 It's Friday, June 19. It's after 10. This is a meeting the Senate Natural Resources Energy Committee. We are meeting today to do two things. One of we've invited Senator McCormick and Ms. Chukowski to come in so that we could hear the McCormick amendment, even though it's mostly focused on S237 itself. If it were to pass, it would change what we're amending. So I thought it'd be helpful for the committee to know. And then also, as a courtesy of Senator McCormick, past chair of this committee, a former Act 250 district commissioner and chair. So it'd be helpful for us to hear from him. But he's maybe still tied up in economic development. And I don't see Ms. Chukowski either. So let's move on to the other thing that's on our agenda. Yesterday, we were talking Global Women Solutions Act H688. And we had been discussing informally a number of different adjustments to the bill. So I gathered them up in 20 mail, sent them off to Luke and Mr. Martland and asked him to draft. And I'd like to ask Mr. Martland to walk us through the amendment that gathers those points together into one amendment. Morning, everyone, and thank you. Luke Martland, director of the council, chief counsel to the general assembly. I'm here in H688 to present to you a one page amendment. There is four instances of amendment, two are substantive, two are merely technical. So let me pull it up on the screen. Have you enabled me, Jude? And as Jude turns it on and she has, thank you very much. I'll pull it up. And I'll explain each of these instances of amendment. So I don't know if you have your paper copies of the bill in front of you. If you do, you might want to grab them. If not, I'll try to explain what each of these do. The first instance of amendment would be on pages seven, starting on page six, on page seven of the printed copy of the bill. And this is in the section concerning the membership. And what this does is it strikes the word end, which was at the end of one line, moves it down a line. That's not really substantive. But the substantive change is on lines eight and nine of the amendment text you're looking at on your screen. It adds a new member to the council to represent Vermont manufacturers. As a result of this change, the total number of folks on the council would increase from 22 total to 23. Eight of those would be appointed by the house, including this new member to represent manufacturers. And seven would be appointed by the committee on committees from the Senate. Any questions about the first instance of amendment? And just to put in, you know, when we talked to Mr. Cash, Professor Cash about Massachusetts experience, he said, one of the things he thought was important was that manufacturers were part of the working group. We didn't have manufacturers included. Seemed like a good addition. So that's where that comes from. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? The second instance of amendment, if I'm missing you, please just jump in. I can't see everyone on the screen. The second instance of amendment is also in section four in the same part of title 10. It concerns the council, but it's subdivision F. And this is a subsection that's on page 13 of the printed version of the bill. And there's a lot of language in this subsection about administrative issues, how the council functions and runs itself. What this amendment would do is towards the very bottom of subsection F in the last sentence, that sentence currently reads that the council may elect officers and adopt any other procedural rules as it shall determine necessary and appropriate to perform its work. What this amendment does is add to that sense the following. It will now read the council shall meet at the call of the chair or a majority of the members of the council and the council may elect officers and adopt any other procedural rules, et cetera. So it inserts this phrase, it gives the ability if the chair is not calling a meeting for a majority of the members of the council to do so. And this is modeled on language and other statutes with other bodies. Any questions or comments about that? The third and fourth instances of amendment are merely technical. I made a mistake as we discussed when I walked through the bill that it had a five when it should have been a four. This is the third instance of amendment and this is in the definition section. And then last but not least at the very end, there's language in the rulemaking section that this bill doesn't change or limit the ability of any other governmental agency to address climate change or engage in rulemaking. And I use the word promulgate rules. We prefer to use the word adopt rules. So I made that change also. It has no legal impact whatsoever. It's merely a technical change. Are there any questions or comments? No. Thank you. Thanks very much. So I don't know if there's any committee discussion about those edits or they all look fine to folks. Okay, thank you, Mr. Martlian. I had received a request from commissioner walk to talk with us as we picked global warming solutions back up this morning. So good morning, commissioner walk. Morning, Senator. Further record Peter walk commissioner of