know what the opportunities are that they're sitting on waiting for with an opportunity like this. I guess my only other question, maybe this is for the governor too, but more you mentioned at the beginning of the session there was this shared understanding that housing is our main priority. Where did this conversation fracture? When did we start seeing these divergent visions of what housing should look like? Room 6, I think. I'm happy to add some context to your question. So specifically for me as a small scale developer, the unit size where it makes sense to pursue an active 50 project is somewhere 20 plus units, 25 units plus. I think what we'll start to see if the 25-5-5 rule doesn't pass is less of these small scale projects, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes being built in our smaller towns. So for example, in Fairleaf, there's a number of scattered sites throughout the Village Center that are prime locations for like a three-unit rental house or a three-unit purchase for some homeowner. But like someone like myself cannot pursue that anymore unless we expand the 10-5-5 rule because I've already developed those nine units in the Village Center. So yeah, I think we'll start to see a lot less of that unless this update passes. Sorry, just, Kelvin, to your last question about where the breakdown happened, I would say that anyone who does spend time in this building is very familiar with the trade-offs and the compromises that happen. And I am very concerned when I hear stories and hear narratives that are pitting these two committees against each other as if there was, you know, those are versus environmentalists. Why VHFA has been so excited about S100 is we see the way that this is going to help our environment by concentrating most of our development in downtowns and encouraging the density that Smart Growth Principles champions. And so I see this bill when it came out of the housing committee as one, the really champions, locational efficiency. We've all heard the stories about the impact of climate change from transportation and from driving and having, not to mention the time and cost to our families and our mental health by having to be on the road because we have to live further and further from where our jobs are. And I think that the locational efficiency that this bill really embodies is going to help our environment in many ways. And therefore it's one of the ways that it is a nuance and a compliment that we've taken. I mean, Chair Rom Hinstel is an environmental lecturer at the law school and is one of the environment's biggest champions. And I think that that, along with the smart work of that entire committee, really infused environmental principles throughout S100 when it left that committee. I just want to explain a little bit about the 10-5-5 and the 25-5-5, and you can clean this up afterwards. But we currently have 10-5-5 in place across the state, not confined to those designated areas. So that's important to note. The 25-5-5 that is in the amendment that has a three-year pilot, but that's for designated areas only. That makes up, as I said in my remarks, about 33 square miles of land in Vermont. We have, to put it in context, we have about almost 10,000 square miles of land in Vermont. So all of this development would occur without an Act 250 permit in that 33 square miles. Okay? Did make any mistakes? Sure. Kelly, you asked when did it kind of go off the rails? Yeah, where did the breakdown go? The second somebody goes up by the third rail of Vermont politics, which is Act 250. I mean, I have been doing community and economic development and work in the state for 20 years. I was involved with the state agency of commerce for three or four years now, the VLCT for two years. Since I've been doing this work, people have told me we can't change Act 250 until the study is completed. It happened again in Senate Natural Resources. The Senate Natural Resources Committee was told we can't touch Act 250 until the study comes back. I'm sorry, it's been too long that we've been waiting on a study to change even incremental things in Act 250. And so that's really where in my mind this train went off the rails a tiny bit. And I'm hoping to get it back on. Did you guys ask members of Senate after resources to attend this press conference so they could hear what you want to say? I'll hear it. If you report it correctly. Really, my question is, you know, a lot of this is just going to go to the public, which knows about the housing crisis. I'm not naive enough to think that they're not going to hear about the press conference. I know. But I'm just wondering what the public can do because, I mean, basically, they're going to be meeting this story too. They can call their legislators. Is there anything else? Or is it really just down to the community? I think it's down to that. Well, no, I would just have them call their own legislators and ask them what they're going to do when this comes to the floor. They should ask these questions. Are we really serious about housing? Or not? Governor, I'll put it one way. Then would you veto this bill if it passes in a current fashion? It would. I want to just make sure that we go through this. This amendment hasn't gone to the floor yet. So I would want to make sure that it went to the floor. And then it has a long ways to go. I've said this before. We can work with the legislature on this. I think it's too early for me to threaten a veto on this. I think that we need to make sure that we give legislators the ability to make changes and to consider this. When the amendment comes to the floor, we'll see what the Senate does with it. Maybe they'll reject it. I don't like the amendment at all. We'll go to the phones first for on-topic. Well, I know some folks on the phone have off-topic, so if anyone has on-topic on the phone, jump in and then, if not, we'll go to all of them. Governor, it's still a question. Good. There's a lot of questions here. The question I get from the public, and I was just talking about this, is there's a lot of vacant space. It could be even class A office space, or it could be abandoned buildings. In these designated areas, is that something you would like to focus on? I know there's a different price point to try to convert, but I get this question all the time. How come they don't take all this office space to just make it housing? I don't, you know, again, I have some experience in construction, and I can tell you, renovating a building, it may sound good, but it's not that easy to do, and it's very expensive. It doesn't fit all the needs that you have. Sometimes it's easier and more lucrative, less expensive to just raise the building and utilize the land, unfortunately. But that's where it's