 good morning everybody this is other than to say you're in really good hands that Mike is the director help me Mike I don't know the full title yet director of legislative opera legislative help me director of legislative operations Ron thank you I'll do my best not to let the room burn down next week and that's a new title for you right Mike that's correct on act 144 past in late June separated the operations unit out of pledge council okay the committee assistance and the administrative part of the legislature is now in legislative operations great no that's some something we'll get used to so if we refer to you as the in from the wrong division please don't take it personally and when we get our next legislative Facebook next year I'm sure we will well as a director of legislative operations is that is that what you're saying so D lobs is that what you're doing is that how you call it down in the office is with an acronym yes when we're in the office that's what we do jobs yes okay all right welcome everybody it's Friday morning and September 4th and we are about to begin another session for general housing and military affairs we have two bills that we're considering this morning one is s187 which has been sitting in human services and was given to us this week it is about very vaguely it is about providing an exemption to landlord tenant law for certain facilities for certain care facilities we have several witnesses to testify about that today we've Christon Ali from from Sheppland housing trust Jason Williams and Claudio Fort is here was here from Rowland and so in support of this bill so without and then we'll get to s237 after that and we have Jacob Emmerich and we'll have I believe we'll have commissioner walk with us at some point to discuss it further facets of that bill so who would like to start from from either Jason or Chris Chris do you want to do your usual team it up and then pass it to Jason I'm be happy to all right so please Chris join us the microphone is yours thank you again good morning again for the records Chris Donnelly with the Sheppland housing trust it's good to see you all again although I'm sorry that you're back in September and I just before I get into this I just wanted to thank you for all the work that you've done the coronavirus relief funds that you helped allocates in June are already being put to use we actually heard last night that we have approval to create 68 new apartments and Essex I've got to house people who've been experiencing homelessness and that's directly due to the heavy lift that that you guys all took advantage of in the in the extended session in June I also spoke with one of our residents yesterday who hadn't been able to pay her rents for months and has now been given a grant through the Vermont state housing finance agency that's also money that you helped move along and she takes care of her granddaughter who is starting up the school and she's just so thankful not to have to move and to have that kind of security so I just wanted to start up by saying thank you for all the efforts that you made this bill s187 should be a much simpler approach than many of the things that you have been working on the aim of the bill is just to avoid unnecessary and adverse health outcomes vulnerable for monitors by exempting them from our landlord tenant laws when they are in a short term stay at a motel and when they're being paid for by a medical center or hospital medical center or designated agency it's a small exemption in land or tenant law that just gets at some of the most vulnerable people that are being put up in motels when there's no place for the hospital to safely discharge them this came about I don't know how many are familiar with Harbor Place but Harbor Place is a motel that Champlain Housing Trust owns and runs in Shelburne that is a more structured approach to the motel voucher program we bought this motel about seven years ago soon after and we have a contract with the state to put people up when the shelters are full or there's no other safe place to be soon after we open the hospital medical center here in Burlington approached us and said you know we have lots of people in our hospital beds that we've been discharging to motels or we can't discharge because there's we can't discharge them to attend can we build a relationship with you and we said sure we're happy to happy to do that the the benefits in Harbor Place is that there are services right on site to support people so it's a much better place to be than and then he just scattered in motels around the the trick with Harbor Place that we soon found out was that because of the market in Chittenden County people were staying longer than 28 days and at 28 days you trigger landlord-tenant law and so people could be establishing tenancy after 28 days two or three years ago the state the legislature approved an exemption in the current statute that says that if you are being paid for through the general assistance program which 30 of our people every night are if you're being paid for but through the state program then you do not establish tenancy and so that clean cleaned up part of part of the challenges when we were having to move people out after 28 days for a day and then move people back in so really disruptive for people's for people's lives and at times we would lose track of where people were and then they would they would fall into not more difficult situations so this really was a kind of safety net for people that not have to move them out and disrupt their lives that change in the law did not include people that were at Harbor Place or at any other hotel that were there because of medical reason because they're being paid if they were being paid for by the hospital and so this bill essentially just adds those people the small number of people and Jason can get it more into the details the small number of people that are being placed in motels because they don't need a hospital bed and but they do need a safe place to be instead of a tent or a substandard housing so it adds that exemption into the law so that people aren't establishing tenancy and we don't need to remove people after after 28 days already in statute hospitals and nursing homes are exempt I mentioned the GA program with people are being paid for that's what the GA program or if you are staying at a campground you're exempt so this just adds another another pretty safe pretty simple addition to that that statute so I think I'll I'll leave it at that and happy to answer your questions but it's a it's a I think it's a pretty straightforward pretty straightforward bill the one thing I will add just since I saw this this morning there may need to be a just a quick technical change to the bill that if the enactment date is July 1, 2020, which is already passed so we'll need to that we'll need to be updated okay yeah we just had a bill that was a concurrence with further amendment because of the date in another another bill we have two questions right now for representative representative Kalaki and then walls thank you Chris is this unique only to harbour place are there other situations around the state that this will also apply in east of bird I I don't think it's you do is not unique to harbour place I think there are probably other medical centers that are putting people up in motels harbour places and one of a kind facility but I do believe I've heard that a similar type of facilities is starting up in Rutland and you'll have so much from the Rutland regional medical center here. Thank you. Here's a false. Thank you representative clack he just asked one of my two questions because we have had people and Barry being placed in motels and I didn't know if any of them work for medical reasons. So OK we don't know the answer to that my second question people being placed for medical reasons is the funding different and does that create a problem or is that an issue we need to address in the bill. It should not be an issue that you need to address in the bill. The funding is different. It's coming straight from the the medical center or a designated agency to pay for those those rooms. I'm sure. Well it's I'm sure Jason can can answer that a little bit more detail but they have a charge to not discharge people into unsafe places and therefore they use their resources whatever part of money that comes from to pay for these rooms. We have a discounted rate for all the people that we work with at our place we charge forty two to forty five dollars a night for a single room. So it's a little cheaper but they also get services. Right. Which is part of what makes our place unique. And so that's I mean in forty two to forty five dollars a night is roughly almost half the price of or just over half the price of a motel room without services. And certainly is far cheaper than a hospital room. All right. Any questions for Chris right now. Chris obviously you're pleased. I know you wanted to also be present for the conversation on us to thirty seven if we have time. So I'm going to pop over to Katie McClendon because the bill is so short. I just like to have her do the walk through and. And so Katie please go ahead. Sure. Let me pull up the document. That's the underlying statute. Let me switch over. Here we go. So good morning. Katie McClendon Office of Legislative Council and we're looking at S 187 this morning. And you'll see that we're we're working in Title nine section four four five two, which is within the chapter on residential rental agreements. And so we're looking at exclusions and this particular statute has a whole list of exclusions that are in current law. And basically all of the items in this list are excluded from residential rental agreement law. And so Mr. Donnelly referenced the occupancy for recipients receiving general assistance and emergency assistance. That's an existing subdivision eight. And what this bill does is add a similar car of our exception at subdivision 10. And that reads that transient occupancy by an occupant placed in a hotel motel or lodgings in connection with health care treatment or recovery where the occupancy is paid for either by a hospital. D.A. designated agency or a specialized service agency. Regardless of whether the occupant is subject to the meals and rooms tax and that language tracks the language in subdivision eight. So that's the whole carve out. And then as was noted previously, if you decide to move forward with this, we'll have to update the effective date. And that is the whole bill. OK, and so just in terms of just in terms of research, if we want to, obviously, we can go directly to the underlying statute which you had posted there for a split second to have all of the exemptions, just for if we were interested in that. But this is, I don't know, this is fairly clear now that we know what the context of it is. Does anybody have a representative Hango? We have your hand up. Thank you. I just wanted to ask another clarifying question. I think it's been answered, but this did come up in one of my communities because we do have a motel that is being used to house folks. Even though the GA program or motel voucher program is technically paying the motel owner, the money for that is coming from Medicaid or a designated agency. Is that correct? Because this person might have a medical condition. I'm not sure if I'm the best person to answer that question. I guess I'm sorry I wasn't meaning to address that to you, Katie, anybody who wants to jump in and answer that, Chris, maybe? Most of the people that come through the GA program are being paid for by the DCF. And is there reimbursement from Medicaid if they're being housed because of a medical issue? I'm not sure that maybe Jason or Claudia have the answer to that, but I'm not sure about that. I'd have to get back to you on that. OK. Yeah, and I think that there's a, I think, well, let's let Jason and Claudia maybe address that before. So without further questions for Katie, let's move to Jason and then Claudia. Thank you. Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. I'm Jason Williams. I'm the Network Director for Government and Community Relations for the University of Vermont Health Network. And I was involved 13 years ago when Champlain Housing Trust through a really collaborative inclusive process stood up our place prior to Harbor Place. Some of you may remember the GA motel voucher rules were very different. And many of the patients who we saw and this is most acutely at UVM Medical Center just from a sheer numbers perspective, as you can imagine, but many of the patients that we saw who were experiencing homelessness before a health incident before they needed health care services qualified for those emergency motel vouchers. When DCF changed the rules on those vouchers, we suddenly found ourselves with many highly vulnerable individuals who no longer qualified for an emergency motel voucher. Almost all of the patients we typically were discharging, we're not going to qualify. And so we were facing a situation with an unknown number of patients who had been experiencing homelessness with no safe discharge plan. As Chris said, we are bound by law to ensure safe discharges for every patient, whether they are safely housed or not. And sending somebody who is highly medically vulnerable back to where they came from, which could have been a tent or from a shelter. If that is no longer safe because of their medical condition because of the treatment, then we cannot discharge them. And so we had a pretty significant backup in the hospital. And then we started going out, as Chris said, to motels simply to find a safe place for people to be able to go and to recuperate. When we picked up the phone, those charges were two and sometimes even three times what the Harbor Place alternative ended up being. And as Chris said, and as you said, Mr. Chair, those those placements didn't come with any services. There was no case management. There was no access to services to ensure that somebody is able to to go on to a permanent housing solution. So when we started this, we found ourselves uncertain of exactly what the right patient characteristic, what the right patient profile would be to send to Harbor Place. This was brand new territory for us. And so we were sending patients who were very close to being back at their pre-medipal incident, pre-Healthcare intervention baseline. And so originally the stays at Harbor Place were relatively short, averaging less than a week for the patients we were discharging and paying for to go to Harbor Place. This gets to what I think is an important question, which is why now we're seven years into this. Why are we now thinking this is an issue? We have the services that are being brought to bear are more mature. They are better resource than they were seven years ago. And we know how to put people there and have them be successful in that setting. And so we are now, for instance, sending patients there who are actively receiving health care services, not just who need a discharge from the hospital, so somebody who might need a lengthy period of infusions. Somebody who is going to be prepping for a surgery or a procedure. We've really expanded our thinking about the types of patients or anticipated patients who benefit from Harbor Place. And so what we've seen is a really remarkable increase in the average length of stay for people that were sent into Harbor Place. This is also coupled by what Chris said, and that's a very challenged market for getting people permanently housed. The barriers are seemingly endless. So we are at a place now where about 60 percent, between 50 and 60 percent of the patients that were paying to stay at Harbor Place are staying there for more than 28 days. And these are exceptionally vulnerable individuals, people with past trauma experiences, people with multiple chronic illnesses, significant mobility challenges, people who may have been in a homeless service organization in a shelter setting and their illness makes it so that they are no longer that is not a tenable situation for them anymore. And so we can't discharge them back to a shelter. And so we are seeing very ill, very vulnerable people and sending them to Harbor Place with a receiving exceptionally good service. And so that length of stay has increased. And that means that on that 28th day, these folks are being packed up and moved to avoid tripping the tenancy requirements. And that is not the service they need. That's not the experience they need to be well. Quite frankly, it feels rather inhumane. And so that is why now that is why we think that this change needs to happen. As for the payment piece of this, the first year that we were partnered with Champlain Housing Trust and others at Harbor Place, we've used a small pot of some investment funds that the hospital has to invest in social service organizations as a bridge. I made a promise with the then manager of case management and social work that this could not be a program where we are depending on those one time sort of philanthropic investment dollars to make it work. And so he we agreed that if we could get this off the ground, he would turn that into an operational expense out of his budget. And so these funds are coming out of the case management social work budget, which gets used for any number of other things related to supporting our patients from transportation to food to closed any number of other things that a person may need. And that expense has significantly increased over time as we have increased the number of patients who are successful in setting up the Harbor Place. The vouchers for people. My understanding to your question representative Hango, the vouchers are paid out of the DCF budget. Medicaid will reimburse for whatever care the patient may receive and they may receive care in Harbor Place. I know that UVM Health Network Health and Hospice regularly sees patients there. But my understanding is that they do not reimburse for the housing component. That's actually a pretty significant red line when it comes to federal rules around Medicaid expenses. They really don't pay for housing as many as many times as we have tried to finagle it. It just won't work there. But they'll pay for housing in a hospital. Yes. And the cost differential, the cost differential is. How significant the difference between forty five dollars a night and a hospital stay? So the cost of a hospital is significant. Or we're talking exponential orders of magnitude is the difference. I will also just take a moment to plug that most of the patients that we see here. There's actually a very high percentage who are Medicare covered patients. There are a good percentage who are Medicaid covered. Very few in the single digits from a percentage perspective who are commercially insured. And so for the hospital, we are reimbursed below the cost of care for over 90 percent of the patients who we discharged to Harbor Place. And so by being able to use Harbor Place, we are able to, as I like to say, lose less by getting people into that more appropriate, more cost effective setting. And losses by the hospital system are paid by us all. Correct. Yeah. Representative Hango, then Kalaki. Thank you. I think most of my questions were answered, especially by the observation from the chair that if a person prior to Harbor Place is being housed in a hospital for medical reasons and cannot be discharged, then the hospital is reimbursed by Medicaid or Medicare for those those expenses for housing. And I do understand that that is a great operating loss for hospitals. So taking that a step further when the person leaves and goes somewhere like Harbor Place, then the state picks up the tab for that person's housing, which essentially is quite a bit less, but it still does come out of all of our pockets. Is that correct? For many of the people that we're sending to Harbor Place, we the hospital, we UVM Medical Center are actually paying. Very few of the patients were discharging or qualifying for the state's motel vouchers. OK, so then therefore we're still paying when we when we who have commercial insurance go to the hospital and need a procedure or a stay. This is reducing those cost increases. That's right. Yep, thank you very much. That was a great explanation. Senator Kalaki. Jason is Rutland now doing this as well? Do you know Chris mentioned that John and Rutland are looking at doing this? We have we have Claudia with us. We have their next witness is going to. Oh, OK. Sorry. OK, can you explain to me right now what happens on the 29th day at Harbor Place and what this will change? I actually think that this is a better question for Chris. OK. To to explicitly put him on the spot. We are we need to move them to a different motel. They need to move out and then they come back. OK. And when you say they have to move out, they have to pack up all their stuff. They have to actually you can't my my memory is that you can't have a storage shed for them to put their stuff in, which is disruptive onto itself for a day or two. Like they have to move out. Is that is that your own is that what happens? That's that's what's supposed to happen. And who times we who pay to actually try to make things a little easier for people. OK, yes. No, I understand. But how is that paid for like on day 29? When you when Champlain Housing just has to move them out of Harbor Place to somewhere else. There would be the Medical Center Medical Center continues to work as an agency. OK. Thank you. I understand. All right. Representative Gonzalez. So just as a follow up for that, of if they're somebody is having the middle of care, which is why they're there, then they have that care interrupted as well, that they're not able to access the services that they burn accessing in Harbor Place. Is that a correct understanding? So if they're receiving care at the hospital that were, for instance, bringing them back to forth in a taxi to receive or an SST, then they will still receive that. If they're receiving home based care from UVM Health Network, Home Health and Hospice, they'll still receive that. The interruption is in that on site case management. And those onsite services that cannot be effectively provided in a scattered manner. OK. Thank you. Representative Toronto. Thank you. So how long do they have to move out for? Is this a matter where they step out for one day and back in? Or do they have to stay out for a certain amount of time? I mean, I understand that packing up and leaving is is pretty crazy. Also, what is the situation on that? Let's be out for a day. One day. Yeah, it's to be inhumane as Jason. I mean, there's just no real reason for this to happen at all. And it's just treated reset a clock vulnerable citizens as as, you know, as some