the department of environmental conservation. I appreciate the opportunity to come back in. I'm sorry I haven't been able to actively participate discussing even having a little last several days. But I did want to reiterate since we had spoken last on this issue, the proposed changes that the administration has brought forward to you and reiterate how important we think this work is to do and to do it effectively to that. And I want to flag something for you that is of significant concern to me as the person who will be charged with the agency charge with implementing this legislation. The house included what we frankly thought was the bare minimum of resources needed to be able to do this work effectively. That what you have included here is a massive planning effort and development of the legal basis and economic basis for a series of proposals and rules and other things that would address climate change. From what we understand, the Senate Appropriations Committee is striking all appropriations language from policy bills and has already moved the first quarter budget out of committee. And so I worry frankly about whether or not there are the resources to be able to do this work. It is a significant concern to be able to, if you're going to move forward that there is, that this is not a sort of empty promise to Vermonters that doesn't have the resources to go along with it. Well, I appreciate that remark. Over the years, we've talked about taking on work. And frankly, one of the things I think our committee has tried always to do is to say, if it requires staff, please tell us because we want to set ourselves all of us up for success. And being short staffed, particularly in like a new program, is not a recipe for success. So then it becomes a matter for the legislature and the administration to sort out, are they willing to invest the dollars necessary to fund something that we're passing? So I agree, we don't wanna set something up that's not gonna be functional once it passes. So, and just as you said, so it's always the norm that appropriations pulling funding from bills. But I don't know what that means in the long run because they routinely gather up strike appropriations, sends bills through, and then once they're settling the whole budget, apply money to programs after, or as they're sort of settling things up in the home stretch. So it's my hope that they'll do the same thing and fund the program. And that's where the bill will go next. So we'll see how that plays out. If I might add to the fact, I understand the sort of the legislative desire to move forward with the first quarter budget that reflects the unknown where we are from the revenue perspective, but from our own internal calculations on what we anticipate seeing in terms of permit revenue, which provides a significant source of our funding as well as state general fund. It is difficult for me to imagine taking on a significant body of work when we are facing deficits elsewhere. And so I'm, yeah, I don't think I need to say any more. This is obviously, it's critically important work, but without the resources to do it and the sober conversation around those resources, there it is not going to be a successful endeavor. And frankly, a planning effort that doesn't have the resources that doesn't lead to the program necessary is not going to be effective. Understood. Okay, thanks for sharing that. And I'm guessing you'll have a chance to speak at more length in the appropriations committee about the whole process. I would say the other piece is, is in thinking through the timelines you have in front of you or in the bill, that if the appropriations aren't in the first quarter budget, which it sounds like that is moving and the likelihood of getting those in is probably fairly slim, then we don't have the ability to get started on the timeline that you've put forward. And so I just, I wanna be, this isn't just a sort of a broader concern about resources, it's a logistics concern about where we are right now in terms of this interesting form of obsession and split up of the budget. Okay. Thank you. So we will be interested in following how it moves through appropriations as well. Thank you. Any committee questions for Commissioner Walk on that score? Okay. We also got an email from our neighbors at the NRB, I see Chair Snelling and Mr. Vogle and Mr. Meenan in the room. I don't know if you're visiting with us today on the Boring Solutions Act or it was on other business, but I just wanna check in all of here. Senator Gray, Senator McCormick has joined us. I see him. Good morning, Senator McCormick. Morning. So we're finishing up some work on the Boring Solutions Act for a moment and then we'll come back to you. You can hang with us for a few minutes. Thank you. I'll mute. Okay. Good morning, Chair Snelling. Do you wanna participate in the, I appreciate you still have the Queenly Wave, the Global Warming Solution Act work? No, I was, I'm very glad to see progress being made but I was waiting for your discussion coming later and just to listen to your final determinations on the changes to act S-237 regarding Act 250. Okay, great. Thank you. So we still