 Welcome everybody. We're here on Thursday morning. To get a preview, I think, of S 226. If you could join us. And just. So committee S 226 is. It says it's relating to expanding access to safe and affordable housing. It's an omnibus bill. That is actually still on the Senate floor. David, I think what I'd like us to do is really between you and when Ellen comes. Is first of all, I want to acknowledge. What I've heard through the grapevine is that you've been exceedingly busy on this and the other. You've been at Witsend. But you've been at burning the candle at both ends on these bills. So. So for committee, I just want to reemphasize. This bill is not really. Because it hasn't passed through the Senate. While it is. We haven't seen you at all. But I just want to. I know we'll see you more in this last few weeks of the sessions, but I just want to acknowledge that you've been. I don't know if you've been at Witsend, but you've been at burning the candle at both ends on these bills. It hasn't passed through the Senate. While it is. By a title about housing. There are many different areas that committees that this bill will touch. But for today, I just like to have his rod, you know, I don't want to dig too deeply quite yet. I just want to understand the concepts that are in the bill. Less far. And because we'll start depending on where this bill, I'm assuming that it's gonna come to us by the court made site differently, at least initially. So before we start digging into the work into the bill, I would just wanted to have us to have a broader understanding and then as the bill progresses through the Senate and David, I would just ask that we have a summary and updated summary as soon as we can, just to see what's why. Yeah, I start to have to hang up. If you didn't already say this, which I didn't think you did, House Natural Resources is also taking testimony on this bill yesterday, I believe, and today. Yeah. So definitely touching other committees. Well, for those of us who are on the committee in the fall of 2020 that we had in that September session, we had a bill from, I think it was 256, that came from the Senate, that was about a lot of the zoning stuff. And what we learned as hard as we worked on it, Fish and Wildlife Natural Resources came and said, wait, this is our bill. And it was, it was taken from the active 50 bill that was floating or exploding at the time. And it was, and it was germane to our committee in the fact that it was housing, but the nuance of it was, it was not even a nuance, the focus of it was zoning. And we got some of that bill, we were able to extract some of it, but rightfully the Fish and Wildlife Natural Resources said, well, we should be making, and this is our portfolio. So if you look at the summary, if you look at that, if you saw that Natural Resources was already hearing it, they're hearing this portion of the bill that has to do with zoning, that has also been an H511, which is also part of, there's elements of it that might be in the active 50 bill. So what I, as a chair learned in 2020, what I saw this stuff is like, we're not gonna work on this bill. We're not gonna invest the amount of time that we spent in the fall of 2020 to have this yank from us at the last minute. I would rather be proactive. And so as we move forward, we'll talk with leadership and other house chairs because it's not a drive-by bill. And I will lay that right out front. So this being the end of the biennium, who knows how this bill is going, what it's gonna look like if it has to go to different committees, but there are elements of it that are, that have been called poison pills that have been subject to negotiation with the administration or with the Senate. There's pieces in this bill that we really like, like to be, you know, that we wanna get across, but stuff like tax credits, well, we will get a facility with them, I think ways it means to have more than an hour or two for a drive-by. So anyway, we're, this is gonna be this particular bill in conjunction with 211. I'm not gonna prognosticate saying that there's gonna be one, two, or three bills that come out of this because I don't know yet. That's part of our work, you know, I'm just saying, do we, but it's the end of the biennium, we're gonna be, you know, we have to make sure that the issues that we're dealing with correctly and deal with them in a way that we're comfortable with. But we're just starting now, I think with this overview, so you'll identify which sections I'm talking about here. And we will take testimony on them, but I do think that the relevant committees will also be taking testimony on them too in advance. So yes, Representative Clark. So if we are given possession of this bill, would then Fish and Wildlife suggest an amendment to this committee for this bill as it moves forward if they have? Well, again, the language, variations on the same language exist in a couple of different forms. One is in S-234, which is the Act 250, but I don't know. Okay, got it, okay. So they could conceivably lift a section out and put it someplace else. That follows protocol as an amendment. They could suggest changes to be part of S-226 to keep S-226 whole as what it passed the Senate. So it could happen in a bunch of different ways and decisions will be made here above my pay grade on how we move forward with some of this, but it will be, again, we will make sure that