 Okay so let's get our bearings here. You know what Alan? You've been through the portions of your sections but I wouldn't mind given the disfunction, not disfunction, disfunction, whatever it is. If you could start from the beginning but do the stuff you did very quickly already and then we'll get some more detail on the stuff that you haven't done. Sure. And if you could give just give me two minutes of trying to move from storage to... Well why don't you direct us to where your sections start. Did you start right at the first section? Yes. One through a lab. Right? We only made it through one through four though. Okay well let's do those again but we'll do them with the understanding that we have talking about them before. Okay we're on the record. Alan Sheikowski, Office of Legislative Council. I'm here at S237. So when last we spoke I walked you through the language starting on page one, sections one through four and they have to do with a proposal related to municipal planning for inclusionary growth and increased density of development. Right. So the first section in the municipal plan first it requires the addition of water and sewer lines facility from service areas to be added to the municipal plan. Then... How would that make it easier to develop? I don't know if that is specifically aimed at making it easier to develop other than knowing specifically where the water and sewer connections are specifically. So next there's changes to in section two the municipal bylaws section 4412. This is adding requirement that if a municipality allows multi-unit or multi-family dwellings they must allow at least four units. So that's setting they can they can prohibit more than four but it's setting the baseline that they have if they're allowing multi-dwelling multi-unit dwellings there has to be at least four. So currently a bylaw could allow for duplexes with nothing more? Yes. Now if they allow for duplexes they would have to let allow for quadruplexes. Yes. And that goes to our density. The next section adds that the requirements that if a single-family dwelling units with an accessory dwelling unit are subject to the same review requirements as a single-family dwelling and then it changes the definition of accessory dwelling. Sorry that's still in section two. Yes. Okay it's just a different. I'm on page three. Okay great because sorry I thought you would skip to section three but no you're on page three. Right. So I take that to mean in general that presently there can be separate requirements above and beyond what is required for a single-family dwelling and if you have an accessory dwelling unit and now it's going to say for accessory dwelling units it would be the same as if it was a single-family in terms of setbacks. Yes. Has that wonderful word. On line 11. And a big change here is the 30% rule is being eliminated. Yes. So right you can have because we have heard one comment one of our that generally in state law the accessory dwelling unit had to be the sort of the minority partner in the house and said why can't we flip that so that right the elderly person can move into the accessory dwelling and this would take care of that because it has no percentage figure. So the property owner could be in the accessory. It doesn't need to be clearly supported to the original. And we also in this section I'll remind us of the top page four get rid of the parking requirements which we need to address in some capacity obviously. We're going to have a whole morning on this week. Right. What does the subsection. And all that's less restrictive. It just says nothing shall be ensured to prohibit bylaws that regulate short term of short term rentals. This is the language giving power to regulate short term rentals distinctly from residential. Right. But in the same breath we're taking away the ability to house to do conditional use review on accessory structures. Yes. Okay. So this is adding it in if we want municipalities to regulate short term rentals. You need to give them the power to do that. And that's what this does. Yes. Although there may need to be further. So we're taking away and giving back at the same time. Yes. Watch the object. So now we're on page four. Okay. So we're actually on page five. And this is for the grandfathered lots in section two. The part two. The small lots. So municipalities can't prohibit a lot less than one eighth of an acre. Unless it is not served by or able to connect to municipal water and sewer. So they are able to connect to can't prohibit development on that small lot. Which in a city an eighth of an acre might be able to. I assume this is showing my lack of expertise in this area. But I assume that the town doesn't necessarily have to. You have to by right the ability to connect to a municipal sewer. If it's there you have the right to connect. They can't get around this new change here by just saying we're not going to allow you or going to charge you an enjoyment and fee or. We'll save it for when you come up later. Okay. Because that because Chris can answer some of these things right as we go through. Because otherwise I have to remember. Yeah. I haven't looked at. Okay. So then started starting with sub B inclusionary growth. So this is setting up an opt out system where the municipalities are required to adopt these inclusionary growth bylaws that allow greater density and infill unless they demonstrate with a municipal constraint report that they have too many constraints already and can and do not want to allow the increased density of fire. So the default is you have the increased density. You can show that there's. You need problems in your town or area. Then you can opt out. Yes. How do you opt out you go to the department and ask for. The department at the end is supposed to provide a sort of a form and guidance on what the report has to look like. But the municipality has to submit a report on the constraints that the town is under so that