don't have Mr. Kowski with us that I can see. So it's a little hard to review your amendment. Well, so Senator McCormick, let's pause on Global Warming Solution Act for a moment and catch Senator McCormick while he's with us as you were scheduled as our first order of business today. So we don't have the amendment in front of us although it is in today's calendar. It is in the calendar. And could you, and you're really amending S-237 which is not a bill that we have but obviously it's on the floor. But as a past chair of this committee, former district commissioner chair, we thought it'd be an Act 250 commission on the next 50 years rep. I wonder if you could just fill us in. So we have the inside story before we're on the floor. Also in my former life as a folk singer, I was commissioned by the VNRC to compose a song to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Act 250 which is how I met Madeline Cunin. And it was on the basis of her knowledge of me from that song that I got appointed to the environmental commission. So Act 250 and I go back a long way. I had the honor of working under the leadership of George Little. I think we need a 50th anniversary song. Perhaps depends on what we do to Act 250. It comes to news for the same as the old song. Well, actually my one point I would make is that this is an old discussion. I was looking over the 25th anniversary of Act 250 and the people were saying, oh yeah, the criteria are great, but we need to streamline it. And now we just heard our Senate president say that yesterday the exact same word, the code word of streamline. What my amendment does is it's a series of deletions. So this is a sort of yes, we have no bananas thing. It deletes the deletions, which means we then fall back to existing law. And the deletions in the bill that the amendment deletes have the effect of basically creating an Act 250 exemption for downtown development. And I am troubled by the very idea of using Act 250 exemptions as an incentive. There's something we want. And so we want to create incentives for that to happen. And the incentive and incentive is a reward. You offer something. If you do this, we're gonna give you this good thing as a reward for doing what we want you to do. And in this case, the idea is we're gonna give you an act that an Act 250 exemption is a good thing, which would seem to imply that an Act 250 was itself a bad thing. And of course, there have been people who thought that all along the knives came out in 1970 and have never gone back under the token. There has been a sense that Act 250 inconveniences people cost some people some money. And the fact is Act 250 was a grand compromise as a Democrat. I'm proud to have dedicated as much time and energy as I have to what was in fact, Republican law, Dean Davis, Art Gibb, George Little, and so on the list is mile long, Peg Garland. The debate in the 60s was between two polls. One group saying Vermont's fine the way it is, keep it the way it is. The other saying development is good. It brings in capital, it creates jobs and revenues, bring it on. Dean Davis, Art Gibb, those folks created a grand compromise they did not stop to vote. They said by all means, in fact, Dean Davis said the great tragedy of Vermont is that our beauty is a function of our poverty. And they said, bring it on, we want the revenue, we want the jobs, we want the capital, bring it on, but do it right. And that's what Act 250 does is it ascertains that it's being done right. And yes, that takes time sometimes, not an awful lot of time. The horror stories about Act 250, the classic horror story is the ski area that took like three years to get a permit for water with Charles for snow making. Well, what took three years was for them to lose their fight against jurisdiction. The fact is down the road was another ski area, they weren't environmentalists, they were good business people. And they thought, time is money. Get the dam permit and start making money. So they didn't fight for the right to use the people's water as though they owned it. They built a pond and they extracted water during high water and not during low water and they got the permit and they sold their ski area for millions of dollars years later. Act 250 is a workable system. If it does take time, occasionally, probably it should. Developments can be problematic and they ought to be carefully scrutinized. Most Act 250 permits are issued in a matter of what 90 days or something. I see a chair snowing here, she can probably give you the actual statistics. So in any case, what I had suggested, because I do understand, we do want to encourage downtown housing and that means we do want to make it as easy as possible. I thought rather than an Act 250 exemption, you want to make it easier to get an Act 250 permit. And my model is what we already have. We have industrial parks that get Act 250 permits. It's called an umbrella permit or a master permit. And then rather than going for an Act 250 permit, a particular development in that area will go for an amendment. And the amendment depends upon the criteria that are not already covered by the master permit, either because they're not