when we make a decision on it or when a decision is made for us, whatever happens. That we are fully knowledgeable about decision, okay? So with all of that as a preface, welcome. David, did Ron make you a co-host yet? Or no, you're not on the screen. I don't know if you want to be a co-host or not, but. I'm not signed into the Zoom meeting at all. So I can't be a co-host. Okay. Unless you want me to be a physical co-host. You're streaked over there. All right. Coffee and pastries. Good morning, David Hall, Legislative Council. We are talking about S-226. And as the chair indicated, this is a complicated, multifaceted bill which could describe all of the bills I've been working on this year. This one does not hold the record for the most committees involved. That actually goes to H-703, but. And we weren't one of those. So. Markably, like the only committee didn't have a piece of that. The chair of that committee was on the floor last week, said, and we worked with this committee and that committee and this committee. Not yet. It's not too late, so. If you've got ideas, we've still got hundreds of pages of room. And that's the bill that looks like a Rockefeller Center from the distance, except for, you know, just sort of so many lights on it. Twinkling all the way through the process. So, you know, half of this bill is Ellen's bill because half of this bill relates to Act 250 in zoning. And I can't really tell you a whole lot about what she's doing over there in zoning world in Act 250 land because that's not my, on my long list of problems, that's not one of them. So, regrettably, I mean, I can like give you a one sentence. No, let's let Ellen describe what's going on in the Act 250 section because that's, I don't want you to be. Sure. I think that's the position of guessing. That's probably good. So, I'm seeing how far that takes us. That really takes us all the way to page 11. So, by the way, the document that I'm looking at, which I sent to this committee and to run and to Ellen, I believe Ron posted is just the version of S226 that is up for third reading. So, it is the bill as it came out of Senate Economic Development. There's a finance report that said it should pass as proposed by Senate Economic Development. It went to appropriations where they do what they usually do, which is remove things that have monetary impact, though they did not remove all of them. And then there was actually another amendment from the floor for members of Senate Economic Development that changed the contractor registry section of the bill. So, let me start on page 11 of that document that I prepared, which is informal, unofficial. It relates you'll see the first generation home buyers, but where this lands is in 32 VSA 59 and 30 U. So, that is the affordable housing tax credit, the VHFA runs. And within that, part of what they can do with that money is a down payment assistance. You're probably all very familiar with that, but they sell these tax credits, raise a pot of money, have statutory authority to conduct this down payment assistance program. And that is right now open to what are, in the program called first-time home buyers, actually means it tracks that federal definition where you're the first-time home buyer since you haven't owned a home in three years. And- Do you have politics? Well, it's three years and it's income requirements and- Yes. And you can use those loans for down payment, closing costs, or both, right? So, all that is the same until we get to page 12 and you'll see this new subdivision D. And this says that the agencies of VHFA may reserve funding and adopt guidelines to provide grants to first-time home buyers who are also first-generation home buyers. So that is one sentence that has lots of new ideas for this program, right? So remember, right now down payment assistance program is a loan that revolves when the house is sold or refinanced and it comes back to the agency to make more loans to first-time home buyers to help them with their closing costs or down payments. So with this addition of this one sentence, now there's no new money, but the agency may reserve funding and it doesn't say how much and it can adopt guidelines to provide grants, not loans, to first-time home buyers who are also first-generation home buyers. First-generation home buyers is not defined in this bill. There is a piece of federal legislation that is proposed that discusses what a first-generation home buyer is, but that's not law either. So that's one sentence is doing all those things within this program. So it's creating a new definition it's saying that we need to have a definition of what a first-generation home buyer is. It's utilizing what we heard from the ED of the HFA the other day was that it's taking money that if it's used as a grant, of course, that it's not recyclable in the way that a revolving loan fund has been built. So it's taking funds out of that loan fund to be used for grants, but there's no further appropriation to increase the amount to increase the amount in that fund. Yes. Sorry, that's at least two of the things I was saying. Representative Murphy. If we're doing a walkthrough it might be a good question that you want to ask. I just was going to connect it to earlier conversations we've had about potentially using ARCA money for some of this and the concern that if it's ARCA money it actually can't come back, it has to get