kind of commodity. You know, it's just it's just bizarre. And to re clarify, before we move on to Claudio, just to re clarify, the this narrow exemption is not for. I mean, there's already an exemption for people receiving GA. But this is this is something that's just like, I don't know if it's fulfilling the circle, but it's also it's this isn't for some people who. Well, I guess if people are being paid for by GA, generally speaking, that's your primary population. I'm just trying to, you know, just trying to like figure out that this is this is a narrow exemption for people who are coming to Harbor Place or in Rutland or some other facility that may be created as being paid for by a hospital for their care. I just want to make sure that we're, you know, that this isn't. This isn't broad in opening it up to, you know, some slippery slope on the landlord tenant law. This is an exemption that fits in with stuff that already exists, nursing homes, hospitals, et cetera. And I mean, am I seeing it that simply? At Harbor Place, to annualize our pre-COVID time, I would expect if we were to annualize that for the current year that we're in, you'd be able to count the number of people on your hands and feet, on your fingers and toes. It's really 20 to 50 maybe who would be impacted here. OK. And Chris, is Harbor Place still being operated as a as an emergency center or is it back to normal business? Harbor Place is the state's isolation and recovery quarantine facility for people that have no other place to be isolated or quarantined from COVID. OK. And the success is that we have between one and three people there a night. So it's underutilized, but that's the success that we have had in Vermont. Great. Thank you. All right, with that, I want to move over to Claudio Fort from Rutland. Claudio, if you can, this, I believe, is your first visit to our committee and appreciate you becoming available for for this conversation, because I think it is important to see that this is going to be a need that's growing across the state. And so having Rutland pick this up is is really important. So if you could just introduce yourself, tells who you are, what you're doing and and and what you're working on, that would be great. Great. Can you hear me? Absolutely. All right. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee. I am Claudio Fort, the president and CEO of Rutland Regional Medical Center. And I appreciate you allowing me the opportunity to speak to you this morning. About our support of S one eight seven here in Rutland in our most recent community health needs assessment, Rutland Regional identified housing issues as one of the top four health needs in our community. And because of this, we have been very excited and I've been partnering in support of a new transitional housing project that's being developed by the Rutland Housing Authority. This project is modeled after the successful Harbor Harbor Place project in Burlington that you've just heard about and you're probably very familiar with that's run by the Champlain Housing Trust. The Rutland Project, our relationship similar to the relationship of University of Vermont Medical Center has with Harbor Place. Rutland Regional Medical Center will enter into an agreement with the Rutland Housing Authority to secure access to some of the housing units to support patients being discharged from our hospital. Like Harbor Place, the Rutland Project will have wraparound support services being provided through the Homeless Prevention Center, the Rutland Mental Health Designated Agency and our hospital to help these clients transition to permanent housing. So this bill, S187, for the reasons you just heard earlier, will help us support our patients recovery who might require more than 30 days in this setting. So we don't have any experience yet. The project is being fast tracked. The Rutland Housing Authority was able to access some coronavirus relief funding to make this happen. And we anticipate that the Rutland Project will be complete and built out mid-December and ready for occupancy by the end of the month, end of December. So for the same reasons that you heard from Jason and others this morning, we respectfully request your support of this bill. So thank you for your consideration. And I'm happy to answer any other questions you might have. Just to repeat, so the project that you're working on is CRF? Is that is I'm sorry, is that a CRF fund? Yes, for the for the development of it, they're accessing some CRF funds. Right. And so you're able to get it done by, as you just said, you're going to be able to get it done by by the deadline. I think Kevin Loso from the Rutland Housing Authority would have been here this morning, but he is actively he's been really focused on. He's, you know, they're in the final permitting stages. So and finalizing their financing. So he's really scrambling. So you you got the B team of me instead this morning. But yes, that's that is the plan and similar to what again, similar to what UBM is doing, this our project is modeled on the Harbor Place Project. So for those same reasons you heard from Jason earlier, Rutland Regional, it will be providing financial support. We're providing some capital support for them for up front for the buildout. And then we will have an ongoing service agreement where we will secure two units for use for hospital patients being discharged. It's great. No, that's great. Representative Gonzalez, you may have said this and I missed it. But what's your anticipated population for this building? There are a plan to 12 units in this building. And I think two of them are going to be for families. And some of like our unit, we are we're going to have reserved for the hospital to single bedroom units. But there's going to be a kind of like in the hotel type situation where there's going to be a door in between that you can lock from either end. So you could open that up if you did have a larger family unit that needed that. OK, thank you. No, I'm really happy to hear that. We're able to to see the Harbor Place model grow and and really people making decisions to grow it based on, you know, the data that that Harbor Place has been able to show over the years. So congratulations for getting that going and thank you for getting that going. Well, thank you. No, really, the credit goes to we were playing a small part in this. Really, credit goes to Kevin Loso, the Rutland Housing Authority and Homeless Prevention Center and others who really made this happen. The one other thing that I would add that you might not have heard earlier, not only is it a financial issue for the hospital when we have people who don't need hospital care residing here at the hospital. It's also a space issue here at Rutland. We are back to precovid levels for inpatient care. And those patients seem to be anecdotally sicker than they were precovid. So, you know, we have 30 medical beds on our floor. We can flex up to 35, which we usually do starting in the winter. But after that, there's no room at the end. So, you know, that causes a lot of challenge and disruption when, you know, when we just don't have room for another medical patient because there's someone who and actually it's, you know, the hospital is not a good place to live and to spend, you know, weeks or months of time. It does not help your your ongoing recovery and so forth. So, you know, there's a big financial impact, but there is also a recovery and impact on the patients that are being affected. All right. Any further questions for our witnesses before we turn on the conversation amongst ourselves? All right. So thank you, Claudio and Jason and Chris, please feel free to hang out. So, so committee, as I mentioned, as we started, this is this is I think I'll first say, please bear with the fact that this is an end of biennium situation where we don't have six weeks to consider this bill under normal circumstances. But I do think the reason I asked for it was because I do think that it's it's pretty narrow and pretty simple and fits into all of the work that we've been doing to try to mitigate homelessness and and provide some care to the to the most vulnerable. So I would just put it out on the floor and just ask what are our thoughts? Just any comments, any thoughts, representative Byron and then Wals. I mean, on the first run through it, I see absolutely no problem with this. It's a very focused exemption that I think is very logical, especially as we're dealing with a COVID world. I don't think it makes sense how it's operating right now where we're kind of needlessly moving people around in shelter situations. So on this first run through, I completely support this. To Tommy and then Chip and then I think Mary's trying to press her. Mary, are you trying to get your hand up? There you go. OK, well, I agree completely represented Byron. So I guess I can only second what he said. This seems to make a lot of sense, especially during our COVID emergency, so I fully support it as well. Great. Representative Triano, then Howard. Thank you. Yeah, it seems outlandish to me that we would ask sick Vermonters, critically ill Vermonters, to pack up their bags every 28 days to step out of the motel for one day and move back in and motel, which is costing a fraction of what a hospital state would cost and saving the state thousands, hundreds and thousands of dollars, possibly. So I would support this totally. I, you know, for those reasons, I think it just doesn't make any sense. I've had friends that lived in foreign countries that every three months you have to step over the border to reapply for your to for your visa. And that seems to be the same kind of thing. Only we're dealing with people that are critically ill. You know, that disruption has no place for our homeless ill Vermonters. Representative Howard. I totally support this bill. It has been an amazing effort by a number of agencies in Rutland. Kevin Loso has done an amazing job. And thank you, Claudio, for appearing today. So I I I highly suggest that we go forward and pass this bill. Representative Kalaki. Well, I think the sentiment is there. So I think I would I would move to concur with the Senate and with that one proposal of amendment of just changing the date. To upon passage. All right. Do we have a second right now? And I'm going to pause after that. I'll second. So so Representative Howard, do you have a just are we prepared to to do a vote? Are you prepared to do a vote? Bear with me. I have a brand new iPad I'm learning to navigate here. Yeah, the dog ate your iPad. You know, I think the dog took the iPad and hit it. And I know it is in my house because it told me that it was. We just couldn't make it sound off so I could actually locate it. So but anyway, have you looked in the have you looked in the gopher hole in the backyard? No, it's in the house. OK, outside. I would need to have rents and me the the sheet for me to call. Yeah, so I'm just curious. Do we need can do we want to just come back to this in? In an hour and have the vote and let the back and forth go on? Is that is are you comfortable with that, Mary, rather than trying to get it all done in the next two minutes? Sure. So, Katie, you have a version of the bill. I mean, I think I asked Katie to just change the date to upon passage, which is what happened on the floor this week. So that would be. I mean, this would have to go