they wouldn't be able to support be able to support the increased density. And do we raise that for towns that are just being nimbies. Do we raise that. So towns sometimes have have nurtured their constraints so that they don't have to deal with increased density or people they'd you know or so they're so towns right. So what the sort of catch all is at the end the department is supposed to come back to you and to this committee and describe the number of towns that have opted out and what the actual constraints listed as. So there isn't necessarily a way for the for the town to be denied their opt out. But there is a at the end of the department will report back on how the towns didn't want to do increased density and what their justification was. So then potentially in the future you could that issue. Okay. I'm a little unclear on on the effect of this. What we're doing is we're saying here in say paragraph C on page 6 that a town can't have a requirement for a single unit dwelling is that correct. So that is you're saying that you know you can't prohibit but to approve the two unit dwelling in any regular for a district for which that when there's water and sewer there that is that is sufficient to serve two units. Is that what we're saying throughout this you know for any that yeah requiring conditional use. So that's a layer of review on top of so conditional use has certain requirements that you have to could you put in English that we're putting this in a newspaper telling people what this bill does. What does this bill do or respect to single unit dwellings. What does it do to competence and what we'll get to that. That's the next but but but just what is it we're trying to do here with this bill in this section. Is confusing. That's a fair statement. So I think we're trying to increase density where it makes sense and encourage towns as much as possible to develop in their core centers where they may have sewer and water and if they do have sewer and water we're enabling them to go a couple steps further in their ability to create more housing opportunities. The question is what's the constraint on a municipality that this bill in these sections impose. It lifts restraints constraints. Am I understanding is it. To me it's just as we're reading going through a bill trying to understand what's in it I don't understand this. So it's important that when we get a presentation at least certainly the first presentation we get the gist of what the intent is here as opposed to the specific language. Because the language we can you know it could be read back to us we could read it but we still don't understand it so it doesn't really help to read it so we need to understand the basic thing but I think what I understand is you may have a municipal water or sewer system but it may not be able to accommodate more growth and write that capacity so that you write in and say you know you're trying to lift this so we can do more but we don't have we really don't have the capacity so if you know that I can understand that so that's what it's the contrary where I'm having difficulty. Okay it's what if I'm reading this correctly what it's saying is that if you have this water and sewer capacity you can't prohibit the development of a more dense unit and is that what we're imposing on municipalities and we're trying to increase density to make whether they want it or not. But they have the opportunity in this that's what we've been chatting about is they have the opportunity to defend their constraints and and and talk about why they can't. When you say defend their constraint and maybe maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves right now they have the ability to voice their dissent or the ability to simply say no we don't want to do that period. It's going to be a judge. Who's the judge? The judge I guess is the department giving them away. The department? For an agency. Yeah I mean this is a first draft. You may not like the judge. I'm not liking what I'm hearing so far. No look at it this way. I mean we passed the law 20 years ago on accessory dwellings and the league fought us tooth and nail and we established it. Now we're probably going to go the next step and make it even greater. They may fight us again and we may have a different decision whether we want to do it but we're trying to promote affordable housing so there's policies in this bill that are increased density in places where some people pounds might not like that increase but we have to make that decision if it's important enough for us to do it this way or another way. I don't you know I don't think there's probably anybody on this committee that doesn't want to improve the access to affordable housing. Whether this is the right way to do it or another way that determines. That could be a debate. That's the debate right. And you could ask the department when the department comes up. Well again what I'm trying to do though as we're going through this walkthrough is just understand what we're walking through and what it is that this is reporting or attempting to do. Exactly and I want to read that's where I see a lack of clarity. I want to re-emphasize my putting this bill in with other people was just to get the discussion going because I'm not sure I agree with everything that's in this bill. I'm understanding that this is part of the ability to enable greater density where it's appropriate and where it's wanted. And there are also parts of this that say that the municipality can opt out of it if they have certain restrictions. Which is what he's saying they have the absolute right to opt out and it's going to be at the discretion of someone overlooking there. Is it because what Ellen said was if they do it there's they're coming back with a report saying you know how many of them have done it but there's nothing saying that they won't be able to opt out as you might understand. I don't know that that's what the