spent. So I just don't know, but with no allocation tied to it. Yes, but that's so for our work it's the language that is in S211 or S210 about that that's been in our bill that's been in S79 about the $50,000 second loan program. Like that's out there. I think we'll hear about the missing little pieces. So just in terms of this part of the bill, those are all out there for us to talk about and hopefully solve. Where is your role? I've got a question about this lack of the definition of first generation home buyers. I wonder what a PR credit might be if it could turn out to be, I mean, how do you document that your grandparents didn't own a home? I'm not sure how that's going to work. How do you amend that? Well, we'll take testimony on, again, wherever it came from and if it's the parent that we need to have a definition. Again, that's a policy choice for us. But again, that's a phrase like to me, it strikes me as a phrase as, what is it new American? Is that an immigrant from refugee? Where's housing? I guess there's a question of definition there that we'll wrestle with a couple days. All right, thanks, David. See, we're trying to, I'm trying to prevent that, David. I'm trying to prevent that. Great. We've made it all the way to page 12 already. Fourth of the way through. So the next piece, section eight, that we're talking about manufactured homes now and this is, it's a total of $5 million and these are, are up a funds that would flow through DHCD and it's really in three pots. So the first one, this first $3 million for manufactured home, community, small-scale capital grants through which the department may award up to $20,000 for owners of manufactured housing communities to complete small-scale capital needs, vacant lots of homes, include projects such as disposal of abandoned homes, log grading and preparation, site electrical box issues, upgrades, E911 safety issues, legal fees, transporting homes out of flood zones, individual septic system and marketing to help make it easier for home seekers to find vacant lots. $1 million is for manufactured home repair grants through which the department may award funding for minor rehab or accessibility projects coordinated as possible with existing programs for between 250 and 400 existing homes where the home is otherwise in good condition or in situations where the owners unable to replace the home repair will keep them housed. And the last million dollars is for new manufactured home foundation grants, $15,000 per grant for a homeowner to pay for a foundation or HUD approved slab, site prep, skirting, tie-downs, utility connections on vacant lots within manufactured home communities. So that section eight and that language is basically exactly as provided by DHCD and I'll leave it at that. We're still 30,000 people. So the next section, section nine, you'll see was actually removed. So this was one of the pieces that appropriations took out. This would have increased the amount of the, try to get which specific tax credit program this is and I don't know why I can't ever remember. But anyway, it doesn't matter because it's removed but it would increase by $250,000 and then this is also the affordable housing tax credit and then allocated that 250 specifically for use for manufactured home purchase and replacement. So I believe the administration had proposed this concept since the beginning and it made it all the way to center appropriations and now it's out. Any questions on that? Thank you. Just that I'm not sure it refers to manufactured homes because it's a separate section. I think it's all rental housing. Well, if you see on page 14, well actually start to the bottom of 13, the very online 20 there of the total first year credit allocations made under this subdivision, the 250,000 shall be used each fiscal year for manufactured home purchase and replacement. A follow up on line 17, not to interrupt you. It says including for new construction and manufactured housing. So I think it's probably inclusive of manufactured housing. I missed that. The increase, yeah, is to the total first year credit allocation for, so again, it's really kind of hard to follow in here because this is that series again of programs that function as tax credits because we have authorized these entities to sell credits out into the world to create this pot of money and then use the pot of money to administer the programs. And right now and so as you noted, the existing law is for both new construction and manufactured housing. So these are their affordable housing tax credits and at any rate, so parts of these go for rental, part of these can go for new construction or homes, et cetera. But the addition of that second sentence pegs that new 250 just to manufactured. So it's that reservation of just the increased amount. So the program would have continued as it's currently constituted with the same amount of money for everything else that it already does. And then they were gonna increase it by 250 just for manufactured housing. But again, that was removed in center appropriation. So that does not mean necessarily that this is dead forever but it will go on their wall of asks and they will evaluate where to allocate what they feel like they have for money. Right, so when we consider this section we're gonna consider, I mean, this is the policy they stripped their money out, right? Is that, so we can talk about the words