at. Developer, anybody else like to weigh in? We've talked a lot about Act 250 today, and this was actually another change that happened between what came out of the housing committee, was that as originally passed, there was a small provision that allowed for buildings that were built under Act 250 that were not used as housing to be able to convert to housing without having to get an Act 250 permit amendment and therefore not have to go through the Act 250 process any further because it already went through it. And when that went to Senate natural resources, that was stripped out of the bill, and so now if there were a commercial use or any non-housing use, that would have to get an Act 250 permit amendment as a result of converting to housing. And I think that that's still actively under discussion between the two committees about where that lands. You know, no one would like to raise this specter, but on rent control, as you know, the renters are really getting hammered in this supply-and-demand situation. And the renters are paying more for rent than I'm paying for my mortgage. Is there any relief in sight for those people other than this process of building more housing which of course will take years? Meanwhile, they got to make their rent next month. Well, again, I think that I've been opposed to rent control, but I will say and reiterate, passing common sense reform like this will streamline the process and get those housing units built much more quickly. Then if you have to go through an Act 250 process in order to accomplish that. So everything that we're trying to do here today, everything we're talking about today will streamline this and put this money into place and build the units that we desperately need. And again, the other provision that Mara was talking about will only add to the cost. If you have an empty building that I was just talking about construction, but the permitting, adding Act 250 to the complexity is just going to raise the cost even further. We only have a few on the phone, so we'll stay on the phones for either on or off topic, but I'll come back to the room for additional ones. So we'll go to Wilson Rain, AP. Wilson, you're muted. Wilson, you're muted. We're all in unison telling you that, too. Really? You're muted. There must be some other technical problem. I usually just unplug my computer and plug it back in. Wilson, I'll come back to you if you want to try the governor's IT solution. We'll go to Tom Davis, Compass Vermont. Very informed and much appreciated, the governor. Thanks, Tom. Chris Roy is not on anymore, you said? All right, Wilson, we'll go to in the room off topics and then I'll come back to you at the end. If these are off topic. If you don't want to be in progress, feel free. I just texted him. Callie's frozen. Okay. I was just wondering your reaction to President Biden approving the disaster declaration. Yeah, welcome news for us. I think this is something that we sought and we're very appreciative that he signed it. I have not. I understand the goal. I have a few concerns about that and what it could lead to, but I understand I've spoken to a lot of the ER docs and ER nurses and so forth and staff and understand what they're trying to accomplish. But again, the far reaching effects of that is something that is a bit problematic. So we'll work our way through the bill. I don't know it in full detail though. What are some of those concerns? Well, it's just being able to without a warrant, being able to do this is sounds almost, you know, non-constitutional. But I don't think it goes that far, but it's just getting to the, you know, pushing the envelope a bit, I believe. Right for a paycheck and several Senate lawmakers are working on a bill that you need to send it this week. It's called Vermont, you know, BTA, Vermont Saves, essentially an IRA style retirement account for volunteers that don't have that option to either encourage employers. Is that something that you'd support? Is it mandatory? We're employers, yes. There's no opt out provision in that? We're employers. It's employees can opt out, and it's made for employers who don't currently have a retirement plan for their stuff. Well, I like the non-mandatory provision in that, you know, the ability to opt out whether it's, and we'll see whether it's for employers, employees and so forth. Obviously, I haven't seen the bill or the concept yet, but if it was a mandatory provision throughout, I might have some issues with it. But again, this is something we've been trying to do with Pay Family Leave, as you might remember, with our voluntary program. So it's something that should be considered when they're building their Pay Family Leave proposal. I didn't see you there. Thank you. Well, I don't think I'll be like it, isn't it a bad zombie? There were only men there, and yes, it's something that's been going on. It's an Irish tradition of some sort, and Boston has been going on for about 130 years or something. So I was a Vermonter who had reached out to me, a business owner in Vermont, and is involved in the organization and asked me if I'd speak. I was going to be down in that area. I was at my daughter's building a stairway for her on Saturday, so I said I would stop on the way back. So I did partake in that. Do you think it's really appropriate about my own speech? Well, with the remarks that I gave, I'm hoping, you know, I talked a lot about respect and civility and trying to treat people better and some of the problems of the world and the polarization it was seeing in politics and so forth. So, you know, from my perspective, getting that message out to anyone who wants to listen is important in these days. So, but as far as the club is concerned, I, you know, don't think they would start anything like that today. It's kind of a tradition. I know we have, there's a club in Barrie, I think, the Mutua. I don't know if they're still an All Men's Club. It's an Italian club. It's just part of the tradition, and I know a lot of the wives of members of that who say, good, thank you. I'll take them for a night, but I don't think anything like that would happen these days and I respect their tradition. Governor, the Caledonian Record reports today that the U.S. Border Patrol cannot return or house all of the growing number of illegal immigrants crossing the Canadian border and is leaving them, or some of them, at a bus depot in St. John's Bay. Does the state of Vermont have a role in doing anything about this? I was just surprised at the situation late yesterday, last night, and then we took action calling the town official, the chief, and I might just ask Secretary Samuelson, I think she was involved in this or Commissioner Morrison, but maybe one of the two of you can comment on what