back to the Senate after we do this on the floor. But again, it's just for them, it would just be concurring with the date change. Um, so, Katie, is that ready to go? So. Sure, I can have you take a look. It's with the editors right now, but I can show you the unedited version. That's yeah, that's fine. And then then if you want to come back at 10, 15, if you need to be here, I don't know if you need to be here for for that. But I think given Ron, given the process, it's been a while since we passed the bill. So, um, Ron, basically you would forward the final version to the clerk and then Mary would send an email to confirm what the vote was. And we'd be all set. Is that right? Right. I send Representative Howard a copy of the record of action that I've completed based on the vote, which she confirms. And then I send both her confirmation and the record of action to the clerk. OK, so let's but we'll need the amended we'll need the amended version of the bill or at least I need the draft number in order to put that into the record of action. OK, so Katie, can you show that to us? Sure. And then Mary and Ron, if you can just write down whatever the draft numbers that shows up here. Is that lawnmower audible to everybody? Outside my window. So, again, this is the unedited version. I'm not sure if the editors will change the lead in language, but it basically says that this committee was referred. Senate Bill 137 reports that it's considered it and recommends that the House concurs with further amendment in section two by striking out July 1, 2020 and inserting a luther of passage. So section two would read this actual take effect on passage. Isn't it 187? Yes, it is. Thank you, Ron, taking over the proofreading. I know. Thank you very much. So, Mary, just for your preparations, it's draft one point one. That's 187. I'll I'll send representative Howard to a farm with all that information on it. All right. And so we we do have and just the and and just to keep it open. So representative Kalaki made the motion and to represent trying to seconded it. So you're halfway there with homework. All right, well, thank you, committee. And thank you. We will return to this at after 1015, after we hear more on 237. I've asked representative Gonzalez to report this bill. So I don't know if you need anything from Katie, but please feel free to reach out. Look at the underlying statute just to see the list of existing exemptions. And I think this will be a rather short floor presentation, I would hope. So thank you, everybody. This was I'm glad it seemed as simple to you as it did as it did to me and to the advocates earlier this year. Thank you, Jason. If you want to return, feel free, but feel no pressure to feel no pressure to stick around for the next conversation, unless you'd like to. Same thing with you, Claudio and Chris. Thank you. I'm sure Chris will give me the happy news at 1015. Great. Well, thank you for my testimony. Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you, Claudio. And again, thank you, committee. This is it. I mean, especially the way that representative trial put it, it seemed like it doesn't. It it only made sense to fix that. So let's take a breath and move back to S to 37. Ron, are you supposed to contact just any of the witnesses? No, I told them that the first part would take a 45 to 60 minutes, which is almost exactly what we did. So they should be on their way. They've both submitted documents. So I know they know. OK, and I'm going to take a look at documents. Well, Jacob is here. Right. So Jacob, if you could join us. And we'll get to the commissioner after your testimony. So the Jacob joined us last week and but didn't really have an opportunity to testify full out. And I wanted to give Jacob. So we have heard a lot of testimony from from folks who on this bill, some of whom oppose certain sections of it and some of whom support sections of it. And I wanted to come back to Jacob because Jacob is this is his work in the at DHCD. This is, you know, Jacob is kind of in charge of interpreting much of the law that we're talking about and certainly in what we're what we're discussing about changing. And so I wanted to get his take not just on just on the perceptions that they've been working with in terms of moving this bill forward, but also to offer us, you know, there have been statements made about in testimony about what effect this bill might have on local planning and zoning. And I just wanted to, you know, offer Jacob a test an opportunity to clarify some of the testimony that he heard and, you know, let us keep working on sifting through what the effects of this bill might have on all the different facets that we've heard about. So Jacob, if you could just start by, you know, just start with the bio maybe just give us your VT for a little bit and then just, and then open up to testimony and you know, will people can pull up your the documents that you've provided and we'll go from there. Great, thanks. Thanks, Chair Stevens. And I don't know if at any point it'd be helpful to share the screen, but I- Yes, Ron, if you could share the screen and then Jacob can, if Jacob can pull it up, that would be great. Great. So thank you, Representative Stevens and thanks for the opportunity to present on S237. So for the record, my name's Jacob Emmerich. I'm here today as a Planning Policy Manager in the Department of Housing and Community Development. I moved to Vermont in 2012 in St. Albans and have since lived in Colchester and Berry City. I worked for the town of Milton as a Planning and Economic Development Director and have served on my local Planning Commission and now serve on City Council in Berry. I'm a proud member of the Vermont Planning Association as well as the American Planning Association and a member of the Institute of Certified Planners. And I'd like to begin by just saying how much I respect and value the testimony from the peers and colleagues. One of the things we're called upon to do as a profession is to seek social justice in our code of ethics, is to seek social justice by working to expand choice and opportunity for all persons, recognizing a special responsibility to plan for the needs of the disadvantaged and to promote racial and economic integration. Our code goes on to say that we shall urge the alteration of policies, institutions and decisions that oppose such needs. And so you heard from, I'm sorry, I'm just trying to pause to see how to go to the next slide. Oh, and Jacob, you can, do you wanna, are you comfortable sharing screen? Yeah, absolutely, I can share my screen. Is that the better way to do it? Yeah. Ron has made you a co-host. Great. There you go. Okay, so perfect. Thanks Ron. Yeah, so you heard from Commissioner Hanford that the administration supports voluntary zoning reforms because we know for many decades planning, studies, reports, project funding and program administration, the local reforms are really needed to make more naturally affordable housing. And we've seen that in the neighborhood development area designation program we administer that requires certain local zoning provisions to become eligible, as well as our more recent project that you've heard other people testify about are zoning for great neighborhoods. And I think the important thing to keep in mind of course is that zoning essentially says what can happen where the planning and development community kind of affirmed this recognition that we do need local zoning reform in a survey we conducted as part of the zoning for great neighborhood effort, where the stakeholders listed municipal regulation as one of the top four reasons why it is difficult to build housing in walkable places. And the top three are all impacted by zoning as well, the lack or high cost of available real estate. You heard Kathy Byers talk about that yesterday from Ever North, high construction costs and people resisting change in their neighborhood. To really understand some of the challenges even for the smallest scale incremental home, a good case study to check out if you do have time is the ADU, the accessory dwelling unit checklist the department put together. And recently did it walks policy makers through some of the steps a typical homeowner would take to build a very small home. And you've heard very thoughtful and I think well considered concerns from the planning community about the disruptions. There are four elements of this bill would have on local regulations, the environment and community character. These are important to take into account and to balance with the economics of housing and the needs of people in Vermont. And as this committee is really well aware, housing supply is mismatched with demand. Our stock is very old, our individual households are going down, the total number of households are going up, the population is aging. And at the same time, we have two key age cohorts, boomers and millennials that are increasingly competing for the same units, convenient, walkable, small, affordable, easy to maintain. And more new housing is being developed outside of our centers than inside. And that's increasing fragmentation of working lands. And again, even more so now affordability and supply is reportedly strained by migration and demand. We all know that zoning can make homes less affordable and exclude. And in a way this bill is kind of an acknowledgement that as Zuzana Davis pointed out in her testimony, zoning, land use and housing policy have been used for several hundred years in the United States to physically and socially segregate people. And it has worked exactly as intended and created predictable patterns. She goes on to say an obvious approach to this inquiry should be to reduce our pattern matching. That is if we want different results, we need to perform actions that are different from what we've been doing for so long. I think balancing the needs of our friends, families and neighbors and future neighbors with the needs of the environment and community aesthetic values are really important and careful deliberations by this committee I'm hopeful can make this bill even better and thread the needle appropriately. This bill prompts some hard decisions about the best level of government to ensure people have opportunities to live, work and be able to stay and thrive in Vermont. And it would add preemptions to pass legislation addressing municipal exclusion of mobile home parks, recovery housing, multifamily, accessory dwellings and more and certainly not something to take lightly. And I'd like to be able to talk a bit about the specific provisions of the bills and some of the concerns the committee has heard. I think maybe based on some misunderstandings about the authority of municipalities to regulate in direct ways that are less likely to restrict opportunity and choice. For instance, a really direct way to protect historic character is to apply historic design review in a direct way to ensure development doesn't occur along water and sewer lines in places where municipality doesn't wanna see development is to restrict connections to those water and sewer lines. And I know a key concern about this legislation has been on mapping water and sewer in the municipal plan. This is, we think this is important in that coordinating water and sewer investments with land use, planning and regulation really drives affordability for energy, public services, housing