and the policy but we have no way of like judging the money right now. I mean, that's what's, because there's nobody, what was stripped out of the bill was the money, right? Not the language. This whole section was removed. Okay. With what David? This whole section nine is removed in its entirety. Remove, so if the Senate passes this bill, this doesn't exist. That's right. Okay, got it. Keep talking. Thank you. Thank you. So, page 14, section 10. This is Frankenstein's monster section. Yeah. Thank you for teeing that up so gently. So I, you know, I don't wanna like, I know you don't need the whole legislative history of how they got to where they got, but sometimes it's helpful for you to know. I feel like, especially if you've been paying attention to what's in these housing proposals all session long. So the way that this bill started its life as a housing bill, there were two proposals that are contained in section 10 and then a third was added to it. And then they were kind of combined and now we have what we have. So it started with what you see here in A2. I want you to see A2. So this is funding from matching grants. And that's up to $50,000 or 20% of employer costs for large employers with 50 or more employees that provide housing for their employees, okay? So this is a large employer housing matching grant program concept. If you turn to the next page, subdivision three, this is another allocation from matching grants, 50,000 or 20% of developer costs for projects that convert commercial properties to residential use, okay? So those are each freestanding sections originally with $5 million each. There are a lot of sections with $5 million basically one paragraph. And they felt ultimately like, well, we don't have $10 million to do these two things. And in fact, they don't have any money to do these two things. So they married those with what is now A1 and then it goes on further in B and C below. So VHCB came to the committee with this concept of this neighborhood developments, community partnership for neighborhood development where they were going to take all kinds of streams of funds flowing through transportation, natural resources, environmental and conservation, municipalities, VHCB, all kinds of people and use these streams of funds and creative ways to do big neighborhood housing developments, 300, 400 units, right? And that, I think the white paper was talking, figures like $60, $70 million. They're just felt like, I guess, go ahead. This position paper exists somewhere. It is a proposal. You could fund it on Senate Economic Development's website from Gus Selig, but at any rate where we ended up with section 10 is that VHCB is authorized to use $5 million that it already has for all three of these things. So it can use some of its funding for matching grants for large employer housing. It can use some funding for matching grants for commercial conversions and it can use some of this funding to work with partners as outlined in the section to do these neighborhood development projects. And so it's not mandatory that they do any of these things but they are authorized to do all of these things. So, and that $5 million that they're putting aside here on page 14, the bottom page 14, right, for the line. Yep. Section A, so what's that? So that's what you just said, is that for B, for one, two and whatever, and that VHCB is authorized to use up to $5 million, you don't know if that, he says money that they already have. So it's, it couldn't be from their ARCA funds, it could be from their, from property transfer housing and conservation fund up to a certain point because not all that money can go to housing. But if any of the many sources that it seems that there's, that they've been receiving funds, I mean, they've received, you know, they just got $55 million of funds from BAA. So, no, we just have black in the market. But I don't know how it all lines up but it wasn't the governor's budget, there was $5 million additional that was allocated for this. And I don't know in, I don't know if it's for this. Again, this is something that we now put up on. Right, this is a question because I don't know if it's already they have it or to this, but anyway, that wouldn't be my question. Yeah, I'll figure it out. I was just going to query some of the language in here. And again, I'm not quite sure how deep we want to go on it, but just wondering, I don't see any limit that one employer couldn't receive the $5 million. I mean, the $50,000 is limit per unit. So if they built that many units, I mean, one employer could, and I know there's been news of a very large employer who is doing housing for employees. And I just, I'm just wondering. Oh, there's a note. Yeah, so just making note that, I mean, there's nothing to say how much of the share of this an individual or company or whatever could get, it could go out to one. Yeah, the first viable project could go up the... Which may be okay. No, no, no, totally. Yeah, but it is... That's the balance point with the language. The whole $5 million could go to one thing. As far as I read it. Sure. That's just, I mean, we're... Yeah. I don't even know that we have to flag it. Exactly. The whole confidence flag. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All right. And this is a different program. This is the, this is a part of a community partnership for a neighborhood development. This is nothing to do with the HIP money or the same amount of money. Right. And so, can you eliminate perhaps the, any discussion that may have been had or a description of what a project that convert commercial properties to residential use would be? Is that like turning to your shopping mall into living units instead of a high school? Why not? Sure. I mean, we'll talk about putting apartments on top of bold malls or whatever. And so, not that we haven't, well, unfortunately, Ronald has a couple of barriers that fit that category. We have to. To. Yeah. Two big ones. All right. Sure. Well, that was kind of my question. So there's apparently no definition as to whether or not this money can be used or should be used for rehab or new construction that there's no, that's just open game. We'll have it safe to say. Safe. Okay. You're safe. All right. Well, I think we can skip ahead to the very bottom of page 16, municipal bylaw grants. And this carries us. This is an Ellen section that takes us through. You'll see the page 18, this new section of law, municipal bylaw modernization grants. So that's a new, I don't know if you all are familiar with these, but these are at the very basic, this is again an Ellen section, but the most basic level, this is money that goes to the municipalities that help them upgrade their, go through the process of revising their bylaws, subdivision regs to be more progressive and favorable to housing while also being responsible for planning and zoning and environmental sensitivities and smart growth, et cetera. But all that said, appropriations changed this as well on page 21 so that this originally had $650,000 for this grant program and appropriations changed section 13 to say, to the extent that increased funding is provided in FY23 to the planning fund, then they shall use 650,000 for the municipal bylaw modernization grants. So they're not actually giving them any money to do it. I'm just saying, if we give you money to do it, this is how you should use it. Okay. So I believe that there was, I believe in the budget discussions, there was at least on the outside, there were conversations about increasing some part of municipal funding, but I'm not sure if this is it or not. Yeah, those are the planning grants for it. Yeah. Okay. So, you know, I know this doesn't make your jobs any easier, but nor does it make ours an easier, that as the session progresses, the number of things that need to be finally resolved among multiple bills continues to increase a pace. So add this to the list. Are you saying that a whole list of approach to build building is perhaps not the best? We don't have to answer. So going down then to sexual, this is still part of section 13, tax credits was formally section 14. Yeah. So that was part of the downtown tax credit programs, which would have been increase the allocation for NDAs and qualify the projects under that program. This is an Ellen thing, and she magically appears. Oh! It's coming to her. So Ellen, basically we're gonna let, at this point we're gonna let David finish the David sections and then have you back for the Ellen section. Thanks. So we're, all these tax credits are Ellen credits because they're all within these designated downtown areas, which are hers. So I'll let her do all of that all the way to 31. Let's just skip right ahead to section 24. Page 31. So while not every section of this bill enjoyed the benefit of a thorough scrubbing of words all of the time, towards the end of the process, this one did get, I feel like some good fine tuning and is a comprehensive program with parameters and limitations and definitions and it's for missing middle housing. And you may be familiar with the concept of this one. This one, you'll see in section 24A here does actually have money, $5 million in FY22 and $10 million in FY23. Those are ARPA funds. I would, if you have questions about the use of ARPA monies, I would encourage you to invite Sarah Clark from JFO to come talk about it. But my understanding from them is that they feel comfortable with this use of ARPA funds because it is targeted at income eligible buyers and speaks to affordable housing issues which under ARPA are. But it is a loan program or sort of, well, it's an interesting program. So let's look at it. Can we get for jumping out? Sure. We're at the end of the question. Yeah. Well, it's a money question really is that by the time this bill passes, FY22 is gonna be over. And in our budget adjustment, this money was taken out of the house budget. So. Yeah, this is right. So again, they're the idea of. All right, all these will be parts, yeah. So, all right. Two populations you need to know about here, affordable owner-occupied housing. So that's housing that meets the definition of affordable owner-occupied housing under federal law and under BHFAs programs. Mark can give you all those details. And then there's also income eligible home buyers. And so those are Vermont households tagged to 120% of AMI. So that's sort of the world we're talking about. And C, you'll see here, VHFA has the authority to provide subsidies for new construction or acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of affordable owner-occupied housing for purchase by income eligible home buyers, right? So there are limits. Indeed, the total amount of subsidies not to exceed 35% of eligible development costs. And those would have to be planned out by VHFA. And