 Okay, good morning. In Senate economic development housing in general affairs. It's January 24. And we have Ellen here. I think we can get through more than eight pages and then in the next two hours I'd really like to see if we can start getting Damien in the way this chair and let Ellen move on other things for a little while. But that would help us. I get through the sections of her housing bill related to local zoning and activity, because I understand it so I live. Thank you. Good morning Ellen check house the Office of Legislative Council. We're looking at draft number 0091 draft 5.1 dated January 19 that 531 PM. So we're going to walk through on Friday. And so we're picking up on page 12 section nine. So section nine, we're still talking about municipal zoning, but this is a sort of new concept, it is a concept not currently in Vermont statute anywhere. But it is regarding permit decisions for municipal zoning. So, 24 vs a 4464 be decisions, a decision rendered by the appropriate municipal panel for housing development, or the housing portion of a mixed use development. Shall not increase the minimum lot size required in the municipal bylaws. So page 13 increased the minimum parking requirements required in the municipal bylaws and in section 4414, which is the first section of this bill reduced the building size to less than that allowed in the municipal bylaw including reducing the building footprint or height, reduce the density of dwelling units allowed in the municipal bylaws. Otherwise, this allow a development to abide by the minimum or maximum applicable municipal standards. So I'll stop there quickly and then I'll read the next part. So this is talking about the appropriate municipal panel is either the DRB development review board or the board of adjustment. However, the town has structured it but it's when an applicant for a housing development or a mixed use development, which is a development that includes both commercial space and affordable housing units together in the same project. When they apply for a permit, the appropriate municipal panel who's issuing the permit cannot alter the minimums and maximums that have been set in the bylaws. And so what this means is that the applicant has applied for the maximum number of units that was allowed under the statute and based on what this bill has said up to five units per acre, the municipality cannot in the permit decision reduce the number of permits, reduce the number of units that they're allowed to build in that permit. So they can't use the permit decision to subvert what is established in the statute as well as in the bylaws. And I think that this has been a common tool for municipalities they sort of use it to make projects more palatable they can say someone applies for a permit and then they can sort of adjust the size or dimensions of a project to address any concerns or mitigate impacts. But this is setting out that the default is they cannot do that. But there is an unless. So, on page 13 line nine. However, a decision may require adjustments to the applicable municipal standards established in subdivision a. As a municipal panel or officer issues are written finding stating why the modification is necessary to comply with a prerequisite state or federal permit. A municipal permit or a non discretionary standard in a bylaw or ordinance, including requirements related to wetlands, setbacks and flood hazard areas and river corridors. And how the identified restrictions do not result in an unequal treatment of housing, or an unreasonable exclusion of housing development otherwise allowed by the bylaws. So if the town can demonstrate that they need to properly accommodate for wetlands or setbacks from other projects need to be complied with. They can demonstrate that there's a state or federal permit may be related to capacity wastewater capacity or something if they can demonstrate that there's a limitation established by another set of permits that would directly impact the size of this project. They need to lay that out. And they also need to demonstrate in the written decision that there is no unequal treatment of housing, or unreasonable exclusion of housing. So it's a pretty substantial change. It's titled by right, but it's not. It's been sort of framed as by right zoning which is a different type of zoning that some other states have used. And so it's establishing that the municipality, once they've established their bylaws, setting these minimums and maximums they can't change them indirectly through the issuing of permits. Some of municipal stations talk about providing open space, providing paths recreational paths. There's some land that is ledge, or that might block your neighbors view shed. It's all excluded. And if it says you can have 16 houses an acre it's 16 houses an acre and you can't require anything that might be done it's done the topography such as granted ledge. I mean, I'm, this is pretty extensive. Um, you listed a few different things that are disparate in my mind. I don't think most of those things are actually addressed in these statutes like there isn't a statutory requirement that there be. Abuse. There are. It gets complicated because character of the area is actually an entirely different subject not here. Yeah. And so, I mean, I know someone who ended up before I believe had to remove because they built higher than they've locked the neighbors view of the gold. Right. I've written sales contracts with you protection abatements in them, which limits the height that the neighbor can build on his vacant lot. This. I'm trying to figure out what problem we're trying to solve or it's maybe because I'm new. But I mean, I see this as trying to set a standard and not move the goal post because you don't want a particular type of housing, or you don't all of a sudden, you know, there's a new argument that's being made that wasn't, you know, that creates inconsistency where someone comes thinking, I'm looking at what's here and what's allowed. And now I'm being told a new neighbor doesn't. Doesn't like it. I mean, I think I don't know, you know, we I don't know that we can get it everybody's sort of detailed circumstances of covenants and areas where you said, I can't build anything but colonial architecture in my street. I don't know what a brick ranch house became colonial architecture. That's what it says, but everyone knows that so no one's like coming with a modern bill, we put a few new branches. But also correct me if I'm wrong this only applies to the downtown and village center or does this apply town wise. Anywhere where there's bylaws. Yeah. Okay. And when it's because this subject came up last year in testament of the covenants of green space. As we talked about density that we wouldn't want to get rid of the, the parks and green spaces that have been protected by covenants. I don't. And I don't think anything we would do would change that. Right. So that is not addressing that. But that was one of her questions. Right. So that's not part of this. Requiring that if the municipality is going to change. So the municipality has established in their bylaws minimums and maximums, like the parking maximum of one per dwelling unit. So for the five units per acre, they cannot in the decision reduce the number without laying out why it is necessary for them to do that and how they're not having an unequal treatment of housing. So, I know I had assumed and clearly wrong that this, that these proposals were to apply to our downtown and village centers not to the whole town. Because what we're trying to do is promote greater density in our downtown village center so by right, this proposal by right applies to the whole town. Yes, but the whole town where they have their bylaws have already set forth. They have their bylaws and maximums, but the challenge here is if we're trying to protect towns have a lot of undeveloped space. I don't see the undeveloped space. I don't want to see undeveloped space and her whole point of this is to focus our attention for development downtown village centers. I don't want to see the same density out where it's now on developed. It's only where, but I mean, this is where they set minimum and maximum requirements already for development and housing. So it's where they said, and do those relate to those correlate with downtown and village center designations. No, not necessarily, but this is not establishing any kind of this, this in itself is an establishing minimums and maximums for undeveloped, or what would be probably zoned as like rural low density. It is requiring municipalities to the municipalities permit to uphold what they have established in their bylaws. And so if they have zoned, you know, rural ag district differently than this has to the permits issued under that need to comply based on that standard. They are not intended to increase density in places where the town has already established that, but just to maintain that they are using the bylaw as they have set it out, and not applying something through an individual permit that would change that. Okay, but let's, oh, this is the direct earlier, didn't we say that they could not have dense, we put some restrictions on said they had to allow eight minute acres only. So eight minute acres only is not in this is not in this bill. What is in this bill is a requirement that municipalities allow up to five units per acre. So, so they could update, but it is not mandating minimum lot sizes. So they could do it by allowing one fifth of an acre lot sizes or they could do it by allowing duplexes on whatever of an eight three on happening for two on another like. So, it is not mandating how they actually achieve five units per acre but that their zoning doesn't impede five units per acre. And that's in a different place than what this is. I think it's not in this by right section. And that does apply to downtown village centers the five. I mean, this is the water and sewer which we can revisit but it's, if you, it's fun. That's quadruplexes. I think I know one, one, yeah, it would be great to have a chart for each section, what it allows and what it does on so we can be clear on, on, because I want to be clear on what