you found at this point in time. The local law enforcement agencies in that area are seeing an increase in the number of folks who are seeking asylum coming into the United States. The two agencies that have seen human services in the Department for Public Safety has done planning in the past around housing, food, and other services that are necessary, and have convened a team across the two agencies to look at the current issue based on those previous plans and will begin work, and has begun working with the local towns and agencies in that area to both assess what's available and to contemplate what it will be necessary if we continue to see an increasing number. Mr. Morrison? Yes, thank you, sir. I would just add that it's important to note that we're talking about a dozen, approximately a dozen people that were seeking asylum came through the Northern border and appeared to have no plan. And our partners at Border Patrol are seeing more than that, but the asylum seekers tend to have a ride waiting for them on the other side of the border, or they know that they just need to get to a bus terminal to go to another destination. So, anecdotally, they've shared with us that the majority of the border crossers who are seeking asylum are trying to get to New York, not necessarily New York City, but New York State, or the greater Boston area. But they're just traveling through, you're saying? Yes. That's what we're being told. Not having personally talked to any of them, we're relying on the anecdotal evidence being passed along. And while a dozen people across two communities do not have a significant amount, I think that we need to be prepared should that number increase, particularly as the weather gets better. Any, has there been discussions with Border Patrol saying, hey, this is your problem, do something about this? That's not the way we roll in Vermont, sir. We are always collaborative with our federal partners, with our other state agencies, et cetera. So, we have met with Border Patrol as recently as last month. My deputy commissioner was in touch with Border Patrol again last evening. So, we will stay in constant contact with them to address this issue in the most humane yet responsible manner. I think we need to have some conversations on a larger scale about exactly what we're prepared to do. Okay. Thank you. A former state trooper spacing about a dozen charges, including grand larceny, stealing, having a personal property out of a storage operative barracks. I'm wondering if you see any larger issues that might need to be addressed in the state police or ways to tighten that up and prevent that from happening in the future? Yeah, well, again, an unfortunate incident, obviously. And if there's any positive that I gleaned from this, was that this individual was actually turned in by his fellow troopers. So this came from information from the inside. So that gives me a great hope. I can't add anything to what Colonel Birmingham had written yesterday. I thought he spot on, disappointed, and took full responsibility at that point. And we're prosecuting. Nobody is above the law. And so we'll see where it goes from here. Mr Morrison, anything you want to add to that? Yes, sir. Thank you. I agree that we've laid out in Colonel Birmingham's remarks to the media the operational changes that have gone into effect after a comprehensive review of how we were storing a temporary property storage. Again, these were not items of evidentiary nature. So the operational changes are laid out clearly in that email. I think there's two things I want to add to this. And I will echo what the governor said, which is that the culture of accountability at the Vermont State Police is very strong. And we have highlighted that when we release our every six month summary of internal affairs investigations, where historically the percentage of those complaints that are generated internally by another member of the organization is over three quarters of the internal affairs investigations. And the charges speak for themselves. We didn't just seek to resolve this one issue of a person coming back to get their property. It's not accounted for. We went top to bottom. And the charges in the, not just the number, but the breadth and depth of the charges that this former trooper is facing speaks to the seriousness with which we handled this investigation. It was an exhaustive investigation with numerous search warrants, subpoenas, and more that you will be able to avail yourself of all the details once the arraignment takes place. And I believe that's Thursday, Thursday morning. Commissioner Morrison, do you think that there are things that the department can or should do to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the first place in the future? Or do you think this is more an isolated incident? To say it's an isolated incident would presume that I had a crystal ball and would say it would never happen again. That something like this happened again. However, whenever we employ humans, there's room for error. People make mistakes. And in this case, this was not a mistake. This was a determined person who was determined to commit policy violations and law violations and believed he would get away with it because of his position. I think that any time a big situation like this happens and even on the small ones, we should reflect on how well we're supervising people, how well we select people in the first place and how we continue to shape the message around culture and ethical responsibility and conformance to law. So I think there's always takeaways. If there aren't, then we're not treating these instances seriously enough. And we have done a full, robust review of everything we know about this individual and we will reflect on that and see if there's changes that need to be made. But I do think it's an opportunity for the organization to be very introspective and really strive to do better in the future. But again, I got to come back to the fact that the culture of accountability is strong in the state police. The minute it became clear that there was missing property from those barracks, an individual came forward and said, hey, I saw that guy with a Rolex. So that speaks for itself. Time for you one more. Sure. Not for you, maybe. I may give it to you. Critics of the Education Committee bill, regulating private schools say that it punishes rural towns that rely on private schools by requiring open involvement. What do you think about this bill? Well, again, I've been a proponent of independent schools. So we'll see, again, where this goes. But individual private entities schools are essential part to learning in Vermont and have had a role for decades. So I think there's room for both. Thank you very much.