bill says right now. Let's keep going. So yes this is setting a baseline of unless you opt out by submitting the report the municipality cannot prohibit either one quarter acre if there's water or one eighth acre lots if there's water in sewer. Right okay so I will break from my rule and ask Chris just this one question is does the does it count just by making the request have an absolute right to opt out of these things. Yeah we're not the intent behind this was to have a conversation around housing and to allow communities to opt out if they come up with a reason. It was it was viewed as a soft level of compliance. We're going to put your name down on the list and we're going to see how this works if it doesn't work in five years. We'll see the list of communities who opted out. Right. Okay so they have an absolute right topped out whether they're exaggerating or not and they can lie to us if they'd like to. All right all right. Does this have a potential perverse effect of discouraging the extension of water and sewer? Let's wait for Chris to come up because we can go around a lot on this one issue but I'm glad we got that clarification okay. D one D on page six. And then so D is the requirement related to the parking the minimum parking. This is allowing a requirement for parking per unit that if the spaces will be leaked separately from the dwelling unit then they can count as double in parking. This is hopefully encouraging creative parking solutions. So then on page seven we get into the opt out with the report that we just discussed. So the municipality submits this report to the department. The department is supposed to provide a template and guidance on what the report should look like. The department is also required to post the reports on their website as well as provide copies to the regional planning commission, directors of municipal water and sewer, Vermont community development board, downtown development board, housing and conservation board, and natural resources board. On to page eight. Municipality that's filed a constraint report. Must update the report every time they update their plan or bylaws. And then down on 11 we start the incentives and funding related to this. So there is increased incentives for the towns that don't opt out that do participate in the inclusionary growth. So on page nine, so those towns that have stayed in and haven't opted out will get priority funding for those towns for municipal water and sewer systems, municipal planning grants, Vermont community development program grants, and the neighborhood development area tax credit program. So that's the caring. Yes. And there's also a provision that when a municipality has adopted the bylaws to comply with the inclusionary growth, they may adopt bylaws to allow land development that has been restricted by covenants, conditions of restrictions that conflict with this. So they can override restrictive covenants. And then section three lays out the language that allows them to override restrictive covenants. And these are not environmental conservation covenants. These are only sort of. As the language is now it's all covenants are restricted deans. So it may need to be rejected. Yes, we'll have to, because everyone wants lots of lovely green space in their downtowns too. Does this envision subsection B talks about prioritizing funding? Is this um, way funding from other elements of these programs? There was not a question for the agency. And is there going to be new money suggested for these new functions? I think it's an vision to just prioritize. It gives the extra care for those towns that have complied with the inclusionary growth. I don't know specifically if it will end up taking away money from others, but those who have complied with this receive priority in their funding. Okay. And then section four on page 10 is the report back to the general assembly on the towns that have opted out by submitting a substantial constraint report. And so the department will report back on a number of these policies and what kinds of constraints and any steps the department recommends. Yeah. Sorry, I thought we'd started on covenants. Oh, that was that's the whole language if. Oh, I see. Here's the report on the top top page 10. Sorry. And that's where we had ended before. Okay. Thank you. So section one. Okay. So section five starts with the act 250 related section for this bill. So this the next few sections are all related to exempting downtown development districts and neighborhood development areas from act 250. So it starts with the definition section here in section five. So line 11 10 we have say 67 is amended to read. So this is the definition section of act 250. And we're amending the definition of priority housing project. And basically we're exempting the reference to designated downtown. So a priority housing project discrete project located on a single tract or multiple continuous tract of land that consists exclusively of mixed income housing or mixed use or any combination thereof and is located entirely within a designated new town center or designated growth center under 24 vsa chapter 76. So what what what do we do last year the year before we did some exemption to act 250 for some sort of housing based upon the number of units or something. So priority housing projects under act 250 are exempt up to a certain size. So and that a priority housing project is related to where it is located. So this is changing it so that it's only a project located within a new town center or a designated growth center. It wasn't here a few years ago. I think you so the priority housing projects in Yeah, Chris quickly. We changed the definition of what types of projects qualifies right so we adjusted the income requirements. Adjusted what adjusted the income requirements okay to 80 to 120 percent to give in the access to plan 250. And now we're going further in terms exempting different geographic areas and