and more. And that's because when water and sewer goes in development pressure typically follows. Water and sewer enable smaller lots, less land than is needed for a well and on-site septic. And zoning that mandates load densities in areas served by water and sewer typically results in auto-oriented sprawl versus more compact forms of development such as smaller lots and narrower streets. Water supply and sewage disposal mapping is already in statute, but it does, it is in with statute with less specificity than proposed. And many municipalities are already doing this. And so it came as a surprise to me to learn about some of the bioterrorism concerns that municipalities have. For instance, here's a future municipal plan, future facilities map for Berlin. It shows existing water, existing sewer, planned water, planned sewer, sewer areas, water source protection areas, pump stations, where the plant is. And that's a co, I'm not gonna get the term right, but it's a shared system with Montpelier. The general is a planning practice mapping improves permit predictability, public asset management and public transparency. And in terms of where does this bill or which municipalities does this bill affect? We have reliable statewide data on municipalities that plan, municipalities that regulate land use, municipalities operating a sewer system and the general service areas of the sewer systems. We have data gaps on municipalities that operate a water systems that are fire districts consistently map water service areas, water system constraints and sewer system constraints, which can be very nuanced as a public works director will point out where one trunk line might be able to take on a brewery and another trunk line might not be. The statewide mapping status of wastewater systems is in progress by an A&R. And we know 94 municipalities operate wastewater systems and 83 of those regulate land use. These maps are available on the Vermont Planning Atlas where you can hone in on individual communities like Plainfield, Vermont where you can see their town boundaries, their approximate service area for their wastewater system and exactly where their sewer lines are located. I think there's been just a great drive to make more information like this transparent and available to the public. And just this year we have now a fiber broadband map that's available to the public for the very first time. And we've included on the Planning Atlas. Municipalities can also regulate their systems by ordinance and define service areas and have pretty sophisticated tools in terms of allocations, reserve capacity, distribution point systems. I'm not an expert in that field but there are lots of tools in municipality can exercise in their water and sewer ordinances. That have a big impact on land use. And here's another example from a municipal plan that shows that the water lines in Milton, Vermont. So shifting a little bit to the section. I know you had heard a recommendation that the bill only applied in known lines and I'd recommend that the bill retain present and prospective lines as a best practice unless there's more information about bioterrorism or other concerns that would otherwise restrict it. So shifting to section two when we think about the economics of the housing market we're really asking how supply and demand impacts prices and quantities with a focus on permit infrastructure permits for in infrastructure served areas to expand housing availability and getting to those conveivable units of real estate whether it's a lot with the building, a condo in a building or a co-op chair begins for builder and often in a local zoning office. Someone essentially rolls out their plans like cookie dough I'm gonna build on off the cookie cutter metaphor here and the local zoning acts as a cookie cutter to determine what can get built. Statute and zoning both act to establish boundaries and edges and the core question is what tool at what level gets Vermont to the cookies or homes we so badly needs? In other words, how do our policies wall people off or invite people to build the homes we need? This section is narrowly focused on housing cost drivers like land cost, unit density, discretionary reviews and parking and the committee has heard really a lot about density which in zoning is a super complex term because it can refer to many things. You can talk about lock density you can talk about building density, unit density and people density but I think most people have been referring to it in testimony and in the committee as unit density which I think is really important but an even more basic building block of a community are streets and lots only from there can you begin to talk about building density, unit density and other density. And I think being more permissive about unit density is helpful and Catherine Byers talked about and Suphiland about how that helped enable a great project in Brattleboro. I know St. Albans is building and building many housing units in their downtown. And I think that unit density really helps well finance its sophisticated developers and her places like those where you can get the count you need to build a larger building on a lot that gives you that unit count. Permissive densities can also help people unitize historic home something you've heard some many communities are concerned about but what that unit density doesn't get at again is the most common form of development using the most basic building block of zoning bylaw the lot size and focusing on density over lots means that a bylaw is less likely to result in an affordable single family home. The more land you require for each lot the more expensive it is. And I know many people dream in Vermont of owning a single family home and for many people in Northwest and Chittenden County it's really out of reach for a lot of people. And a lot of people don't have an interest in building a duplex or a four unit building or and being a landlord. But single family homes we know are the most common form of owned housing in Vermont not condos or co-ops or common interest properties. So I just wanted to give that grounding and density and hopefully that helps frame the different types that we're talking about. So the first provision that's a bit controversial in section two is to allow multifamily housing without a character test. And I know there's been some testimony about this triggering density. But I think VPA has a good solution in their proposed edits. Because really what this was intended to get at was eliminating the character tests. And this provision will apply to all municipalities that plan and regulate in zoning districts that allow multifamily housing for small multifamily housing projects like this one photo pictured here in Winooski. So that would affect about 202 potential municipalities. And just I'm not sure if you've gotten any other testimony on a character test but it's essentially a test that's used for in regulated zoning districts where use has been defined like multifamily has been defined as conditional. And conditional uses then get subject to five discretionary reviews including character of the area. And that then becomes subject to a board review. It's not something that can be reviewed by the permitted administrator in that board review in the way that criteria is framed generally makes that review less predictable and opens a wider door for appeals. When that happens it can increase the cost of housing and make it harder to build. So limiting this as a review standard does not affect municipalities ability to apply site plan review, design review, historic preservation, form-based code or other standards to ensure that what gets built is in character. It's more about does the by-law use clear and predictable standards so that somebody who wants to build multifamily housing can have a clear path to a permit. Are there any questions at this point? No, okay. So the second provision is the extending accessory unit flexibility. And it seems like there's more consensus around this provision. This applies in all municipalities that plan and regulate on earn or occupied lots that aren't in a flood hazard area with a single family dwelling. And the whole point is to allow larger ADUs with owner occupants and empower the municipalities to regulate those ADUs distinctly from short-term rentals. The next provision is to allow development on existing small wads. So this would apply again in municipalities that plan and regulate with existing non-conforming small wads. So they're generally those lot size that have setbacks or a minimum lot size that aren't in compliance with what's in the regulations that are served by water and sewer. And there are 83 municipalities potentially affected by this provision. And I have an example here of a building in Bellis Falls, a beautiful downtown building that would typically be illegal to develop under many Vermont by-laws. And that's because many of our by-laws were adopted in the 60s and 70s and reflect auto-oriented suburban values and make our historic pattern of development illegal. So the work that like Mike Miller talked about doing in Montpelier is really important where you try to match the conformity, try to bring your code up so that most of your buildings conform, or your most of your code provisions conform with the buildings and lots as they exist. But in a way, if we're gonna go farther, we need to go beyond just matching the pattern. And before talking... Jacob, I'm sorry, can I, and I don't know if this coincides with this, but the, so we heard from the LaMoyle Regional Planning Commission and they were talking about the problem, not the problems, but some of the difficulties in developing like this in their downtowns because of the, they're in the flood zone and they do actively flood. How their language that they proposed would say, well, we can't do that because there's certain land issues here. I mean, there's just, I can't do that because the river is gonna flood here. So can you, does this play into any of the overlapping zones that like an influvial zone or flood zone where people are absolutely banned from further development? Well, I can say we absolutely don't wanna encourage the development and flood zones that would otherwise be restricted. And as I look over the provision, it's looking like that that could be that the LCPC has flagged a gap that this committee might wanna, it should address. Okay, thank you. And Representative Walls had a question. Thank you. I'm really glad to hear from you, Jake. And I've got one of my big issues with this bill is I've been trying to picture what the heck it would do in Berry City and you would know. So I'm gonna ask a specific question. For those of you, Jake and I both live on Camp Street in Berry City where the housing lot size is typically a third of an acre or bigger, quite a few bigger. I just don't understand the potential impact on a street like Camp Street. And I'm sure many other communities have a street like ours. Yeah, that's, you know, that's how I understand how it would work. Yeah, it's a perfect question. I think it feeds into the next slide, which is a scenario-based slide. And so we're in different zoning districts in Berry City and I think you have a higher minimum lot size than mine is. It would allow smaller lots in your zoning district. And here's an example of a small scale lot subdivision