we're greenlighting in downtown village centers, and what is we're making possible for the whole town. We were looking at it now and we're hearing a lot about which designation should apply to what so we'll let Alan walk through it and then we can go back this week and help us summarize what we're what the decision sounds about right and I think that this by right vision is intended to be achieving the same goal in a different way as the prior section is saying okay we are requiring that counts allow through their bylaws five units per acre. We cannot then get around that requirement by then only issuing permits for three units per acre. That is sort of the intent of the section because the prior sections only only specify that the bylaws have to dictate something. The town also have control over the permits they issue and how they condition those permits so this is another step getting at that stable, not letting the local somewhere else on whatever we decide should take place. So every town has to allow five eight five units per acre somewhere in their areas are served by municipal water and water and sewer. Yeah, that's the ticket. Yes. I think it's the topography doesn't work. I mean, so, that'll make it more expensive and people may not want to do it. And also, I need to justify that but then why not solution. Yeah, yeah, right. And you could say, okay, this property doesn't work for the whole acre but they were going to put one house here and we're asking them to consider putting a triplex. Instead, you know, you wouldn't have to do five single family homes plotted around. Senator here and it's a discussion. Yeah, to go with me to my local planning commission that's already having me in. It's just some neighbors this weekend. You're welcome to borrow my PowerPoint. Senator Harrison. Thank you. Yeah, when I read this at first I thought that it meant that the action of making a decision wouldn't then be taken as a way of changing the bylaws themselves. But I think the intent is that the town's abide by the bylaws is what I'm hearing. So, you know, people, things are true, right. Interesting, because you, you're not changing a bylaw through the issuance of a permit the bylaw is what is supposed to guide the right of the permit so you can't use that to change it's already been set right. But then, but if you read this literally, I think it does say that but maybe we can have a chat. Another time. Do you want to circle something where it will. I would suggest for example, like, you know, shall not increase the minimum lot size required in the municipal bylaws. I would suggest that we say, shall not require a larger lot size than that required in the municipal bylaws, so that it can't be contrary to the bylaws. I think that's what the intent is. Permits can't change bylaw. Well, that's what I thought. Yeah, initially they meant, but, but it doesn't make sense that a permit would change the bylaws. Although maybe there's something in case law where you say I did it seven times so then it's. No, and I'm happy to work on a site which it is a tricky thing to draft because the municipality structure it so differently. It's like a developer or someone who's applying for a permit isn't actually applying for the maximum. This is not imposing the maximum, but it's prohibiting the town from making undue adjustments to the application without justifying why that would be necessary. And that makes sense. But maybe we can talk about that. I think I got it like, I think, working on wording changes that you feel make a difference is something that we often do do offline but it's helpful to know like an example of what you're, yeah, you're thinking of. Yeah, this is just that an example. That was a good example. Yeah, like just, yeah, you have a local brain, okay, local government brain. So, you know, if you think there's, there's ways to make sure it's clear that we're not. Okay, yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah, and others too but great. Okay, good. Okay, so the next section section 11 is an affiliation. So, on page 14. So the minimum of $500,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the municipal and regional planning fund for the purpose of assisting municipalities and updating their bylaws to reflect the changes made in this act. So the municipal and regional planning fund already exists. We talked about it a little bit last year in this committee. We talked about housing and community development and ministers it is currently primarily funded by part of the property transfer tax. And so there's a formula and statutes of some of the money goes to the regional planning commissions, and some of the money goes to the municipal municipalities apply for grants to use the funding there to make changes either to their town plan or whatever stage they're at and their school zone planning and zoning. They can apply to use these funds to do that work. So this is a providing additional increase as towns will need to update their bylaws. And often it can take two years to update bylaws. Is there a deadline to update and or would we consider some sort of expedited process. So, I will say that the effective date on the sections we have reviewed is pushed out until December 1224 to accommodate the time needed for these changes. So you can consider that is enough. The other thing I would say is that in absence of updated bylaws the statute controls. So, Okay, yeah. Wendy we've had money in for the last two years on bylaw modernization two or three. Anyway, to work to last two years, and we've had a big update on it and I think all the money may have been. Anyway, I can't remember how I know it was were bustling is in towns applied for it and been using it. I can't remember if we have an update on how much money was left in that fund. And this, because this is roughly what we have put, or we put more aside initially. So I think the first year was 500,000 and the second year was 600, and it was because it was so well used. Yeah. So I love just a marker on this just to get an update on how well use the bylaw modernization because this goes hand in glove with that. I think Chris started to talk about that. Yeah, he did. And just something to consider if I would suggest that the process of the bylaw updates for municipalities is very long and includes a lot of public outreach as it should. But if your town is just complying with something that the state is imposing, the public's not really going to be able to, you know, public input is just going to be explanatory. They won't have an impact. It'll be public outrage, I'm sure. Right, right. So it might be easier and better to just have a quicker program or process. Yeah, in those situations will basically tell towns how they have to serve. We're going to get right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I'm just putting in our head that maybe a quicker, cheaper process might might be better in situations like this when there's really no choice. And I think that that is something that you should consider about what you want the effective date to actually be. I would only just add that because one of the sort of mechanisms you're using in this bill is in areas served by sewer and water infrastructure, you do want to make sure that the town that have those systems have them mapped so that it is a. I know that's another question. I have a lot of questions. I'm not going to build their water and sewer to meet this kind of growth. And I'm sure we're not the only city that had that happen. And if I come up against a high density subsidized housing project. And a new major employer, and I have limited water and sewer capacity who dictates where that decision gets made. And that's we turned down Ben and Jerry's because they would have eaten up our sewer capacity. So I think we'll hear. I mean, I think we'll hear and we'll want to have a philosophical discussion about using municipal water and sewer capacity as a guidepost for development because it will create a limit to build exactly. And, you know, I think that's just a big question. We'll have to ask, or do we want to incentivize growth in certain areas and say, you know, you're only eligible for certain funds. If you designate this as a right, you know, like every neighborhood development area and benefits flow from that. So I think that's big and totally get it. It's a big question on people about what if this means towns don't do municipal sewer and water just to avoid, you know, having to follow this. It's a very expensive process to do municipal sewer and water. I like the status quo. Well, yeah, there's a lot of questions. Yeah, just because we don't define service areas either. And that might be something that we wanted to water and sewer service areas and then water or sewer and then what about private sewer or private water. I think there's more ready to serve fee in the city pumps your septic system once a year. So there's just a lot of variations. Yeah, okay. Ellen can't solve this problem for us. So, so let's continue. Okay, so leaving the municipal zoning realm. So on page 14 section 11 a is a different topic though related. So housing resource navigator for regional planning commissions. We're not associational planning and development agencies, which is the umbrella agency for the regional planning commissions shall hire housing resource navigators, which shall serve underserved communities by working with municipalities, local housing organizations and private developers to identify housing opportunities, match communities with funding resources and provide project management support. So this is appropriated to some of $300,000 and this year 2024 to Vapda for the purpose of hiring the housing navigators as described. So this I drafted this language. And I think that this is a really, I think this is a trickier issues and it may initially steam that does. I mean, you should hear from them. I don't think that currently has employees like the way that this is envisioned. Yeah, visual RP seems to have not right. And they are not the RPC employees are not state employees so I couldn't like create a position in statute. So you may just want to hear you should hear from Vapda and how they