we're saying downtowns and neighborhoods you know all development commercial housing is not subject to act 250 but it was just targeted okay to the 80 to 120 and certain mixed income projects for mixed development. So just while we're on mixed income mixed income does it have a definition or is mixed income yes it does so mixed income is defined so sadly and that's up to like what a 150 80 to 120 it's still quite low um that's yeah okay no but I mean it wouldn't okay I'll go get to that and that was in what 17 or 18 three years ago maybe maybe when we did it with the bond did we do it with the bond bill I think we did Jen's here show did we change that definition with the bond bond they built with the bond or was it the year before these were adjustments made when you create the neighborhood development area designation and was set to neighborhoods I believe it was part of that package the bonding package yeah I'm just trying to remember when we did it because it was reasonably recent three years yeah yeah yeah right so we're in the next section I'm going we're going to exempt downtown downtown is a neighborhood development area so they don't need to be included in priority housing projects that definition right so um onto page 11 so 10 vsa 6081 is amended this is the exemption section about 250 um subsection p that I'm going to get to in a second is where the exemption for downtown's and neighborhood development area is but this is section o is the sort of fallback so it's a little backwards but you'll it'll become more clear if a designation pursuant to 24 vsa chapter 76 a is removed subsection a of this section shall require shall apply to any subsequent substantial change to a development or subdivision that was originally exempt pursuant to subdivision division 60013 a for i of this title or subsection p of this section on the basis of that designation so if a town loses its designation either a downtown designation or a neighborhood center or any of the other designations development in those areas will require a permit even if they were yes material change there's a material change so if the project goes up and it doesn't have an activity permit and the town loses its designation but there's a substantial change to the project they will need to get back to 50 permit subdivision p one no permit or permit amendment is required for any subdivision development or change to a project that is located entirely within a downtown development district designated pursuant to 24 vsa 2793 or neighborhood development area designated pursuant to 24 vsa 2793 e upon receiving notice and a copy of the permit issued by an appropriate municipal panel pursuant to 24 vsa 44 60 f a previously issued permit for a development or subdivision located in a downtown development area or a new new neighborhood is extinguished it means so currently all active 50 permits exist for infertility they are forever and so this is setting up a new concept where if you are in a area a downtown downtown development area or a neighborhood development area you can have your active 50 permit extinguished you can have it and because you're under the jurisdiction of the municipality wouldn't you like to be doubly protected keep your active 50 permit forever and be exempted and why does it matter if you're going forward if you're prospectively looking at development isn't everything that's in place just fine why wouldn't you just keep it rather than going further in the existing extinguishing it well it would be inconsistent over what we're trying to do here what if I thought it would be just further supported well if you're under active 50 and you're changing the project that's now within a downtown district why should you be treated any differently than a new project I'm just assuming the project was finished and that you had an act you said your active 50 permit is forever so the project can be finished and still have had an active 50 permit right yeah so why extinguish it if the project's finished I mean I understand that if a project isn't finished sometimes you change the project okay so I think let's keep going so on page 12 all of a subsection is repealed because it references a section we're about to repeal section 6086 b so we're striking that language and then section 7 is the repeal so section 7 repeals section 6083 a d which is the neighborhood development area fees which because we're exempting neighborhood development areas from active 50 we're we're shrinking that section as well as 6086 b which sets up the downtown development area findings and conclusions which is currently a process under active 50 where where development can be exempt in downtowns if they go through this findings and conclusions process so we're repealing that also because it's a full automatic exception so now section 8 this is going to set up the process by which municipalities grant permits her projects in downtowns and neighborhood development areas and then kind of extinguish the active 50 permit so 24 vsa 44 60 is amended appropriate municipal panels this subsection shall apply to a subdivision or development that was previously permitted pursuant to 10 vsa chapter 51 that's act 250 is located in a development in a downtown development district or neighborhood development area designated does a need to be tweaked at all because I can read that two ways as soon you're talking about perspective right I guess what I'm saying should say would have previously been permitted under no because this is going to lay out the process by which they extinguish the permit so this isn't related to the prospective exemption developments this is going to have them exempt this is going to extinguish the permits that already have or the ones that they were in the process of building the permits this goes to the existing project these are existing subdivisions and developments that were previously done active 50 right yes so have previously permitted is