scenario. So let's say you have a couple that are retiring and they want a smaller, lower maintenance home that frees them up to take more vacations. But they can find very few small homes in their community, which is pretty typical in Vermont. And they've looked at the senior apartments in town, but they don't feel quite ready for that. They live on a third acre village lot or it could be a city lot, zone for residential uses and served by water and sewer with capacity. And they really value kind of the convenience of living in the village. They like being able to walk to the store and library. So they go to the zoning administrator and they learn that the zoning doesn't allow them to subdivide, but it does allow them to build a one-bedroom ADU, which is kind of the current threshold and statute that's commonly put in local bylaws. But the thing is they kind of want two bedrooms so two people can visit and they're really not keen to be landlords, which is what we hear quite a bit around the state. And also their existing home would need code improvements to meet the rental housing safety code, which they could sell without doing any of those improvements. So really what they would prefer to do is be able to subdivide and use their extra land to build a small home that meets their need. And so with a water wastewater permit, local lot size reform like proposed in this bill would allow this couple to subdivide, build a new home and sell their old home without leaving their neighborhood and community. So essentially what it would do is allow more infill development for the residential uses that are permitted in that zoning district. Is that helpful, Representative Walts? Yes, it helps. And I have a second question. And again, you're familiar with what we've gotten Barry. We have a couple of tiny homes. And I'm just wondering how, what we're getting is an image of we're taking maybe an existing structure and turning it into four units or we're building something like you showed us in Bellows Falls. But I'm just wondering the concept of tiny homes like we have in Brook Street and Barry, how does that fit into S237? I think it would enable, it would enable more tiny homes that people wanna build them. I think one thing that's unusual about tiny homes is that they've fallen into this odd category because they're often on wheels and so they can fit in different boxes and different zoning codes. But a small home on a foundation, whether it's tiny or moderately small would be treated equally under these reforms. So we're not necessarily talking about one building containing four or eight units? No, the local bylaw would still establish the allowable uses. And this bill would allow a duplex on a lot. Okay, thank you. All right, another representative Gonzalez. And just in a follow-up to that line of questioning from Representative Walts of that, as your scenario slide laid out and as my understanding of this is that there is no requirement to subdivide or no requirement to have extra infill. It is this scenario that you provided is what I keep thinking about in terms of people who own a lot that would like to be at the point of selling it would like the possibility of subdividing it and that as you've laid it out is what this bill would allow, but it's not forcing anything. That's correct. And I think our observations of the housing market in Vermont is that very few places have an explosive market. Most development is very incremental. Enabling does not equal actual construction. You heard that from Sue Filion, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility. And I think that's what this is getting at. Okay, and I'm just gonna, Jacob, it's 9.51. I just wanna acknowledge that the commissioner is that Commissioner Walk is here too and we need to get to him and then back to that other bill. So I don't know where you are with stuff. This is a very incredibly thorough slide deck. Thank you for providing it. Hold on, Representative Hango, do you have a question right here before we let Jacob head to the quarter poll? Yes, I do. Thank you. Just a quick question and it may not be a quick answer. And you can tell me that you don't know what it looks like, but thinking of a town in my district that has water and it has no services other than a quick stop slash gas station. So if this stretch of highway in this town were to have this type of dense development, what do you see that looking like? What purpose would this serve to this community? Well, I think when we look at places in rural Vermont and maybe like Highgate or maybe a scenario like that, many of them, and it's not true everywhere, are struggling to maintain population, to sustain their tax base, to keep students in classrooms. And you saw from more columns that many communities are seeing a decline in housing supply. And so, and with an increasing number of households and a decreasing number of people in those households, if you're not building more housing units, I think small villages like that could be really putting themselves at a disadvantage by not welcoming new residents. And I think that's the link here is that it's about long-term prosperity and these reforms have been very difficult for communities to achieve. Well, thank you for that answer. I absolutely cannot see what value a planned community would have unless they had services such as stores and some type of transportation. I can't see this stretch of road benefiting from this at all just because it has a water system and somebody wants to sell lots. Thank you. Thank you. Would not that town need to have more of a zoning plan in place under these circumstances? I mean, in order to plot this out, there has to be a master plan. There has to be a municipal plan. Does there not? That's correct. They do have to plan and regulate to become applicable. Right. And if they did, this would supersede whatever that town has already planned was my understanding that someone who was interested in developing could develop under this statewide law. They would still have to go and get wastewater, they'd have to get the permits that exist now that they would have to do now. The municipal plan would have to be written in coordination with state law. Anyway, there's, I don't know that anyone, I mean, Jacob correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't view this as somebody looking at an open slot in an unzoned area and easily being able to develop that without local input and without the correct permits in place to talk about capacity, just because we have a sewer system doesn't mean that I can build, like Stowe said, 51,000 units. I have to have the capacity to do that and capacity is not only processing capacity, but it could mean 51,000 units and Stowe might turn Route 100 into a spur of I-89. That's a capacity issue. So I'm just, I just wanna make sure we're drawing the right lines here in terms of the interplay between what Representative Hango is concerned about, which is that this state law would supersede the local stuff in ways that would be truly detrimental. Well, we don't have sewer system, so it's up to whatever the soils can support for septic systems. Right, which is a capacity issue, yeah. Thanks. Yep. All right, Representative Kalaki, and then I wanna, again, I wanna let Jacob, and Jacob, I think I have you scheduled for next week as well, at least for one day. So, John. Jacob, your testimony was very helpful to me and it's very thoughtful and it looked like you were actually reading from some prepared remarks. So I would benefit if that's true, if you could send those along as well so I can spend a little more time with your thought process. I can do that. All right, thank you. So, yeah, Jacob, wrap it up or where do you want, I mean, what is it that, what's the last word you wanna leave us with right now? Cause I mean, we still have a lot of homework to do on this bill and especially on these sections here. I mean, what's the best way for us to look at, again, you said that some of the recommendations that have been presented are well worth our consideration. As we go ahead into the weekend, what is it that we should be looking at in terms of our work next week in terms of some of these issues that have been brought up? Yeah, well, I think we could, I could loop back on Tuesday with a better informed or better framed response to that question, but I think VPA is offered some very well considered proposals. DACD would be a little bit concerned about linking any of these provisions to the designated centers. And part of the reason for that is that these are very constrained geographies because they're mostly designed for, or initially were put together to support tax credit projects to fix up historic buildings. Though some like the growth center and neighborhood development area are better prepared and aligned with elements of this bill. The bill focuses on sewer and water service areas with capacity for lots and buildings that can make connections. And I think that's a better focus than tying them to designated centers. And that's because municipalities have the authority to regulate those areas and link it with their land use. And the substantial, is it the substantial needs report? Is it the substantial, what is it called in the bill? Yeah, the substantial constraint report. They have a long list of things that could be taken into account, which I think the bill does address by saying other public services. They mentioned stormwater schools, transportation. I don't think that it would be wise if the legislation didn't take those constraints into account because they're gonna be very legitimate reasons why a developer's not appropriating a particular place. So one of the concerns that I heard from some of the planners was the notion that this substantial constraints report was not fully developed, or that is it, is that that's something that would be developed over time at DHCD? Is that what the original thought thinking was on that? Yeah, I think the bill language would require that DHCD provide a template in guidance on the form by January 1st, 2021. Okay, okay. And I view that as one of the ways of people having a safety valve if they feel like they can't do it. I mean, I know there's other pieces that go along with that, but representatives on. Yeah, just a quick clarifying question. When you said that you didn't want it tied to designated centers, I'm a little confused. I don't recognize that term. You don't, are you saying that, because part of the testimony we heard was maybe tying it to neighborhood development areas. Are you saying that that is or is not a good idea? DHCD would prefer that they not be tied to the state-designated centers because not all state-designated centers are aligned with water and sewer service areas. And the geographies are generally very, very small areas. For instance, it's the historic center, commercial core of a town or of a downtown. And they're usually the sewer and water service areas serve a much, much broader area. And so we'd like to see the impact would be greater if the bill was linked with water and sewer service areas instead of designated areas. But acknowledge that that would be an incremental step towards expanding housing opportunity. I think I'm hung up on the, you're using designated areas. Is that an official nomenclature collectively for the village center, downtown designation and neighborhood