would handle this. So proper way to actually structure this. And the amount because and which is very low. I was going to say that's three employees. Yeah, I think that's our area. This is not much. No, I just asked me to make sure Scott have put them on the wings list. I think I got confused about planners association. Yes. The planners, the planners are a different association. But this is the umbrella agency. And neither could really do that. The RPCs can do it. Anyway, the amount is very low and the. Yeah. And this is a new program to be on both. Yes. With the index idea. Yeah. Right, right. We do, we do like technical assistance, but maybe that's what they go out of money. Yeah, but this kind of goes hand in glove with that. Great. Okay. Thank you. All right. So section 12 starts the active 50 amendments. No big deal. Okay, so at the bottom of page 14 onto page 15, the definition of development means each of the following. So as you will recall from your actual 50 discussions in the past, the definition of development is what sets the jurisdictional triggers for which projects require an active permit. Currently under the statute, there is a concept called the priority housing projects. And we'll look at the definition fully on the next page. But currently, 10 or more units of housing that is constructed trigger active 50. Also, we have the one acre and 10 acre towns and so in a 10 acre town, 10 or more acres trigger active 50 or one or more acres of commercial development trigger active 50. Starting there, there are two changes that are happening on page 15. So first, development means the construction of housing projects, such as cooperatives condos, or dwellings or construction or maintenance of mobile homes or mobile parks with 20 or more units constructed or maintained on a track or tracks of land, owned or controlled by a person within a radius of five miles of any point on any involved land within a continuous period of five years. So as I just mentioned, currently under the statute 10 units of housing constructed triggers active 50 and so this is increasing that to 20. Currently in the statute, all the language that struck starting on line six. That language establishes a cap on the number of priority housing projects within a project that are exempt. And so what that means is that priority housing projects are exempt from active 50. If they meet the number of housing unit within based on the size of the town and so currently 75 or more units in a municipality with a population between 6000 and 10,000. When you had 75 trigger active 50 people build 74 units and be exempt. Yeah, so if you look online 15 last year you removed the smallest cap to towns with up to from zero 6000 population can build up to 49 units 50 they become they trigger active 50 again. And so this is removing all of the cats and just saying any construction of priority housing projects is exempt. That is the designated designated area. Yeah, we're talking about downtown. Yes, there's more details on that in the next page. And so further down in line 19 as well. Currently it says the word development does not include the construction of priority housing projects in a municipality with a population of 10,000 or more. Development does not include the construction of a priority housing project. And you know this is what the governor was talking about his address about military and housing project that much lower than the other. So we don't use the word priority housing between the lines one and six. And the understanding is, if it's a priority housing project, it's exact period. It's at that now. Yes, so you're right. There are two concepts happening on this page. They're the first is general housing, 20 units or more will trigger active thinking, and at the bottom now it says the construction of any priority housing projects. All right, that's it. And it's defined later on. You want to talk about that now. The definition is on the next page. So on page 16, we can jump down to line 13 and this is the definition of a priority housing project. So it is a discrete project located on a single track or multiple contiguous tracks of land that consists exclusively of mixed income housing, or mixed use, or any combination thereof, and is located entirely within a designated downtown, as a new town center, a designated village center that has permanent zoning and division bylaws designated growth center or designated neighborhood development area. So this means it's a mixed use housing project or mixed income housing project in a designated center, and those two phrases are defined in actually 50. So a mixed use project, I've already mentioned is a mix of commercial and residential with affordable with a emphasis on affordable, because it uses the definition of mixed income housing. I think I am, I know that this is going to sound confusing and the NRB has a really great flow chart to explain this so we can come in here so we can give you that so that it's a little more clear than how I'm explaining it but mixed income housing is, it can be either owner occupied or rental, but at least 20% of the housing units are affordable for at least 15 years. That's the challenge that you'll recall Senate natural resources and affordable last year. They're so affordable is also defined for both rental and owner occupied housing and it's does not exceed 30% of the gross annual income of a household at 80% of the highest of county median income. Area median income or statewide median income. And so, so under this, not every unit needs to be affordable only 20% of the units need to be affordable for 15 years and affordable is defined as 30% of income, either income, state median income or county median income, whichever is last probably right. I think it says the greatest but I think that potential VHFA works on this so I, I'm not an expert on how that actually works. So you can hear more about how that works in practice. But really quick, is there a mixed use that's just commercial and residential together because that's what other places in the country call mixed use. Or does that not exist. Right, but, but without the affordability component. Oh, no. Okay, no. Okay, there is an affordability department. Okay, but only for 15 years. I understand. Yeah, I mean, as we sort of dive right into the heart of these active 50 section, just don't say for anyone listening. We're trying to focus any activity changes specifically on housing in designated growth areas, we're getting outreach about can you solve all of our problems and actually 15. And this will, we will only be considering issues pertaining to housing. Yeah, that's really good to say and I would say that mixed use is relevant because it makes housing better and more more desirable and it makes downhouse and transportation limits. So that touches housing but yeah. This is rock and spring fields a classic example that we went and toured it and, you know, it's mixed use of commercial first floor and affordable units upstairs I think all some of them are market rate some of them are affordable entire very street the condos and the rental units are mixed. And these are mostly priority projects. So, yeah, and yeah, it's, it's great. I would love to, I don't know who keeps the data on this but I would love to see what happens to the priority projects after 15 years. How many actually go straight up to market rate, how many stay affordable you know how I'd love to see what these are starting place for data. They might be that's right. And I'll ask Leslie that question because that's I hope they track long term where what happens to it, because I think that was the concern that Senate natural debated quite a bit last year. Right, is that that whole issue of, well, why are we putting public money into something that's eventually not going to be affordable anymore. I think we're going to hear, you know, could we do more to incentivize housing in with an active 50, that's, you know, net zero energy fossil fossil fuel free I mean we might be able to look even further at you know other ways to incentivize getting rid of duplication from different state agencies and activities with fossil fuel changes. Yeah. So the one caveat I'd say is, yes, this bill deals exclusively with active 50 issues in housing. I think we fool ourselves in thinking that active 50 changes can be done in a vacuum just dealing with this one thing because I think one of the biggest challenges we have faced is that we. And we faced for the last three years on this bill, and these changes has been what we get to further protect, and what we do to green light. And I think those are challenging balancing challenges to balance. And I think you can do just this. I mean we're doing just this but someone else is going to have to do something else. I think she's trying to do housing. Absolutely. And we have been trying for several years, but it's always we hit that challenge. Is that fair. Oh gosh, I don't know. That's an honest question. So, on page 16, there are two other changes here in the definition of development. And I drafted them separately from the priority housing language so we may need to check if they layer correctly five. So at the top of page 16 line one, not withstanding subdivision four of this subdivision, the construction of improvements in a designated neighborhood development area for a housing project or mixed use development with 10 or more units constructed on a tractor tractor track or tracks of land owned or controlled by a person is development because the lead in language there is development includes the following. So this is creating a specific jurisdictional trigger for designated development area of neighborhood development areas for the construction of 10 or more units. So this is, and it's removing the five year five mile. So, you may have heard when I read on page 15 that the general language currently for housing projects is 10 or more units on one or more tracks, owned or controlled by a person constructed within five years, and within five miles of each other. So this is setting in another neighborhood development area, 10 units of housing triggers activity. But it does not include the restriction of within five