located in a downtown development district or neighborhood development area designated pursuant to chapter 76 a of this title and has applied for a permit or permit amendment required by zoning regulations or bylaws adopted pursuant to this sub chapter the appropriate municipal panel reviewing a municipal permit or permit amendment pursuant to this subsection shall include conditions contained within a permit previously issued pursuant to 10 vs a chapter 51 unless the panel determines that the permit conditions pertain to any of the following so this is saying that when they issue a new permit they should adopt they shall adopt the permit conditions that were in the original permit unless the following are true can i just ask and with regard to what senator clarkson asked about permitting that was in process is that addressed in c is that the 250 permits that you're talking about yeah so this has to do with extinguishing yeah i'm switching okay so anybody who is in the middle of an act 250 permitting process now that's going to be extinguished and going forward so that project will now come under the new regulations yes they will be exempt from act 250 but have to comply with the municipal and they'll also have to comply with whatever requirements we're in the end 250 permits can they implement yes so what i'm going to suggest going forward just so we're on hopefully we're all on the same page and it's something to discussion here is that some of the stuff on act 250 and environmental stuff is probably more appropriate for the natural resources committee but what i want this committee to do is to understand what is going on here in general and give our blessings to say we want to achieve that goal right and then we'll send it down there for them to do the fine you know the fight uh define it and um and what i would like the we're sort of doing this now but what i would like either and you could guys could work together but i'd like to see an annotated version of these sections describing lay language what it's attempting to attempting to do and giving maybe some examples right side by side and small print put a comment in there so we can follow that understand what's going on because this is outside of our area of expertise in terms of after the paper you said document okay having said that let's move on sure so so the conditions will be transferred to the new permit unless it's one of the following types of conditions the construction phase of the project that has already been constructed compliance with another state permit that has independent jurisdictions of page 14 federal or state law that is no longer in effect or applicable an issue that is addressed by the municipal regulation and the project will meet the municipal standards or physical or use condition that is no longer in effect or applicable and that will no longer be in effect or applicable once the new project is approved after issuing or amending a permit containing conditions pursuant to this subsection the appropriate municipal panel shall provide notice and a copy of the permit to the natural resources board the appropriate municipal channels of donations shall be made following notice and hearing as provided in 44 64 a one of this panel and those persons requiring notice pursuant to 10 psa 6084 b the notice shall explicitly reference the existing act to 50 permit the appropriate municipal panel's decision shall be issued in accord with section 44 64 b of this title and shall include specific findings with respect to its determination pursuant to the subdivision two of this subsection f any final action by the appropriate municipal panel affecting a condition of a permit previously issued under issued pursuant to 10 bsa chapter 151 shall be recorded in the municipal records okay so next uh section nine amends the downtown designation uh so on page 15 it strikes the reference in the section to act to 50 so the requirements that there's a development report to undertake the local act to 50 review because they will be exempt from that review now section 10 makes changes to 24 bsa 2793 e which is the neighborhood development areas so this section includes changes both in respect to act 250 but it also includes references to the earlier inclusionary growth right changes so the first change is on the bottom of page 16 so these are the requirements for when a neighborhood uh for when a municipality is applying for a neighborhood development area these are the requirements they have to demonstrate so starting on line 17 the proposed neighborhood development area consists of those portions of the neighborhood planning area that are appropriate for new and infill housing excluding undeveloped flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas in determining what areas are most suitable for new and infill housing the municipality shall balance local goals for future land use and availability of land for housing within the neighborhood planning area and the start birth principles based on those considerations the municipality shall select an area for neighborhood development area designation that so what what does that what does that change changing again if i don't develop so only areas in flood hazard areas that are undeveloped are going to be exempt from the neighborhood development area meaning that already developed areas in the flood hazard area are part of the neighborhood development area part of our challenges how much has been developed in flood hazard areas um so uh a selected area for neighborhood development area designation that avoids or minimizes to the extent feasible the inclusion of important natural resources as defined in subdivision 2791 14 of this title if an important natural resource is included within a proposed neighborhood development area the applicant shall identify the resource explain why the resource was included describe any anticipated disturbance to such resource and describe why the