development areas? Or is it just, you're just using it loosely? No, that's an official nomenclature for yet designated downtown, designated village centers, new town centers, gross centers and neighborhood development areas. Okay, thank you, helpful. All right, thank you very much, Jacob. I think it's, there are times where I feel like the information, especially the slide that you put, is like a sponge before we add water to it. I think that there's much more information in there. And I think for the committee, I think if we can look at Jacob's in coordination with the other information that we've received, I think it will be very helpful homework to do. Feel free to stick around for the commissioner's testimony, commissioner walk. Thank you so much for waiting. Welcome to our committee. I'd introduce ourselves if we were in 3D, but you can see all of our names on the screen, I presume. And I just, if you could, my understanding was that you wanted to testify originally on the privacy issues regarding the water systems, is that right? Or is that, was that, there might be Jeff Weinberg from Rutland on Tuesday, but at any rate, welcome to the committee. And if you want to just introduce yourself, tell us where you sit, what your interests are and what you'd like to testify on in this bill. Thank you. For the record, I'm Peter walk. I'm the commissioner of the department of environmental conservation. I broadly speaking, we are supportive of this bill. It's doing a number of things that we are appreciative of and in support of making housing more affordable in Vermont. There are a couple of issues that we see that should be fixed if there's an opportunity to. And I would just love the opportunity to go through those with you. They're relatively small in the grand scheme of things, but they're impactful for the individual communities that are represented. And I just want to have the opportunity to discuss them with you. And then as for the privacy matter, that must be Jeff. I'm not aware of what, of those concerns. And I'm not planning to testify to those today. If it's possible for me to share my screen, I can walk you through sort of some very explicit changes that we would recommend. And I can explain the why of those changes relative to the bill. I know you're sort of just getting your arms around this bill that. So maybe this might be a little bit premature, but I didn't give in the timeframe that you guys are all operating under in this confined session. I wanted to make sure that we had those things heard in part because some of the proposed language that came out of the Senate, unfortunately gives the false sense of hope that the department might be able to do something to support a local community that it cannot because of federal requirements. And I just want to make sure that we're all on the same sheet of music. All right, so you have been made a co-host. So you should be able to share the screen. Let me make sure it's as big as it possibly can be. Let me know when you can see my screen. It should be a document talking about it. Couple of sections of the bill. All right. So one of the proposals in this bill is to make a qualified flood mitigation project eligible for downtown tax credits and sort preservation tax credits. We are very supportive of that work. We think it's a great plan. As we talk about kind of creating dense housing opportunities, one of the challenges that we face, and this is a climate change, both a mitigation and an adaptation from a mitigation and adaptation standpoint is the fact that many of our existing built environments which we'd like to take advantage of and create public transit and other opportunities around are in floodplains and could be subject to flood risk and other things as we're moving forward. So we need to make sure that we have the opportunity to help our communities weather these storms and be better prepared moving forward. So we're generally supportive. This one is a relatively small change. We worked on the initial language with ACCD. So we're in lockstep here. The language highlighted in yellow where it says with an area subject to the river corridor rule was added at some point in the Senate and it just doesn't, they're not the same thing. When we're talking about flood risk, we really are talking about the flood hazard area. That's the purpose of that mapping exercise is to see where flood inundation could occur. The river corridor rule is really about where there is the potential for high erosion activity. And so they're related and many times they overlap but they are separate in nature. And so you could have a river corridor is something that's mapped as part of the river corridor rule that was a small stream running through, running through wooded area rather than the sort of traditional flood plains that we're thinking about around our built environments where these things might be built. And while it's a relatively small piece, we think it's worth striking that. So you're focused on what's really the flood risk. The other piece is that it's technically not called the river corridor rule. And so it seems that sort of an odd and out of, slowly out of place reference. So our preference would be for you to strike that language. I won't be happy to take questions on it but it's a relatively straightforward piece that I think was put in there probably with the best intention to make sure as many projects were eligible as possible. But if we're really focused on addressing flood hazards then the existing language or the previous language which didn't include this piece would be most appropriate. So is this all this language is new to this bill? It's not existing statute. Correct. Okay. Okay, so that's section 13. Yep, yes. And then moving down and this one is more complicated and it causes me some heartburn to have to bring it to you but this one is specifically related to the situation in the town of Brattleboro where there is a mobile home car in a floodplain that is subject to flooding and significant risk. We have, there is a goal to get those that community out of that floodplain that we share. The challenge is that the language in here essentially asks the department to make the state revolving funds either the clean water state revolving fund or the drinking water state revolving fund available to help those communities relocate out of the floodplain. The challenge being that those are not eligible costs under federal requirements that we couldn't use those resources to move those communities. We can restructure the existing loans that I believe that the town of Brattleboro on the half of the mobile home park has and we can make those longer term. We now have the capacity to make those a 40 year term at a negative interest rate which helps that community save money in the long run but it is not possible for us to provide resources, these resources specifically to relocate the mobile home park. And so I just. It is, I'm sorry. So is that because of an interplay between, I mean, was there an anticipation that FEMA funds would be used for something like this and FEMA funds are not, they may help mitigate flooding but not fund this kind of processes removal. FEMA funds regularly make relocation possible. It is a, it is a frankly long process where our community has to have a hazard mitigation plan. And then, you know, they go through a hazard mitigation grant process. There has to sort of have to look at various options that are available to prevent flood impacts. And one of those outcomes could be the buyout program which you often hear the sort of FEMA buyout programs. That is a path. I don't know the history of this particular park to know whether they've attempted to go down this path. I just want to highlight that if we, if we pass a law that suggests to this community that these funds could be made available that we're providing them with false hope. Okay. Representative Kalaki had a question. Peter, I understand what you're talking about in one but why not in two just say provide similar assistance to this extent possible mobile home parks that have the same infrastructure needs? We're happy to change, to only strike the relocation part. I think we are providing infrastructure support to those communities. And so in some ways it would be kind of redundant of the work that we're doing now. I wouldn't be opposed to leaving it in there but it's really the relocation components thereof that is the challenge. I understand your perspective. Thank you. And then there's one more piece kind of down further below the Senate put this in here to sort of ask us to identify other opportunities to support these communities. And there's a pretty general language in your hear that I think if you're going to pursue this path we would appreciate you better defining it for us which is to improve access and terms with mobile home parks and other small communities. Most communities in Vermont are small depending on your measure. And so in order to make sure that we're providing the advice that you actually seek it would be good to know really what the focus of that piece is. Okay. Certainly we understand that many of these mobile home park communities are in those lands which are most inexpensive and they are often in flip planes and we would love to see them be more resilient and be outside of those flip planes. So this is not a comment on the purpose or the intent here it is simply whether or not the mechanism that's been suggested is appropriate. And so I hope everybody, I hope my testimony can reflect that. We have two questions here. Representative Triano then Hango. Thank you. Thank you for being here today, commissioner. Somewhere along the line and I can't find my notes right now there was discussion about this specific mobile home park and flood plain mitigation. And I'm not sure what that looks like in particular but the recollection I have was that it was something that was being looked at as far as keeping this home, this park where it is and not displacing I guess a fair large number of tenants from it to relocate. And I was wondering if that's anything that you had any information on or what flood plain mitigation might look like. I mean, we talk about dykes around it over here. It's just a mystery to me at this point. So representative Triano I will have to do some more research into the specifics of this. Generally speaking, if it's gonna be a FEMA funded project it has to provide relief that doesn't impact others. And oftentimes a levier or a dyke around a community can have impacts elsewhere and just push the water elsewhere. We know the water always wins. And so planning those projects has to be very carefully done. Yeah, understood. Thank you. Representative Hango. Thank you commissioner. My question is about larger municipalities and wastewater capacity. And with all the changes that have been proposed to this bill I've kind of lost sight of the original bill as written. So Burlington and St. Albans City have both had some big sewage spills into the lake in recent years. And I am not certain that this bill puts a cap on development in terms of wastewater capacity. And please correct me if I'm wrong in that. That specific component representative Hango I will need to go back and look at. I am not sure it does either. But as we've been following ACCD's lead I'll be happy to take a look and see if that's the case. The issues that