years or five miles. Very clear. So it doesn't include the five mile or the five years. Hi, Jeff, so we can. I'm just going to take ownership of this but it may not layer properly with the changes you're making to the priority housing exemption and I just we need to maybe think of that because of the phrase mixed use there is sort of what I'm thinking. So, technically, as we just discussed with our Senator Harrison. As defined it actually includes affordable housing. And so it's, there's a possibility that someone could build a mixed use development that wouldn't be a priority housing project, but it's extremely unlikely, because if they're building the mixed use they're probably hitting the priority housing project exemption. So at least that aspect of this, you may just want to consider if that's redundant because it is in the development area. Okay, so that's just a flag. Okay, because other and so again and you're talking specifically about housing projects here on line three also. And so that would cover market rate housing projects, not affordable housing projects, but with the definition of mixed use. You have some affordable. But as it's written it includes market and order. So the definition because housing projects is just commercial. Yes, housing project guess high and it's probably high under market. Yes, okay, but mixed use as defined in the statute includes affordability. And so then, nearly identical language again, starting with line seven under the definition of subdivision. So the other way you trigger active 50 is if you are subdividing land, and so like with commercial. So 10 lots being subdivided in a 10 acre town triggers active 50 or six lots in a town without permanent zoning and subdivision rules triggers active 50. So this is creating again another separate provision that says subdivision means each of the following tract or tracks of land owned or controlled by a person that the person has partitioned or divided for the purpose of resale into 10 or more lots located within a designated neighborhood development area. So it's again removing the five year five mile rule. Okay. The next section on page 17 is a small change again related to priority housing project so it's 10 BSA 6081 P. And so this is striking again the other reference to the caps on priority housing project so no permit or permit amendment is required for a subject in a designated area and it doesn't need a center. And so it's striking the reference to the jurisdictional thresholds which is what we call caps. Yep. Okay, so that is the active 50 language and so next is an entirely different subject. Well it goes back part of what we're talking about earlier which are coming in. Yes, which we have addressed in prior years also. Yes. So section 13 on page 17 is amended set 27 BSA 545 and 545 is the section that this committee had added in previous years. And so that is staying intact so the existing language on line eight is that deep restrictions or similar binding agreements added after March 1 2021 that prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting land development allowed under 44 121 E which is accessory dwelling units and to a which are the existing small locks shall not be valid. So the existing law is that these covenants cannot new covenants cannot be added that would prohibit accessory dwelling units or small or the development of a small lot. Those provisions are invalid. So this is again, you're in the earlier sections you're getting at these issues by dictating what the municipality kind of can or can't do. And this is saying private parties in their deed restrictions can't subvert those statutory requirements by putting something in the deed that would require minimum building size or parking space minimums that parking basement is going to be an issue if you're talking people have two cars that one works in Burlington and one works in White River. And the cars are going to get parked somewhere. And where is that going to be. So it still is allowing it's the developers still have the ability to construct these parking spaces, but the town can't require them and the provision can't be added in the feed restriction that requires. Okay, but if you don't have to add more than what it's that's money. It's money that's going to go in the developers pocket and let especially if you're talking affordable units not high end high end. He can put two or three in an amenity. But the town is going to be left to deal with the parking. We hear that this is a concern and I think that we'll have witnesses where this, this debate can be had I just, I think Alex reached her capacity of responding. Yeah, no, I just, yeah. This is a municipal flag. Yeah, unlike of course the other section. What proportion of this of the housing in the state is covered by covenants. It's just roughly a couple of different projects of different covenants. Well many of them don't have any at all. I mean the older places. Right. I mean but I'm a joey's aren't very common here was my understanding. A lot of condos have no laundry, no bird feeders, no. No political sides, no real estate. Well we remove language that says, you know, black people know Jewish. Oh my, we mean not okay. Yeah. Yeah, with Jen, I can see Jen holler right there. So we have, you know, and I think it was a surprise to everyone fit. Yeah, look at historical records and he's coming. Right. Yeah, they're still just wondering about how many. Yeah, they're there. They haven't been enforced. They're illegal, but they're still sitting somewhere in on your deed but it's come up several times it is very expensive process to alter a deed. It's on the deed and the deed passes. It's illegal. It hasn't been enforced in 100 years, but it still sits there. And people are very upset that it's I'm sure it still says, I can only build colonial architecture and I don't know what else. Okay, I misunderstood. I thought these would be only covenants with age but but these are individual deeds so someone's these are put on their individual deed and it carried down 100 years like. Yeah, thank you. There's a lot in downtown commercial development in terms of setbacks and open space and and art. Another way that it comes up in the smaller developments is if a person has a large property, and they want to sell off one single lot to someone to just raise some money and they put a lot of the directions on the property. And they want to sort of mitigate any impact their neighbors may have on them. Okay, but that we have seen the prior actually be the language that was passed by this committee that's on line eight. There was a court case on a property that had intentionally said that this subdivided property could have an ADU. So, while that had been established and statute as a loud ADU that the description had. Okay, interesting. Alright, thank you. Yeah, and I did we'll just say that this section as with the already missing language is prospective. It's not going to invalidate existing right deeds it's prospective these covenants happy at it. Okay, okay. So page 18 is sort of now we're like grab bag topics. So section eight page 18 section 14 is an interesting topic road disclosure. So new language added to title 27 disclosure of maintenance on class for highway. The property owner who sells property located on a class for highway or legal trail, shall disclose to the buyer that the municipality is not required to maintain the highway or trail as described in 19 BSA section, pre 10 non compliance of the requirements of the section shall not affect the marketability of the title of the property. So any realtor that now values their license will disclose that. And then the other rights away. I mean there are other rights away on the class forward. So it could be for sale by owner, you know, situations. This is not making any change to that type of thing just requiring property ownership disclose of the property is on a class for highway and by definition class for highways are those that are not maintained and so that includes paving and plowing. That's a big one. Yeah. So does this include other rights away that might be in a deed for in a, or those articulated already. So, like, like a utility right away or what kind of right. Like a native, and you know let's say you have a landlocked P, you have a completely. Surrounded piece of property. They're often right ways for driveways and other ways of accessing a proper piece of land. Yeah, there I saw one. It was on a class four row. There was a driveway, there was a house, but there was a right of way to a seasonal mobile home in the woods. And I believe that's all in the deed and this was within two miles of this building I mean it's not. Right, but is that already covered the rights way in other places. So I am not a real estate expert. I would just say this is specific, largely a right of way is established through the deed. And so if it isn't there usually is a court case to establish the right of way. And so this is not about that. And I don't know what the other requirements related to those things are specifically. I am not the real estate attorney. Septic. Septic show you. But thank good. I have enough on my platter. I'm an expert in municipal sludge. Well great we're about to talk about it. Great segue. Finally, is language that your committee has reviewed multiple times. There is only one small change to it that I will highlight so on page 18, there are a pair of sections section 15 and 16. This is what has been called reducing the the duplicative permits. I'm not sure everyone would characterize it that way, but currently under statute. And just a reminder, I am not the wastewater attorney and so if you want a detailed explanation of how these things work, I can get you an attorney or you can hear from an hour. But currently under statute connecting to the wastewater system requires a permit full from the Department of Environmental Conservation the state agency as well as the municipality. And so this is laying out an exemption from the state permit if the municipality does certain things. So section six section 15 on page 18 says the following projects are exempt. And that's from the state permit. A project completed by a person