disturbance cannot be avoided or minimized if the neighborhood development area includes flood hazard areas for river corridors the local bylaws must contain provisions deemed adequate by the agency and natural resources to ensure that the that new infill development within an existing settlement occurs outside the floodway new development is elevated or flood proofed at least two feet above base flood elevation or otherwise reasonably safe from flooding and will not exacerbate flu fluvial erosion hazards within the river for reasonably safe from flooding no so that maybe needs to be addressed if it's not clear the next change is on page 18 so we're still in the requirement of what a municipality must show for neighborhood development area so line nine within the neighborhood development area the municipal bylaws allow as a bright minimum lot sizes of one quarter of an acre or less and minimum net residential densities greater than or equal to four single family detached dwelling units per acre exclusive of accessory dwelling units or no fewer than the average existing density of the surrounding neighborhood whichever is greater so this relates back to the early inclusion growth system established the next change is on page 19 it strikes the reference to act 250 the requirements for the act for the district coordinator and then the next change starts on line seven local bylaws regulations and policies applicable to neighborhood development area substantially conform with neighborhood design guidelines developed by the department pursuant to section 2792 of this title these policies shall ensure that all investments contribute to a built environment that enhances the existing neighborhood character and supports pedestrian use ensure sufficient residential uses and building heights minimize the required stepbacks parking requirements and street width and require conformance with complete street principles described at 19 309 D street and pedestrian connectivity and street trees so this is to get proved as a neighborhood development area that's exempt from act 250 yeah right so are we which way are we going and these changes on B and C are we making it easier yes it actually is just to because the inclusionary growth principles in the earlier sections required density they don't have to be explicitly referenced so that's why it's a slight change they don't have to demonstrate the density requirements they are that's already accounted for in the requirements earlier so I'm not sure it's making it easier because you're specifying the lot sizes now you don't have to make any reference here to lot sizes because the required lot sizes that was so I'm back on 18 I think it lines nine from the department yeah it seems like it's all in the office of direction but it may be I don't think so I think well now you're having used to be able to get this designation you you have to minimize the required lot sizes how you don't have to do that right because he's begun to take care of it in section seven yeah let's hear from Chris all right the next change isn't until the bottom of page 22 starting online 19 page 22 neighborhood development area incentives for developers once a municipality has a designated neighborhood development area or has a Vermont neighborhood designation pursuant to section 2793d of this title a proposed development within that area shall be eligible for each of the benefits listed in this subsection provided that the project meets the density requirements set forth in subdivision c7 of this section as determined by the administrative officer is defined in 24 vsa chapter 117 basically this is just changing who's who's controlling that yes okay because there's a reference to 50 in there too so right these benefits are the application fee limit for wastewater applications stated in three vsa 28 22 j4d the exclusion of the land gains tax provided by 22 vsa 1002 p so it's striking the active incentive the next change starting at the bottom of uh on line 20 sorry yeah line 11 and 10 11 what is that getting rid of that's the fee for what the act 250 so they're currently under active 15 neighborhood development areas have a 50 percent discount on their fees under act 250 and so because they're going to be exempt now it's just to get rid of all the planning things yes starting on line 19 alternative design if a municipality has completed all of the planning and assessment steps of this section but is not requested designation of a neighborhood development area an owner of land within a planning apply to the state board for neighborhood development area designation status for a portion of the land within the neighborhood planning area the applicant shall have the responsibility to demonstrate that all of the requirements for a neighborhood development area designation have been satisfied and to notify the municipality that the applicant is seeking designation the state board shall provide the municipality with at least 14 days prior notice written notice of the board's meaning to consider the application and the municipality shall submit to the state board the municipality's response if any to the applications before or during that meeting on approval of a neighborhood development area designation under this subsection the applicant shall be eligible for the benefits granted to the neighborhood development area subject to approval by the administrative officer as provided in subsection f of this section so again we're striking the reference to the district coordinator which is part of the act 250 process and making it the administrative officer okay this is my last section section 11 so this is a change to the vermont dam town and village center tax credit program so we're in the we're in the definition section of that program so it just just allows the neighborhood development areas right yes that is the name for us good um and same thing as part page 26 yes all through that all through that yep