we have with combined sewer overflows which are where those spills come from or is a longstanding issue that we have or working on changing over time. But it is a multi-billion dollar project to address those across the state. I mean there and it is only getting worse as our storm events are more impactful on a regular basis. And it is those high rain events that really cause the CSOs. And so we need to figure out we need to be addressing those over time and how to retain more of that storm water on the, in the environment so that it is not ending up in our storm water system. But yes, that is a long-term issue that we all are aware of and we're, you know to the public's dismay, we are not moving as quickly as they would like but there is a certain amount of reality as sources associated with the resources needed to address them. So I would really appreciate, thank you if you would look into this, how this bill addresses that issue. This is a tremendously important issue for anybody who lives in a community that is in the Lake Champlain watershed. And I know that I'm horrified every time I hear of a CSO that happens and it seems to, as you said, happen really frequently in recent years. So I think this bill as written if it does not address that, I can't imagine supporting extra development in those communities that could potentially cause more of a problem if an event like this happens again, which I think we all know will happen with the changes in the climate that are occurring. So I would appreciate an answer to that, how this bill addresses that. Thank you. Happy to provide that answer. Thank you. All right, anything else for the commissioner at this time? Representative Byron? Morning, Peter, how are you doing? Good morning. So I got two, I guess two questions for you around the mobile home park component. First, I mean, it speaks very specifically to Tri Park and the Brattleboro area. My district has the Otter Creek mobile home park that also has the same sort of placement on a, I mean, it's on the Otter Creek. And I've spoken with the executive director at Addison County Housing Trust multiple times about the issues with that that seemed to parallel this Tri Park issue. So with this speaking specifically to that, is this, would this exclude access to however the language lands on this from an entity like that? So it is not our desire to exclude access to tools that might be available to anybody. It is a simply saying that the tool that is being highlighted here as a potential silver bullet is not actually able to be fired at the target. So essentially we're appreciative of the effort. Unfortunately, this is not the tool for use. Okay, fair enough. And then I guess like my last question is around Tri Park. How is the money used post Irene to help out with that? Cause I mean, that was long before I was involved in these conversations at this level of knowledge, depth and detail. But with the Irene funds, were they used how it applied in a similar way to what is spoken to in this language or how is it different? Do you know? I'm just curious. I would highly encourage you to have the experts from the modern emergency management, the folks who run our hazard mitigation grant program can talk about all of the work that was done under Irene. I would be skimming the surface at best. And so, and they can really give you a sense of sort of what opportunities were available after Irene. But as a reminder, it's, we've had many more declared emergencies since Irene where, you know, where low lying communities have been affected consistently. Okay, cool. Do you mind just shoot me like a good point person for contact there or just an email or something? Sure, it's ben.rose and vermont.gov. All right. Thanks. Thank you very much, commissioner. All right, representative Long. Thank you. Thank you for coming commissioner. Well, I wanna speak specifically to the tri park issue. And I think I heard you say that you weren't familiar with the specifics around this and if that's so, I would encourage you to review what they have in place, which is a master plan, I believe, to help address the challenges that they've been facing. And it was my understanding that this language was put in there in the Senate and was supported. And there weren't, there was a pushback for this move. And it is, I think you've heard other people mention it is a very, very specific and very critical issue for that community in Brattleboro. And so if you could take a look at their master plan and become a little more familiar with that, that would be really helpful for me. Representative Long, I will happily admit that I need to do that and we'll do that. And we're not suggesting that their master plan is not appropriate, what we testified into in the Senate and to hear is the fact that the fund cannot be used for this purpose. And so that is the challenge that we face. It is not the intent behind the plan, the goals of the plan, it is simply whether or not the money that is attempting to be identified to be used to implement the plan is accessible. All right, well, thank you, commissioner. This is helpful and I appreciate you've taken the time to come in. We are on a, as you're aware, we're all on a fairly accelerated schedule to try to take on this information and process it and try to make sure that there's a balance and I appreciate you coming in and clarifying some of the concerns that have been raised over really an area, I mean, what stood out from Suphilion's testimony last week was how important this mobile home park is to the community, not just as a place where affordable housing exists but that it is 6 to 8% of Brattleboro's population. And it's pretty, so understanding what your changes are, we're gonna, again, that's our homework for the weekend is to try to really understand where you're coming from and how we can process that as we work towards this bill. So thank you, thank you for coming in. I'm happy to be here and again, I apologize if I'm conveying in any way, shape, or form that I don't want to help resolve the issue. The language here suggests that it will provide resolution and I can't provide that to the community based on the rules. And so I'm happy to help think through what other tools we might be able to bring to bear, but I can't bring that specific tool to bear because of federal rules around how those funds can be used. No, that's fair and I appreciate that. Again, I think anybody who's trying to, I mean, when in the aftermath of Tropical Storm, Irene, of course, we've heard in Waterbury, we heard stories of towns in the Midwest that got moved away from a river and up to a mountain. This is the level that we're talking about when we're talking about relocation here. We know it's not simple. We know that basic settlement patterns in Vermont, especially from mobile home parks, unfortunately fell along riversides because the land at one point was inexpensive and water washed a lot away. And we also know that replacing 6% to 8% of a town's population someplace safe where there's infrastructure is, there's probably not enough money in at least Vermont's coffers to contemplate what that might mean. And Brattleboro is not the only community. So understanding the details, I understand that you're coming across with a knowledge of what the federal regulations are as they exist at this time. And so we'll move forward from there. But we are on an accelerated schedule. So if there's something as you're driving along this weekend that you can help, you know, that you flash upon that you can help us with to really assure a community like Brattleboro, like this mobile home park that the state does support, that the state does support their fear that their fears need to be alleviated in some way. Or knowledge that the state has their back in case this happens again, or when this happens again, I think is really the unfortunate way of looking at it. I would appreciate that. I think that would be a great opportunity to hear from the, about Vermont emergency management what their programs look like. Because that, I presume that those, that relocation of a Midwestern town was likely to have FEMA hazard mitigation grant money, which is that is there in place to help avoid issues in the future? And so though, you know, sort of we see, we've seen this a lot where, you know, community or a set of houses flood regularly. There's an opportunity to say, rather than having FEMA come in and assist them every time, let's see if we can find a way to move them out of danger to begin with. And so that's typically the path that's been used. Yeah, and it's not free money. And I won't, we need to move back to the S187 right now, but we'll follow up with that early next week. Thank you so much. We'll work on the pieces that you've asked of me and get back to you. Yeah, all right. And before he goes, Lisa, do you have one more comment? That's what I just wanted to comment on getting back to us, especially on the wastewater because I just see something that came to us from the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission that talks about a prohibition on municipalities banning development on existing lots, one acre of an acre in size, if they are able to connect to municipal sewer and water. So that really does concern me. So I would really appreciate an answer. Thank you. Of course. All right, thank you, commissioner. Have a good weekend. Thank you for coming in. Committee, it's 1029. We have, Katie McLean has returned. And basically we are at a place where we have had a motion to concur with the Senate with further amendment. And we were voting on version 1.1 of S187. That was the motion was made by representative Kalaki and seconded by representative Triano before we ask to start a vote on that. Are there any further comments? Yes, I just wanted to know if there is a clean copy of this that we're reading. I do have a clean copy. Would you like me to put it up on the screen? That would be great if we could just briefly run through it. It's pretty quick. It's also posted on our website. Thank you. That's good enough for me. Katie, are you, I was so Lisa, are you okay? Or do you need to see it on the screen? I'm sorry. Okay. All right, seeing no further comments, the clerk may commence to call the roll. Representative Wells. Yes. Representative Gonzalez. Yes. Representative Long. Yes. Representative Gamash. Representative Triano. Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Kalaki. Yes. Representative Zah. Sorry, Randall, we missed you. If you want to throw your vote in the chat box, still do can't, didn't hear you. Thank you. Representative Zah voted yes. Representative Byron. Yes. Representative Hango. Yes. Representative Stevens. Yes. Representative Gamash. So the vote is 10, 0, 1. All right, thank you committee. Thank you for working so quickly on this. I appreciate it. I know it's appreciated by the folks that this will impact. And so, so Ron and do their magic with this and Representative Gonzalez will prepare for a report and then we will set it in the system and see where it comes up. And I guess, Deanna, if you're, I don't know what the schedule is going to be in terms of a caucus of a whole that will help explain the bill before the vote, but I can't imagine that this would be controversial. So just be prepared for Tuesday. Well, yeah, thank you. All right, committee. Thank you. Good work today. Thank you.