who receives an authorization from the municipality that administers a program registered with the secretary pursuant to section 1983 of this title. And so 1983 is section 16, the language is on page 19. And that reads a municipality may issue an authorization for a connection or an existing connection with a change in use to the municipal sanitary sewer connection line via a sanitary sewer service line, or a connection to a water drain via a new water service service line in lieu of permits issued under this chapter, provided that the municipality documents the following in a form prescribed by the secretary. The municipality owns or has legal control over connections to a public community water system permitted pursuant to chapter 56 of this title and over connections to a wastewater treatment facility permitted pursuant to chapter 47 of this title. The municipality shall only issue authorizations for a sanitary sewer service line that connects to a sanitary sewer collection line and a water sewer water service line that connects to a water main. The building or structure authorized under this section connects to both the sanitary sewer collection line and the public community water system. Authorizations from the municipality comply with the technical standards for sanitary sewer service lines and water sewer water service lines in the wastewater system and photo water supply rules. The municipality requires documentation issued by a professional engineer or licensed designer that is filed in the land records that the connection authorized by the municipality was installed in accordance with the technical standards. The municipality requires the authorization to be filed in the land records. So that's the only new provision to this is filing it in the land records. And the municipality requires the retention of plans that show the off the location and design of the authorized connections. The municipality shall notify the secretary 30 days in advance of terminating any authorization. The municipality shall provide all authorizations and plans to the secretary as part of this termination notice. A municipality issuing authorization under this section shall require the person to whom the authorization is issued to post notice of the authorization. So part of the notice required for permit issued under 4449 title 24 or other by law authorized under this chapter. Okay, so there's a lot there. But basically, in order for a town. In order for projects to be exempt from the state project of permit. The town has to meet all these requirements and demonstrate to the state that it has done all these things. A lot of them just require sort of the documentation that the standards are being met. So this one piece is new. So that just means we've looked at this language and committee, but at least twice. Yeah, or for several years. I have been trying to deal with the duplicative permits along with Jeff Weinberg, former mayor for over a quarter of a century. Mostly everything goes through the municipalities municipalities water and sewer. It just is a double fee the state doesn't come out and do anything. You just charge a developer. And this says you only get exempt from paying that if you're on both water and sewer. There are a lot of places that are on municipal water or municipal sewer but they're a lot provides plenty of space for septic or for a well. And this would mean I'd have to pay a double fee to hook up to the city sewer, unless I was also looking up to the city water. So you're thinking of maybe an or instead of an yeah. Yeah, I have a bunch of questions but I can go through them pretty quickly and I agree. I was wondering why it's and. So obviously what you looked at previously didn't get that. That's right. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for your effort. But this is this, but maybe this is the year. No, this makes so much sense to me. It makes so much sense. Yeah. Yeah. This is still when the state was sure that the towns were going to put love a town all over the place. There's, and just, yeah. I totally agree. It's the nanny state. So, just a couple questions on how this would work so fish do right. No, there's a lot of reasons to do this and, but I wasn't going to go into those I was just going to go into the process. Do towns need prior authorization from the state. It looks as if they do not. Do you want to do to be able to do this. Yes, they do. Okay, is that said somewhere else. It's so it's the first. So, it's in combination with the prior section so the news finally administers a program that is registered with the state. Okay, okay, and then some division a lays out that they can do this if they. The documents the following items provide provide that to the secretary of a and r perfect so they're registered with the state as an authorized town to do this. Okay, cool. So, I would just a couple of picky things I would just say it means to me issued authorization for a new connection or an existing connection with the change in use is something I would look at or a connection, or change to a water main via a new water service line. And if we have different service areas yet that's what I was thinking too is, is, can a municipality say to me, only has water and not sewer, can, can they be part of this program. I don't know. Okay, I would I would hope that they could. And there are private water systems. Right. Well, those those stock they're only I think there aren't that many towns that have private town. No, it's not private is a privately owned business that provides water to most to be some appeal. Yeah, so would suck also has a private water system which we're hoping will change in the future but there are several towns that depend on private water system right and it's not a fire district. Right. Well, we just bought it out but part of Montpelier was a fire district, because the private water system cave in, literally, well, again. Okay, so I mean that it's just this huge right a lot of variability. Yeah, I think it's okay that limit this to municipalities at first just to make it happen. Okay, so. Oh, sorry. Yeah, just a couple. And then an or instead of an and is what I would suggest also but that's what line up online 11, just that the municipality owns or has legal control over connections, or over connections to a wastewater treatment facility but perhaps some other committee wanted it to be and. Well, it's, we can start with that. And then that's kind of the same comment on number three and then sometimes you want to require pre treatment as a, as a owner of a subject or a wastewater facility. So I would just want to put that in. I think that that the municipalities authorized to require pre treatment, but that may be in the registration. I think let's cause. Sure. Yeah. Maybe some people want to workshop this section of Michael Brady. Yeah, or I can even do it offline. Okay, that's fine. The part of it is that some of you have been working on this for years. Some of us come from a municipal background. Yeah, I've been working on the other side of it. In the first half of this we're assuming that towns try and stop housing release lower income housing, or dense housing. And so we're stopping them. And yet, here, where they could stop housing by not having enough water sewer capacity. We're assuming that they're just really nearly passing it out. And I think what I'm missing is probably what you've heard in the past is to. Is zoning why we, I mean, is this a perverse thing? Or is it just a few wealthy towns? Is this a perverse thing where towns are discriminating in housing? Or, you know, why aren't we building housing? I'm not. I'm not clear. I've got a lot of answers, but I'm not. I haven't heard the testimony that tells me what the problem is. We're trying to. And that's the walkthrough versus all the testimony went off. And I, I just want to make it clear to in BLCT's, you know, invited with in the same group there's not a year against so you have to wait two weeks or whatever. And it's not always the towns that stop the housing is the processes that may or may not exist to where someone in the community has the appeal appeal that I don't mind. And we have appeals in here. Yeah, there's one. Yeah, there's one. There are two provisions for limiting appeals, but I think there are lots of barriers. And this we're just addressing a couple. Having sat on both the regional and the municipal planning commissions. And this is a major power graph from the communities. It's the parking to me, and I'm the one that was always against the parking replacement fees. But I also know that parking is the biggest issue in the city. And so you, yeah, to be exacerbating that. It's a it's a major change. I would just like to say, I did want to give us a break, but I would really before you like to get Damien through his few sections so we can let both Damien and Ellen go back to the rest of their lives. And, you know, start with Becky and David next week on different sections the whole rest of the week is then devoted to having this conversation with witnesses that that you want to have so if it's okay people just take a break. So let's just see if we can get Damien out of here in 45 minutes. He has some kind of miscellaneous rights to the right. Yeah, he's got, I think, three or four sections. Right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. And as you know, well, you know, you may have seen that I asked David as the sort of umbrella drafter for this. We're clearly getting to a point where toward the end of the week, both for our sake and people trying to follow along. We'd love to try and have a section by section that's very brief. So, you know, there's a lot of little modifications we make to the bills we go and what we are those live. So, that will just help to, you know, have that from from you as part of a larger section by section. It doesn't have to mean that you are best. Yes, exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And I'll write back to David but very brief just a way to keep track of literally new things. We're like that flow chart that in our. So we're back. We'll be back at 11. So we know we're keeping, we're cutting what we're adding to. We