the agency can allocate this subsidy between developer and home buyer. So when I started to say this alone program, it's not really alone, it's a subsidy program, how it shakes out me in depends on where it gets allocated and then what affordability mechanism they're used. So like along the value kind of lives on in these housing units and in these developments. And that's really why I raised the whole point because unlike a grant with federal funds, this is something where we're trying to use that money over a longer period of time and ARPA necessarily is designed for. But I think it's okay and JFO thinks it's okay. I just have to fly with that. So you'll see how this works in D1 and two, the two subsidy concepts or components. So the developer subsidy, the agency may provide a direct subsidy to the developer which shall not exceed the difference between the cost of development and the assessed value of the home as completed. So people have been calling this the value gap, right? And it's really just the difference of what it actually costs to build the place versus what it's assessed at. And the concern here being that it costs more to build a house than the assessed value will cover in the end. And so VHFA has the ability to basically buy down the cost of building that house. So that up to 35%, the as built cost to the developer would equal out with the assessed value. Two, the home buyer subsidy anticipates that if they don't use all of that developer subsidy, they don't need to buy down that much then they can give more money in that same project still subject to that 35% project cap to the home buyer, to help the home buyer actually buy the house, right? So you have to be income eligible. It will reduce the cost of purchasing the home and it'll be subject to A and B here. The agency would have to include conditions in the subsidy or use some other legal mechanism to ensure that the value of the subsidy remains with the home to offset the cost of future income eligible home buyers or the agency uses a shared equity model that requires the agency retain not less than 75% of any increased equity in the home. So we're talking here specifically about perpetual affordability, right? Somehow making sure that this subsidy that the buyer benefits from will, some part of that value will remain and preserve the home to be affordable into the future. So I'll first have a quick question. So this letter A, does that apply to both home buyer and developer subsidies? Like if the developer uses the entire amount of the subsidy, how does that work with perpetual affordability? Well, then there's no more subsidy available to the home buyer. So it's only if the home buyer is subsidized that it comes back to the agency after that home buyer sells the home. Yes, I mean, the developers, the developer subsidy would just, that money would go to the developer. Period. Period. With no perpetual. No further, no further. The way this is sounding is that there's no further responsibility for anything else from that money that goes to the developer. But, but it only is three, the agency shall adopt one or more legal mechanisms to ensure that subsequent sales of a home, of a home that is subsidized through the program are limited to income eligible home buyers. Right. So this is, this is, I mean, so the shared equity program is run by our nonprofit housing agencies. Very simply just is, if a home costs $200,000, I know we're going back in time to we're going to come to that budget. Let's just use it as a number and $50,000 of that is subsidized through, through this program to income eligible home buyers. At some point they'll sell. And the sale price might be $300,000. The $50,000 stays with the house. If I've got this right, I'm gonna, and then the homeowner is allowed to keep a percentage of the built-up equity in some of his stays with the house too. So that's kind of the, that's the way it works in the nonprofit model. But that's for, that could be, this could be a smaller subsidy. And anyway, that's just, that's just what we're looking at when we talk about, unless it's 75% of increased equity. Representative Clarke. David, how can we understand the home buyer subsidy? Because earlier in the bill, this agency also has loans to low-income eligible folks, as well as developing a grant program for first generation, right? And so how do, how do those loans and possible grants fit into this home buyer subsidy? So those are different programs. Couldn't be the same people. It could be, I suppose there could be overlap. I don't, I mean, VHFA is gonna have to structure this program, you know, you'll see down in E that they're gonna have to come up with the application selection, the project criteria, other criteria for- So it says leveraging developed programs, that's good, right? So I think there could be a layering of assistance for sure. I don't, I mean, it's also possible that VHFA could say, we either wanna help you through this one or through that one, but not both, but that may be their intention to say, let's give one person all the different streams and see how much we can help them. That's a Mara question, you know, do they wanna divide and conquer or do they wanna aggregate resources for a single buyer? I don't know. And when we, we'll be focusing on, so this will be a few hours of work. Well, you're optimistic. Well, this has come a long way, so I guess, I think