okay and then we go to the bond the bond thank you thank you very much anybody have any questions we'll have plenty as we go and i think chrysalis on last year yeah that's the best way thank you sir the English these sections from the previous bond right how it was done so Becky wants to then register across the book so that these sections are actually based off of last year's bond language which had taken some money from changes in the property transfer tax i think it was four million dollars to pay for the new bond so i think that's a great way to start in that since it was placed literally taking from last year some of the numbers are not pressed and some of the information and cross references will be updated um it was really just taking that structure from last year and putting it in this bill so you say four million dollars is that to adjust to get to a 50 million dollar bond versus a 30 i think last year it was it was for 50 million well so there are there are two there was the bond from 2017 and then um the proposed bond from last year and then there were changes in the property transfer tax that went into effect last year and i think the estimate from that was that it would be an additional four million is revenue um i don't know how that has laid out so i think there might be a need for another analysis um and so the idea was taking the additional revenue from that tax change and putting it towards the new bond so i think when looking at this language we it doesn't have an amount of the bond and it needs an analysis of how much revenue from the property transfer taxes it would mean to support it right and in the intense section in section 12 there are references to the 2017 bond that were updated as of last year but were not need to be updated i think they definitely need to be updated given how many more housing units we've built with them exciting well yeah that was at that point in time right right but we cannot happily update that okay um so can you walk us through uh i think it will be useful if you can walk us through the bond that passed in two years ago and implemented to follow the money raised and approximately how much and then where the money went and how yeah i'm just trying to see where the language isn't it so i don't i don't have that i don't have that bond language with me but i think i can show on page you're gonna on 29 right yeah i'm page 29 in section 15 um this is the property transfer tax so if you turn to page 30 um subsection d starting on line 12 um it says that prior to any distribution of the property transfer tax revenue under and it lists a few statutory sections 2.5 million of the revenue received from the property transfer tax shall be transferred to vhfa to pay the principal of an interest due on the bonds that is authorized by gage fa the proceeds of which would go to vhcb for that first bond so vhfa would be issuing the bond and the proceeds would go to vhcb to pay for it and just jumping around here what is the uh line 20 through line three on the next page why is that being deleted so that was for the first fund saying that the the rate that the needs for the property transfer transfer tax had to stay a certain amount in order to raise 12 million dollars to um for the first fund but that needed to be struck out because um for the second bond you needed to raise more than just 12 million dollars so um you'll see that change reflected on page 31 in line 12 in the new subsection f it's it's saying um you need you need to make sure that the rate of the tax doesn't reduce revenues right and it has again sort of the the 30 million um and 18 million based on what last year's estimates work with the bonds i think those those are examples of numbers that would need to be updated but this is basically saying you need to make sure that the the tax rate brings in a certain amount of right to sustain those bonds is any language in section 13 different than what we passed out this committee last year 13 is the same as it was in last year's proposed language it's basically giving um bhcb the authority to use the proceeds from the bond issued by bhfa and i'll say the second bond to for the purposes of um meeting community needs and this committee had set forth some priorities that start on the bottom of the page so this is exactly the same language that was from last year is there anything in here that's essentially not the same as we passed out of this committee last year did did we inject in this concept you had the possibility of a series of bonds or was that that's by last yeah so in the intense section age 28 yes i'm it's like a one three nine one through five it's the intent of the general assembly between age of age to issue a new bond or series of bonds between um certain time period over five year period so that is different than yeah it didn't say that okay is there anything else that you could highlight for us that could be different from what we discussed last year i guess i would just highlight again that the numbers need to be updated and when the bonds the tax rate needs to be updated and when the bond would need to be paid off would need to be looked at in terms of if it's a series of bonds over a five-year period i think that implicates when it's paid off which is not something that was in last year's language and you know typically is not really in here so i think that needs to be thought about a little bit more right is um i don't know if you can answer this but is a series of bonds really nothing let's say we were to do a 50 million bond in one fell swoop is a series of and you want to do like ten million dollars ten million dollars per year is it essentially the same bonds small tranches as they say for five years running whereas you could become one issuance please make a decision every year of whether you're going to go forward i do want to mention one other thing which is not bond related but is new to the session or to my sections i'm