are back live in Senate economic development and we have Damian to go through the next three sections of draft by 21. That's our housing bill starting each time. Great. Thank you for the record Damien Leonard office of legislative council. Would you like me to share this on the screen or would you prefer to just, we have long and you're on drafts. I think we all have it. Yeah, but for the public. Or they can look at it. They can. It's post. Yeah, it's great stylistic again. Yeah. Every committee has a different preference. So I always ask before I get started. So, we'll start in section 19, I believe. So, just to give me a review jurisdiction coming back to that. Right. So ADUs are our side of. We're into enforcement. Yes. Yes, so this is, this is going to bring us into the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which is how we enforce housing discrimination. So that's something to note before I go any deeper into this language that the language we're about to go over applies to both public accommodations and the Fair Housing. So that's something to note if you want to limit the application to just housing, you have to make a few tweaks to the language. So, what we're doing here is amending in section 19, nine BSA 40506, which provides basically the enforcement of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. We're doing new language here at the bottom of the page online 19 that provides that a charge of discrimination may be referred by the Human Rights Commission to the Attorney General or a state's attorney for either investigation and enforcement or investigation by the commission's enforcement. So what this allows the Human Rights Commission to do is in certain instances where they think it's appropriate. They can either ask the Attorney General, probably the Attorney General or talking investigation and enforcement just fix the resources in that option, or following the Human Rights Commission's own classification if they don't have the resources to do the enforcement action they could ask a state's attorney or the Attorney General to do it for them. So it basically adds resources to the Human Rights Commission right now. It's similar to some of the provisions we have around misclassification, where we allow, for example, the Department of Labor to refer instances of what it believes are systemic potential systemic misclassification of employees to the Attorney General because of the greater resources there. On page 23 are really just changes to align it with that new language allowing the Attorney General or a state's attorney to investigate or enforce. We are, and that's modeled on the employment laws around discrimination where under the Fair Employment Practices Act both the state's attorneys and the Attorney General have jurisdiction under the law as a practical and only the Attorney General typically takes those cases because the state's attorneys have limited resources and various portfolio as well. So, with all of these. There's going to be a question of resources for all of these offices so I imagine that will be a subject for committee testimony at some point. In section 20 at the bottom of page 23. We've moved into the next chapter of title nine which governs the Human Rights Commission so we're amending 90 SA 4554 confusingly this refers back to individuals who feel that they've been discriminated against under the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. I apologize for that if it creates confusion the law has been that way for decades at this point so we'll just work with it as it is that changes on page 23 are just technical changes. So you're probably become very familiar with the best point we're making the law is gender neutral. And, what's, sorry what's interesting is that this one has a nice other benefit that they don't have to believe they were. Yes, subjects and also discrimination. Yeah, well so. That seems like a good thing that. The old language that what it implies is that they believe that they might out of them. It's inconsistent with our other anti discrimination laws which say an individual who's been subject to unlawful discrimination. Yeah, as a practical matter, there's going to be an investigation. There's going to be a burden of proof when you get to court or the Human Rights Commission. So it takes the implication out of the law that perhaps these individuals are wrong and put some on the same footing as all of our other anti discrimination was they still have the same burden of proof. Yeah, that's great. Yeah. On page 24. I'm going to go into that burden of proof I was just mentioning so if the complaint states of prima facia case, which basically means that you have to show that you belong to a protected class that you suffered some sort of adverse or discriminatory treatment or at least something that could be characterized that way. And that it can be traced to your protected class. And that you have to prove all of that yet it just means that on the face of the allegation. It appears that you have a case of first glance, and then the investigation and factual development goes from there. So, what this basically provides him to is that the complaint can be accepted for investigation by the Commission. However, if the complaint alleges a violation of the provisions of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act by a person other than the state, because the Attorney General is also the defense attorney for the state so that would create a conflict. In its discretion refer the complaint either the Attorney General or a state's attorney for investigation and enforcement, pursuant to subsection high of this section. So that the other than the state pieces really just preventing some sort of conflict of interest where you'd be asking the Attorney General to investigate the party that it would then be charged with defending court which is fairly problematic. But so this would basically allow them to refer complaints against any private actor or municipality, or any other political subdivision of the state that's not the state government itself. And the next section here we're doing corresponding changes, just to say if the Commission does not refer the complaint to the AG or a state's attorney, it then lays out how the Commission would carry out its investigation. And this is all existing law here. I will skip over it unless the committee wants to dig into the Human Rights Commission process, which brings us down to page 25 subsection E one is again existing law, if the Commission finds reasonable grounds to believe that discrimination occurred. And then this next piece e to this gets to right now. The Commission has six months to attempt to dispose of the case by informal means. So basically reach an informal resolution or settlement of the case. And then within that six months, if they are unable to reach an informal resolution they also have to bring an action in Superior Court, or take further actions that will go into below. And what this does is it extends gives them 90 additional days after that six month period so they can use the full six months to try for formal resolution. I saw a question. Well, it's not directly related to this but I have a constituent who reached one of these agreements, housing discrimination resolution. She didn't think she got what she bargained for, went back asked to be released from the agreement. And the Human Rights Commission said no, you know, this is meets its, you know, and was told there is no appeal from the Human Rights Commission decision. Yeah, I just can't believe we wrote something when there was no appeal to court. So that it's important to know what we're dealing with here is. That's a settlement, which at the end of the settlement you agree to dismiss your case. Yes. It's a little bit different than if there is a decision by the commission and they, they choose to take that to court so what the commission's options are at this point if they can't reach a settlement. Well, this was a settlement. Right. And one of the parties to the settlement. The apartment wasn't as big as the blueprint said it was so came back, said, I want out of the settlement. It's not what I thought it was. And the Human Rights Commission declined to let her out of the agreement. And she said, there was no appeal to that decision for her. So I think this is getting. Yeah, I think this is getting a little bit outside of this and it gets into kind of a completely different issue of the law around enforcement of settlement agreements. So probably better for us to have a conversation offline. Maybe there might be some simple thing like yes there is. Oh, what a nice idea. Yeah. So, if the case isn't disposed of by informal meetings meeting by a settlement, then the Human Rights Commission would have 90 days following that six month period to either bring an action in Superior Court. To enforce the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act to refer the case to the AG or a state's attorney to enforce the provisions of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. And importantly, to potentially pursue a fine, which we're going to talk about in a moment, or they could dismiss the proceedings. Sometimes what you may have is a case where there isn't a clear violation that occurred, but maybe there was some bad behavior that occurred and so the Human Rights Commission seeks to still find a settlement to get the parties to move forward, and to address things even if there isn't a clear or strong case that unlawful conduct occurred. And, and I would defer to the commission for more discussion of how they make those decisions. But oftentimes they can help, you know, an alleged an entity that allegedly discriminated, even if they don't have a clear showing that discrimination occurred they can help them improve their practices. They can get them to enter into a settlement and can also help the individual felt they were wrong to feel like they got some justice out of the situation. But if you don't have a strong case, it would be a waste of resources to bring the case in court at that point so they could dismiss the proceedings. Subdivision three is is really rewriting existing language that