covered in the first place or because the new development is somehow inconsistent with a particular aspect of the master development. I asked legislative council to put together an amendment to create master permits for downtown. She started doing research as to what parts of law she'd need to change and she got back to me and she said, your master permit already exists. It's already in the law because a municipality can have its downtown designated a growth center. And if it is designated a growth center, they can apply for an Act 250 permit for that growth center. And then particular permits within the downtown would not be applications for an Act 250 permit. There would be applications for an amendment to an existing permit. I can tell you, having chaired a district commission, some amendments require a hearing, some amendments become controversial, but I routinely told staff over the phone, yeah, put my initials on it. And they got the amendment. Amendments are not necessarily a big deal. My signature is on Act 250 permits all over the place for projects I absolutely despised because my signature did not mean I liked them. It meant in my best judgment, they complied with the law. That's what the commission is entitled to do. It does not put their own prejudices or their own likes or dislikes on. The determination based on evidence and testimony does this comply with the law. And the law is reasonable. So I have offered an amendment basically a yes, we have no bananas amendment. It deletes deletions. And the fallback then is to 24 VSA section 2793C. And that's my second handout. And I would invite people to take a look at it. It lays out the process by which, and this is already existing law, the process by which a municipality can get its downtown designated a growth center and then ask for an active 250 permit for its growth center. I'll take questions. So thanks for that explanation and a little shared history along the way. Any committee questions for Sarah McCormick on this? Okay. Since chair smelling is with us, am I speaking right next to you actually, Senator McCormick? Can you just remind us of something along the lines of the volume of permit applications a year and the rate at which they get approved, that kind of performance thing? Just a rule of thumb, approximately 400 applications. That's a mix of administrative amendment, minors and major permits, which require a hearing. And I would say that something like 72%, 73% of all permits are processed in 60 days or less. Obviously major permits take longer and how long they take is not just a factor of our processing, but also of A&Rs. So it really is the better A&R and the NRB can collaborate. The more I hope we can communicate to reduce that time. And can you, I didn't catch it. So the percentage of applications that in the end, I'm guessing with conditions, but that are approved, are issued a permit. It's a very high percentage, right? 97% of permits, something like that, 95, I don't know, are approved. And I would say pretty much you have to expect that all permits come with conditions because that's kind of the purpose, is to set out what will protect the environment and promote the project, so. Okay, thank you very much. So it's a small room today, so it's easy for us to say. Is anyone else wanna weigh in on Senator McCormick's proposal or while we have the NRB with us, any other Act 250 conversation? Senator MacDonald. I am intrigued by what Senator McCormick has proposed and I, what, when I look at national brands and when they start getting leased out to individuals to put your national brand stamp on something, the quality of that national brand begins to slip. And I think Senator McCormick, while it makes sense or is manageable, if we start allowing towns to claim that they've got an Act 250 approval for something and it has the Act 250 stamp on it and it turns out to be a dud when it's rolled out, ask how did such a thing happen? And many folks would struggle and said, well, Act 250 approved of it. So if we're gonna remove Act 250s, if we're gonna allow people to do stuff in town that doesn't require Act 250 approval, don't stencil on the carton when it's delivered that this has been approved by Act 250 or good housekeeping or et cetera, et cetera. Let the action sink and swim on the town zoning and don't give it a, and don't give it a Act 250 stamp of approval. Just say Act 250 is no longer required and it's now up to the town and the town will take the lumps. I see that Council Tchaikovsky has joined us. So I think to that, following up on Senator McDonald's point, for anyone who's in, the bill is of 237, if this extends extinguishment of Act 250 permits and basically that you're not required to get one in the two areas named like designated downtown districts and neighborhood development areas. I'm just trying to make sure I remember this right. As a condition of gaining the status of a designated downtown district or a neighborhood development area, do the municipalities that can gain that designation have to have permanent zoning in some division bylaws? No, however, only one of the, only one of them currently does not. Okay. And the designation is controlled by the Vermont State Development Board. Is that who does the betting? Yeah, the state downtown board, yes. Yeah, okay. Senator McCormick. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Senator McDonald's remarks caused me to think maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not suggesting that a designated downtown automatically get an Act 250 permit. I'm saying that they can use that designation as evidence when applying for an Act 250 permit. That it would not downtown development designation, development center, growth center does not equal an Act 250 permit that such a center could apply for an umbrella permit as well, it was my understanding of existing law. So any further questions for Senator McCormick or any further discussion on Act 250? Okay, then I think we'll chair Snelling. Okay, thank you. I just, am I still speaking? You're live. Okay. I just wanted to ask Greg or Evan if they wanted to add to the discussion that Senator McDonald and Senator McCormick have just had regarding what this bill will change. And then an interpretation if you will from their perspective on how current law is modified by Senator McCormick's amendment. In less than five seconds. Yeah, so this is Greg Bobo General Counsel and Natural Resources Board. Thanks for having us here this morning. I don't really have a whole lot to add. I think that Senator McCormick's summary of the way that 2793C and its subsection F works is a fair and accurate assessment of how that provision of law does work. I think I could say fairly as far as I know certainly in the time that I've been at 250 for seven years and likely for many years before that we haven't actually seen a designated growth center go through the process that's laid out in that subdivision which as you say does act in many ways like a master plan. So again, I think Senator McCormick did a fine job of summarizing how that provision works. But again, I don't have direct experience working with that provision because it hasn't been implemented in quite some time. Do we not have any designated growth centers? No, there are and maybe Ellen knows better than me there are a handful of designated growth centers but to my knowledge, none of them have gone through the extra step that's provided in 2793C subsection F to gain what's the equivalent of a master plan. Thank you. Mr. Chakowsky, I see you looking like you have information you could share with the committee. Anything you've been following the conversation? I did just get here. So I don't have anything specifically to add. I don't know off the top of my head how many growth centers there are. But, and I didn't, I wasn't here for the walkthrough of the language but Senator McCormick's language only undoes what 237 does. So it returns to status quo, existing law and so it's not adding a new procedure. Anything more on back to 50 this morning, Senator Campion? So just to clarify, if we were to accept Senator McCormick's amendment, we are altering the work that we've done on downtowns as well as some of the work that was done by Senate's economic development, correct? It's part of it would impact both bills. Thank you. Great, all right. Well, then I think with that, if there's no further discussion or comments, we'll go back to Global Warming Solutions Act and... Senator Gray, if I may, there are six designated growth centers and there hasn't been a new one since the beginning when there was funding associated with becoming a growth center. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank you and the committee for hearing me out. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for coming by. All right. Thank you. With that, we'll return to Global Warming Solutions Act. We had just walked through an amendment. I don't know if there are any committee questions. It didn't seem like there were for Councilor Martland. And if not, then I guess I'd look for a motion from the committee to consider amending the bill. That's so moved. Okay. Any further discussion on those points of amendment in the one we just looked at? Okay. See. So we're, Mr. Chair, we're amending. We are upgrading our previous amendment that was set out at this committee 3-0 or 3-1-0 or something like that. Is that what we're doing now? We're substituting this for the previous amendment that members of this committee and other members of the Senate have proposed. So sorry. No, we haven't voted this. This is our first time we're actually voting for, we've discussed amending the Global Warrant Solutions Act but we haven't actually had formal drafted language in front of us in a form to vote. So I failed to articulate myself. Some members of the natural resources committee might find that the bill, the amendment being proposed, the floor amended by a variety of centers that this version, the these additions would make the previous version more attractive. And that's, and I would, it puts them in a difficult position of whether or not to make it more attractive or be perceived as having endorsing the entire package. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair, but that's a separate amendment, correct? Right. So this is- The one that went around center McDonald was amending S237, the housing bill, having to do with Act 250. And this is a separate, this is just related to the Global Warrant Solutions Act and this is our first vote on an amendment related to that. So the folks that signed on- I was off the reservation. Nope, that's okay. That's okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Are you than me for once? It makes me off. So with that, then I say the clerk shall call the roll, please. Excuse me, Senator Ray, could you state clearly what you are voting for? Okay. So we have in front of us, draft two to H688. It is dated 619, 2020. It's timestamped 9, 11 a.m. And it was the, it's the amendment that Mr. Martland just walked us through before we switched gears when Senator McCormick showed up. So it has four instances of amendment and it's a one-pager. Basically adding a member representing the manufacturer so the council providing a provision so that the council shall meet at the call of the chair or at the call of the majority of its members. And then there are two technical amendments, one, a renumbering and two, a style choice as ledged councils move away from promulgating rules to adopting rules. Like that, that's it. So with that, Jude, are you comfortable? Yep, thank you. Okay, Senator McDonald. Yes. Senator Parent. Is it the amendment? Yes. Senator Rogers. Yes. Senator Campion. Yes, Senator Bray. Yes. Five, zero, zero. Okay. So that's the amendment. And now I'll be looking for a motion to report out the bill favorably as so amended. So moved. And any committee discussion about that? Okay. Hearing none. Jude, do you have a question? This is the whole bill, yeah. Yes, so this would be H68 as just amended by that amendment. This is a vote on the entire bills. So hearing no further comments, then I would ask the clerk to call the roll please. Senator McDonald. Yes. Senator Parent. No. Senator Rogers. No. Senator Campion. Yes, Senator Bray. Yes. So that's, is that three, two, zero? That's how I recorded it. Okay, yes. I always get confused by the two, we're okay. Three, two, zero. Yes. Thank you. Two, zero. Would anyone like to report the bill? You got it, Mr. Chair. I'll report the bill. Okay. Thank you, everybody. So we're on the floor to 1130. As our work, the amendment to S237 is up today. And I look forward to it. Senator Campion. Mr. Chair, so this doesn't conclude our work for the, we still have, I know, another week of session, roughly. Any highlights in particular, anything that, I know we may get some things back, but just looking to the next week, if there's anything you might wanna add about anything. Sure. Well, I know that, for instance, one of the things that came over was the Abonacci Fishing Rights Bill. And we were asked to take a look at that. So I wanted to schedule that for the beginning of next week. And after that, I'm not sure what else we had sort of in the wings, no bad pun intended. The migratory bird bill, which we decided to stay a little skinnier and keep it out. Maybe there's a chance to pick that back up. That is, in that case, if their committee were to agree with it as written, we would nearly need to concur and it will be off the governor, for instance. Same thing in the Abonacci bill, but we'll need to take testimony on both. And those are probably the right scale of things to be looking at as we head into the, as I understand it, the home stretch. Thank you. No bills having to do with drying clothes or anything that'll be fun. Not unless you're going to introduce a committee bill and we get permission from rules to move it. Senator Rogers. Senator Bray, before we go, I'd just like to apologize for losing my temper and sending out a ill sounding email. I was frustrated by the fact that Senator Parent and I weren't able to vote and that we weren't able to set up a date and time certain on something that I thought was a very important vote and I will reiterate my frustration with moving things forward via Zoom as I have gotten a large number of phone calls and emails about the process and people feel that they're not able to participate in the same fashion. And so I have a little trouble with moving anything that is controversial, such as the road rule and fragmentation, which we all know are controversial, but that does not excuse my ill tempered email. And I apologize for that. And I would like to thank the committee and Senator Snelling and Warren Coleman and Michael Snyder for their work on the trails issue. I do appreciate that. Mr. Chair. Yeah, Senator McDonnell. Apology. One Senator would say apology accepted and hoped that Senator Rogers is working long hours on a job that requires daylight and get some more sleep Senator Rogers. Thank you. We miss you. Yes. Yes. Thank you for your apology. I wasn't, my connections stuttered. So I wasn't sure that you were done Senator Rogers. Yeah. Of course. Apology accepted. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So with that, we have wrapped up for the day and other than going to floor in 45 minutes. So I'll see you all there. Thanks for your help. I know it's, we're all going full steam ahead pretty much every day. Okay. Thank you.