page 34 section 20 um yeah we've done tip language that was added in here as well list of all the municipalities that have been uh have received an approved tip district and that list um does not include bennington and rumpelier currently in statute even though they have approved tip districts so this length page 35 months 10 and 11 are adding those two right towns and towns and cities so that's just cleanup yeah that's just yeah i mean just it's nothing substantive it's just if you're going to have a list of the districts that have been approved and statute it would needs to be updated when new districts are approved i mean in section 21 i had asked that and this happened just as we in the flurry of the deadline i had asked the tucker's language that he had drafted for me actually not for jim erison be put in this and it somehow didn't make it so i would also hope that as we consider section 21 we consider some additional str who would be the drafter on that topper tucker drafted for me and um sorry i'm sure yes i'm sorry terminals i don't know david it was a it was a disconnect between tucker and david okay the whole office will be involved thank you very much but what i'm gathering the whole office is involved with that thank you very much chris i'm going to give you three minutes you'll come back but if you want to if you want to correct all the mistakes i've made so far you can do that very quickly uh we do have to go office yet so um we just don't have much you could accomplish in such a short time i'm probably not a lot um the things i can't clarify there are some questions about why are the water and wastewater systems being mapped just because the community has capacity doesn't mean the capacity is universally available across the community and it's 2020 and we do not have gs information where the pipes are where the capacity is where the location are i kind of need that information to be able to identify opportunities to infill the capacity so i'm up here you might say we can take gallons and gallons but only here here here we don't have that information so that's why we've asked for that information you had some questions about technical creation corrections to the neighborhood development area program they don't they aren't germane to the changes proposed in 117 about 140 acre and one half acre they're related to clarify what the minimum base um four units per acre requirement is many communities would say oh we have a planned unit development or we get these density bonuses we didn't want that we want to say look we want it to be clear in your bylaws that you enable a board unit of moment per acre and that was the intent of those corrections there's no relationship to the 117 recognition okay and then on the 117 team i'm just as a reminder you know the administration developed that um but we backed away from that um the governor the governor's office wants an incentive based program right to provide training and education tools to allow communities to take these steps if they want to it's a 117 language and they're now says you have you have to and so the house bill actually reflects that change right and there are several things during the house bill that you know to enable the tax credits um additional changes need to be made and um title 32 into the tax sections to increase the cap and enable the where the benefits are enabled in multiple locations and there's lots of things in the same and your draft bill we need to be added in and in two hours we'll find out how much the cap is being increased by he will yeah it's not going down right can't even say that in two hours have patience your answers we have patience yes and chair but um and then it's for our next steps and now you want to manage it if we have those pieces and then we'd be happy to work with ellen um to get those um but i don't know how to get the other sections into your bill because we haven't really had a conversation of other sections um increasing the credits um um in the in marcotsville there is the um we get programmed we're not right that grant program if you want that in or out of your bill we've taken it out for now but we've talked about that better places crowd granting incentive right now we've taken that out yeah that's not in there um and there's provisions that enable these to halities to permit water wastewater connections that is not in your bill that is in marcotsville um this is probably how did i i know when we drafted the bill we took out the two sections of alfie have been crowdsourcing when it would but how did the other i did not get it i can't explain that i don't know okay because i would like to have that in here so it would be and then there's an additional provision for opportunity zones it's a capital gains exemption we'll say that again uh capital gains exemption you're a low voice with my hearing it's a bad combination uh capital gains um there's a proposal to exempt capital gains within opportunity zones and this is a program aimed at homeowners um which one that finance i think i don't think it's been probably we just talked about it in this committee when we just when we did our initial one through of those kind of one pagers um maybe that's where we've got language for it um and if you want to support it um right now it would be a good incentive the benefit here is most of our credits are enabled rental housing property improvements we're in this would help homeowners right homeowners why don't you send i've seen the other two why don't you send the opportunity zone and the wastewater and the wastewater to the whole committee and to i guess david hall is in the lead on this superintendent came and help give it to the appropriate attorney and the corrections to enable the task benefits i see yes what those are right and then the other thing we wanted from you was the lay language uh yeah i'm just saying it out loud that was more than three so you did well thank you very much