allows the all parties to consent to an extension of the time limits to complete good faith negotiations around the settlement. And you'll see the old language struck out just above and on lines four through six. Starting online 11 new subsection I provides that the Attorney General or a state's attorney can enforce the provisions of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act. We're conducting prohibited acts seeking civil penalties obtaining assurances of discontinuance and conduct conducting civil investigations in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, as though unlawful discrimination and violation of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, or an unfair act in commerce this mirrors the language we have in the Fair Employment Practices Act that gives the Attorney General and state's attorneys jurisdiction there. The language that goes on here, providing the same rights and remedies for someone who's accused of wrongdoing and then allowing the superior courts to impose the same civil penalties and investigation costs and order other relief to the state and individuals who are harmed by discrimination. That's what the Fair Employment Practices Act. So what we've done is take what we already have for employment discrimination and bring it into Fair Housing and Public Accommodations to the extent that the state's attorneys for the Attorney General gets involved in the enforcement here. So currently the AG doesn't have this enforcement, right? So what we're really adding enforcement to help the resources of the Human Rights Commission, which is under-resourced. Sadly, Attorney General's attorneys are under-resourced also. Right, so. Which is one of the challenges. Do we have an appropriation with this? I don't believe there's one in the bill currently. But I think if the committee decides to move forward with this language or to consider moving forward, probably your next conversation is with our new Attorney General to ask for. And the office of state's attorneys and sheriffs to ask them if they have the resources and if they see potential issues with this expansion. And likewise, the Human Rights Commission to see if they have concerns about this potential ability to refer and the sharing authority. And not that this is satisfactory, but we do have legally coming this week. I mean, they have a fair housing program and they can only speak to when they feel like this is abruptly ended or ventilated. Oh, I'm sure that the need can be articulated and illustrated. When we, I mean, you know, we just all have to be careful when we add resources to one group and add more responsibilities to another. We have to enable the other group to be able to actually do the work. And I want to make sure I understand who like where this all came from, you know. So this was. Who's going to be defending this fully. This is language that was requested by the working group. I don't know specifically who proposed it. It came out of those discussions. And the fall representative. Yeah, he can point you towards it. And we do have us. Yeah, so I would defer to them on the need that they saw. So, one additional change in here from the Fair Employment Practices Act though on the top of page 27 lines one and two is the cross reference to the criminal penalty for violations of the Fair Housing and Public Accommodations Act, which we'll get to next. So, the next section section 21 amends that section 90 SA 4507 to increase the criminal penalty from $1,000 to $10,000 per violation. There are two important things that one, the penalty is going up by $9,000 to it's changing from a criminal penalty or fine of not more than $1,000 period to $10,000 per violation. There is a significant penalty for someone home cages and widespread discrimination. Of course, it's not more so the court has discretion to tailor that penalty. As it sees fit, if it even decides to impose it. So, and that is it for. Oh, no. Try to try to get out of that. Sorry, I forgot. That's it for Fair Housing and Public Accommodations. Are there questions about those sections. No, I just think we have identified the people we need to hear from. Yeah, there's clearly some some significant policy questions. So, section 22 is a report from the Division of Fire Safety. Fire report on or before next January 15 from the executive director of the Division of Fire Safety. And going on to page 28. It would identify and examine provisions from other jurisdictions fire and life safety codes for residential buildings that would facilitate in Vermont the increased construction of new residential units the conversion of existing space into new residential units for folks. And importantly could be incorporated into the Vermont fire and building safety code. So what this is trying to get out is whether there are code provisions in other jurisdictions. That could make it easier to construct or convert residential units so convert existing building stock into residential units or construct new residential units. That could it be incorporated into the Vermont fire and building safety code. It would give the executive director of the Division of Fire Safety the ability to pick and choose provisions they think would protect fire and life safety, but also potentially allow for improved ease and the conversion of construction of new units. And include recommendations for legislative action necessary to enable any of the identified provisions to be incorporated into Vermont's fire and building safety code. And right now the wording is fairly broad around the division of fire safeties authority. But as far as adopting the code goes, and if you look at our fire and building safety codes. The rules adopted around them include a number of amendments to the national code to make it fit Vermont's needs. And so this is asking whether there are other amendments that could be made. But you'll probably want to hear from the Division of Fire Safety and and and other advocates around housing on considerations with this potential study and whether the language needs to be tweaked. Any questions. Just quick question. So, can other jurisdictions be smaller like towns to be other states. Yeah, it could be, it could be other states, other countries, it could be Canadian provinces, it could be cities. It could be towns within Vermont. So towns within Vermont are required to have the Vermont code as sort of their base. So most likely you're not going to find much in municipalities and towns in Vermont that they would be able to apply statewide but there's a chance maybe there's something that's been approved. So I don't know the details of the code. So that that would be potentially a better question for the executive director of the division. Maybe this would allow the executive director to say, and this is absolutely a hypothetical would say Quebec has a really, you know, a new approach to addressing means of egress, which they've seen bring down the cost of new residents potentially as safe or safer than are required to egress. Maybe we can incorporate that here and make it start doing that consideration of whether that sort of thing makes sense for Vermont given the differences between us and Quebec and Vermont. So, there are a lot of considerations that will come into saying whether a code provision in another jurisdiction would work because of the differences in our building stock, our firefighting capabilities. Even, even just in the basic construction style and technologies that we use, but I'm not an expert on those things by any stretch of the imagination. So I would definitely defer to the fire building safety experts and the folks who are doing housing construction. We'll have them in Senator Clarkson and then we're going to get back to you. Because the other piece we need an update on is how the transition from the town health officers to the fire and safety inspections statewide. That's going, we need an update on that and see how that's rolling out. And because that's one of the other things we did is that we added the ability for towns to access fire and safety health inspectors statewide. Great, because there are six towns, you know, that have their own inspection. Right, maybe even a whole town health officers, many of whom are not wanting to do the work and now we're required to do so. Great. Thank you for your time. So, yeah. Yeah, that was speedy. So, I don't know. Yeah, I would say for the next section with Becky. I'm going to go to the witness chair. We have, I would, I made an executive decision, I will say to take anything TIF related and put it in here because I didn't think we would have time to set finance a separate TIF bill, but now we have three people on finance in this committee. So, I wanted to spend the next 15 minutes just talking about very high level, what TIF sections are in this bill, and then having an open discussion on whether or not how we, how we flow tips that may not be in this bill. That makes sense. Okay. Becky Wasserman legislative council. I think everyone is familiar with tips, but I didn't know if you wanted me to go over very broadly. Generally, they're different in the moment, but I mean, I'm familiar with the one you ski one. Yeah, well, I think they're different from each other. Right, but the new ones that we're going to do these projects based tips. Right. Yeah, yeah. I don't know what you wanted to have questions. Okay, because he is different when you ski Burlington and Georgia, all, and then finance did a statewide standard. So other than that, I think there's five. Okay. They're all the same. So, because very generally speaking, it is an economic development tool that helps where municipality can borrow funds for public infrastructure, and then the idea that will bring in private investment and increase property tax revenues. Also, perhaps I think it became a bigger issue today, given what the headlines look like for Burlington. So, my paper was in the drive. It won't have the headlines for three days. Yeah. I don't want to take us down a rabbit hole, but the auditor has deemed Burlington for a number of mistakes that are expensive. And Burlington is not denying at least some of them. So we may have to look at tips as