it's interesting. Okay, so we're through, are we through section E now? I think so, yeah. I just, I just do wanna note about the perpetual affordability regimen that on the legal side and in the management side, obviously this happens a lot already as far as working with partners and management of those affordability covenants over time. You'll see in subsection F that VHFA can assign its rights to VHCB or another nonprofit concerning these covenants or the use of these funds as long as the signing acknowledges and agrees to comply with the provisions. So those mechanisms are all in place and I assume that they would avail themselves of this existing infrastructure to manage those, but I just, I do wanna flag that, you know, over time, you know, ensuring that this house is always available to an income qualified person. What does that drift look like after 2050 years? I don't know. Who enforces that still? Are all these organizations still around or do we have the inventory? What legal mechanisms do they use and does that impact its likelihood of enforceability or being properly managed over time? I don't know. That's the adoption of this kind of program which nonprofit house organization already do. Right, right. So if it goes through that model and you're working with a nonprofit, which is one option, probably assuming that nonprofit is healthy and will be around for a hundred years, then it's probably likely they're gonna manage it just fine. But there's the other possibility that they use just some sort of covenant, let's say in the deed, that is an individual term and that the enforceability is private and who knows? You know what I mean? Yeah, no, I mean- It's like that for your consideration. No, that's, again, nonprofit housing agencies are gonna have mechanisms for what happens under the worst possible circumstances. I mean, that's just how they're set up. But this program, while it parallels the concepts, doesn't have that structure behind it. Or could, what plays out? All right, so- So page 34, residential construction contractors, I don't think we need to dig into this too deep because you've seen this a lot, but there are two significant changes to this. And the first one on page 36, line seven, you will see that the threshold dollar value, both for requiring registration with OPR and then later, the threshold amount for a written contract have been increased to $10,000. So that's the one significant change. But there's two changes and they're both significant. That's one of them. The other is the addition of a new concept. And this starts at the very bottom of page 44. And that is section 29A. It won't always be section 29A, but for right now it is. And this, in this, so the body of this is on page 45. AG's office authorized to create one classified two-year full-time limited service position within the consumer assistance program, whose duties shall include reducing, resolving, assisting with consumer complaints concerning residential construction projects with a value of less than $10,000 and coordinating facilitating information sharing with OPR. There is money, $200,000 for this from the general fund to the AG's office to create this. So this position envisioned for two years, there's $200,000 for it. It's not envisioned to be an attorney position and appropriations allow this money to stay in. So it's, I guess, gonna be part of their budget for now. And you still have this report in the next section, this January 24 report coming back. And the understanding is that, part of what they're gonna come back and talk about is the dollar threshold and the complaint on buds person and is this whole thing working or not the way it's set up. So those are two obviously very significant shifts in the construction of the residential contractor registration regime. Any questions on those? They'll require testimony. And we had committee, we are expected to hear from Senator Swarovkin tomorrow, so he'll be able to give us the political conversation. The 10,000 Senator Brocks kind of, it was his amendment. This has been a negotiation in the Senate. Could be hired in the Senate, but I don't know for sure what the basis of this language is, so that's where we take this. So my last couple of pieces, 31 and 32, legal term for these is a little bit wacky. You say that to me, it's a legal term. I'll say it in German, I haven't had Latin since eighth grade, but so these two sections are purporting to amend S210. Yeah. I got to talk to Jenna for a minute. When David is done, can we take a few minute break, five minute break before Alan starts. Okay. Thank you. So what's weird about these, you'll see, if you look on line six, so page 46, line six, section 31, right? Everybody with me? Yep, yep. So this says section nine of S210 of this year, as enacted, is amended to read. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. I didn't mean to do that. You're an optimist. I don't know about that. I'm an agnostic. Is that the same thing? I don't have enough knowledge to know whether or not this bill exists or whether it will pass. Yeah. What if it does pass? Fair enough, let me give you the theoretical. Okay. So it ended as provided in these two sections. Oh, that's awesome. So as you can imagine at different points in time, S226 had the Vermont Rental Housing Investment Program and the Revolving Loan Fund in their entirities included in 226, even though it's already passed to 10 in the Senate. So rather than include those again in their entirities in 226, they just said, let's let 210 continue to run its course, but let's make some modifications to the Rental Housing Investment Program as it exists in 210. So add to the pile of things that you need to consider for the in-game reconciliation. We have on page 46, starting on line 15. So this is the part about the Vermont Rental Housing Investment Program that talks about what we can use the money for. And what the Senate wants to do here is to provide additional dollars to create new accessory dwelling units. So line 15 says you can use the money to create an accessory dwelling unit. It cannot be used as a short-term rental. And then down in D1, rather than have 30,000 per unit for both kinds of units, it bifurcates that and says you can use up to 30,000 to rehabilitating existing unit or you can use up to 50,000 to create a new ADU. So that is obviously a change to the Rental Housing Investment Program as it was constituted in S-210. On page 47, section 30, Joe. Oh, I'm sorry, yes. There was that one. Mr. Hanford was in this committee this week, and he talked about also the possibility of the $30,000 to rehab an existing unit to look at increasing that up to $50,000 to accommodate larger families of refugees moving into our state. And did the Senate also discuss that threshold up to $50,000 if it was like more bedrooms? I did not hear that, Mr. Hanford. That doesn't matter. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. Yes, I just wasn't proud of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanford. We're in political space. So page 47, it gets a little bit wackier, and then we're done. So this is the $20 million that right now is appropriated in S-210. So this money hasn't actually been appropriated, obviously because that bill has only passed the Senate, but if that bill passes, this purports to further amend the appropriation section as provided in section 32. So that of that $20 million, DHCD would have to allocate 25% of the funds for ADUs, subject to A and B. So under A department could use up to 20% of the funding to facilitate a statewide education and navigation system to assist homeowners with designing, financing, permitting, constructing accessory dwelling units and B could use any remaining funds for accessory dwelling units, for financial incentives, or other financial supports to homeowners developing accessory dwelling units. So you've got a program that allows for the rehabilitation of properties or the creation of new ADUs. You've got a $20 million appropriation that's supposed to be used for those grants or loans, and then you've got a modification that says you can use, no, you have to use 20% of that 20 million for ADUs in some fashion. That can either be up to 20 for this statewide education navigation concept, and then whatever is left of that for financial incentives or other financial supports, not saying what that means, what those financial supports are. So there's a lot of flexibility with how that money could be used. Sure. To represent clacky, then hang on, and then I wanna, I think that's the exception or effective dates. I just wanna take a break now because we're all gonna have Ellen for a little bit we have more testimony at 11 on the subject, but I just wanna make sure Ellen gets a chance to do the high. And actually we can, committee, do you mind not taking a break and we can just work to like five of 11 or 10 of 11? Sure. So I prefer to take a break and I don't need to ask my question. I'll ask Senator Sorotkin. Okay. So he would like to take a break now. I'll take a break. You all can keep working if you want. Okay. If I may ask one question about this. So David, the B-HIT program, as it's been rolled out, has been eligible for initially, it was for those that were not housed. And then the next iteration was very low income for monitors. That seems to be taken out of this in a way. And also adding this ABU complicit shifts, the kind of income framework of the original BIP. I just wanna make sure I'm, and I think in 210 the BIP firms still have income frameworks. This doesn't seem to have any, even for the rehabbing units. Am I reading this correctly? Not entirely. Okay. A couple of things. First off, the original program was not VHIP. And then there is, I guess, a VHIP, the administration is using federal dollars for but doesn't actually have a program. There actually is no VHIP. And then this is the Vermont Rental Housing Investment Program. So, VHIP that would be created in S210 that does have the income limitations that you're talking about. And then this would further my as provided here, if that is enacted. If that is not enacted, there is no Vermont Rental Housing Investment Program. There is no $20 million. And this is, doesn't matter. We have to stop for a minute. It's coming. Are we still on? Yes, we are. We accidentally unplugged the unit in here and it's resetting from here, but we're still live and you can still hear us. I see the stream. I'm just watching the stream now. It says there's 20,000. This doesn't matter if if you stop the mute, are we still on? Yeah, it seems to be working. Okay. Well, our little panel here says it cannot connect to the Zoomers, but I'm not going to argue with it. I'll send a note. Do you want to just take a break now and I'll send it to IT? We should. I'm sorry.