a bigger issue than just Oh, these are issues. We tried to get a change to the inspection schedule and the auditor and the treasurer from Burlington couldn't work it out. It was quite frustrating. Right. So we may not have time for that here. Okay, so. So that there is the existing tip district program that I think everyone's familiar with whether the districts in certain municipalities, but what is in this bill is setting up. What has been called the mini tips for project based tips. And so, and I wanted to give this over because a lot of the language is essentially using the framework for tip districts to set up how the project based schoolwork but they're sort of on there on a smaller scale. And so this product based tip language, I think, started three or four years ago. And has never, never passed. And the version in this bill is slightly different than I think what everyone has seen before. I can, I can walk through the language I can sort of know where it is different from where it was before. Yeah. And just in the highest level overview. I want to make sure I remember. So far, is this is this project based tests and there's the two tip extensions requested from very city and perfect. Thank you. Thank you. And that completes the tips. Yeah, so there are three. So there's the project based tips and then there are the extensions for two of the active. So I can run through the project based tip language. Sorry, I'll go back to the very tip. I think I just received today, what the extension was for that. So right now the language in the bill is a placeholder. So I can fill that out in the next draft. And those are all being introduced to separate bills too. Okay, that's how they use. Oh yeah, you can't. Okay, I'm just saying one of them, they're being introduced to separate bills. Right. You know that both are. I know that art. Okay, well that's, that's, I don't assume one of the very rich. Yeah, introducing. So it's being introduced in the house and so I don't know who starts up to extension. Nobody stopped me. It could that could be my fault because I went to the LCT and said, could you tell me who is testing extension. Yeah, it's, I've not known the LCT to be involved in the process before. I am saying to you a heart for two extensions coming to you also. Okay. Okay, so. Yeah. Okay, so the project based tip language starts on page 28 of the bell. And the subsection a has all the definitions that apply to the project based tips. So the first note, the title of the section that was different is that in previous years when this was introduced, it was a pilot program, but this is not being introduced as pilot program. And then, and I can go into greater detail if you want, but I can get a note where some of the definitions there are changes. So the definition of financing for tip districts is basically saying the debt that municipality encouraged that they can use to pay for the improvements in the project. And in previous years, there was language included on the use of bond the anticipation notes. And so that was taken out in this version. And that was included with respect to when the debt would be counted as being incurred for the purpose of the project being created and the ability to retain improvements, but the clock starts. So, finance anticipation notes can still be used. It's just, they're not in this. My, my understanding is yes, there was specific language in previous years on trying to clarify when the use of bond anticipation notes counted towards the, like, the first occurrence of debt. Okay, and I think because this is, yeah. Okay, these projects are shorter time periods for the benefit debt inference than a district so I think maybe it I think maybe that was left out because of the way these are structured but this language came from the ACCD so they could probably speak to what they took it. So, shorter time periods, less money, smaller projects designed for smaller to be able to access. Right, the tension. Yeah, only for 20 years, or actually now with, and there is, I will not love the discussion in my head because it is a religiously held that you do not overturn with logic or data. Whether or not those projects would have been built, whether or not. Would the Hampton Inn have gone in and paid money into the Ed fund somewhere in the state, rather than in downtown Burlington where the, or not Burlington, St. Albans, where the money doesn't get paid into the Ed fund for 20 years or all of it. Yeah, I know, no, like you don't talk about that anymore. No, there's no logic. There are a couple of things in this building, like whether or not rich people will move in or out of the state, no matter how much you tax them that data doesn't matter. We either believe it or we don't. Some of us have some of us hate. Okay, some of us love tips, but vote against many tips. I am the queen. Good to know. Yeah, we want to have some discussion about whether or not this will be a discussion. I'm thinking we may be moving out of the need for big tips, because they really are only suited to larger municipalities that really do have a finance of planning the zoning department. Maybe, if we did with big tips and focused into the more smaller and then is that the best way to finance those small projects. But that, I think, might be a good discussion. But, but small towns came to us and said, can we do. Yeah, no, they're, they're a pretty good source of funding. Yeah. So, moving on to page 29. We have improvements. So this is the sort of infrastructure that the use quality is doing with by offering to pay for that infrastructure. In the origin there was language about the use of service payments, limiting it to five years that you get on service payments. And that was removed and included here is in the definition of improvements that says off that this also means the funding of debt service interest payments. This sort of making a policy decision that the legislature has been wrestling with the last few years about whether those are included in what we came for. So we're looking to be the decade we've heard to pay for debt service payments. There, the previous version was a definition of a nexus requirement. The definition was removed but later on in the language, there's a determination that Betsy has to make to say that there's a nexus between the improvement and the development and outcomes. So that's sort of still in here just not in the definition section. The definition of project on page 30. This is what can be, you know what do you mean by a project. In various versions in the last time scheme out of Senate finance there was a monetary cap on the amount of the project. So that was removed so there's no, there's no cap on this, you know, the size of the project in terms of threshold. And some of the criteria was changed so this has a project must meet one of the following for criteria. These line up mostly with what the district criteria are. So on page 31 under subsection B. Again there was language removed to this being a pilot program. Previous versions had a limit on the amount of projects that could be proved during the term of the pilot program. So it has no limits, the number of projects that does say they're not more than one for me as college. We closed that out last year and it got out and broke. That's a good question. I think it's good. Because there was also S33 which wasn't the district bill that didn't get out of finance. I think the mini tip bill made it and the limit. There's some concern that small towns who have three to five, so what for members who may or may not know anything about finance or development, a clerk treasurer may or may not know anything. No town manager know that you could easily get yourself in over your head, especially if you've got a developer selling you a bill of goods. And that's other than the impact on the Ed fund. One of the concerns that service can find. Thank you. We have hit noon. And I think it was, I think it was valuable to start talking about there are some changes that if we discuss project based tips again would be, you know, new last changes to this bill. I don't think the discussions we haven't seen before. Senator Brock here today was not feeling well. But I think there is a bigger question looking at Senator Cummings about if you want to see project based tips come from this committee, or see it in a separate bill that goes directly to your committee with other tips. You want our informal. Yeah, I don't care how it will come to us. The question is, do you want the rest of your bill coming to us. Because I've got enough new members. Yeah, I don't know how it's going to shift out. I think that the extensions need to come to us as separate bills. Those were the last resort. Yeah, I believe that how it should be a formal application not. Right. Buried in an economic development. Right. So, just, does anyone currently hear how strong feelings about project based tips in general, or us giving informal input versus sending a bill over. So maybe we introduce separate bill on this topic, and we'll definitely so that we don't send the whole housing, other areas, because the other pieces would go to a probes, but not necessarily to finance. Planning is zoning changes. They may go to go off. I mean, I think we're giving other committees. Yeah, passing. Just, you know, we will, this will, you know, and never resources, they will probably have a day long, you know, kind of discussion. Yes. Well, we would come in, you know, and give them a chance to think about it. But unless someone has strong feelings. We'll, we'll certainly strike the extensions. And for now, we could do it separately. We'll request a separate project based tip bill, if anybody would like to be on it. I'd love to be expressing interest in moving in that direction. You know, but you don't have to be a happy to be a fan. And I think we're going to hear a CTV, so ideas on how to support us. Yes, and BLCG will be coming in in our favor. This is to them. We so that I wanted to have that discussion while we were online so that this isn't just here without conversation, but I think we've got in committee. And that's the path that will take us. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.