 All right. Welcome back to the House Committee on Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife. We are reconvening our meeting. Thank you all. We're going to pivot back toward to Chris Cochran and Jacob Hamarick to wrap up their presentation. I mean, I'm flexible. If you want me to wrap it up or let these folks go, I mean, I can make my point at any time. It's already kind of non sequitur. Okay, sure. Why don't we pivot to Jen Haller. Welcome. And maybe maybe Lizzie can pull up the presentation I sent. So good morning. My name is Jen Haller and the policy director for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board. It's been some time before I've been before your committee. So just by way of background, my background. My experience is in housing, community development and conservation at the federal, state and local levels. I serve as the policy director for BHCB. I work across across the organization about the housing and conservation side. And before I came to BHCB about almost seven years ago, I served in the Schumer administration and handled housing issues for the governor at the Department of Housing and Community Development and got to work with Chris. So what I'd like to do today, I think is to move through pretty quickly, but to kind of three main things. And that is to provide some background, speak a little bit to 226 at the very end, but at the very high level to provide some background on housing work that the state is supporting BHCB is the organization through which the state provides funding for housing development. So talk about how that's going, where it's going and what policies are around that. Ask me to talk a little bit about how much housing BHCB has done over time and affordability levels. I'll touch on that. Before I dive into any of that, I want to say thank you. So thank you very much to this committee for your incredibly supportive letter to the House Appropriations Committee. We made a difference in their deliberations and BHCB received an increase in our base funding coming through the House to put us in a much better position. Our base hadn't changed or gone up in many years. We've been fortunate, as you know, to have been asked to handle a lot of federal housing money, but our conservation numbers have been pretty flat for a long time. So thank you for that support. Thank you for the work that your committee is doing. It's been really exciting to see conservation be a bigger part of the State House discussion this year, and to see the UVA bill and 606 moving along their way. So wanted to all that. And so this actually, so there's happening all over the state and it happens through the pandemic construction did continue and and we are continuing to review lots of applications for new housing. There's a tremendous need. And that's a lot of what you've heard from CES excellent presentation. So as 226 really talks about is like we know there's going to be pressure for housing development. And what 226 does I think is sets the table for where we want that development to go. And this, this is just an example of something we funded recently and there's some existing housing that this is in Westbrook. So we work in all kinds of communities. There's some existing housing will get rehab to more units will be added. So we always ground our testimony in our, in our statutory purpose it's housing and conservation really preserving the state's historic patterns what you see here is just north of Bennington and Shaftsbury, the body of water at the top is Lake Perron. Over time, the HCB has been able to support the Robert Frost House there with the historic preservation grant on some walking trails. A few years ago, new housing development was created there called Lake Perron housing new affordable housing and the lake it's land around the lake itself has been. It's a little bit of everything we do there and I raise this because what VHCB is really bad is balancing those two, those two imperatives the need for housing but then also to protect our important natural areas and working lands. Okay, next slide. You've heard from you heard from Trey and Gus about this recently when the context of H606 and just to mention Gus will be with you again tomorrow when you take up the issue of ag mitigation. So over 34 years, this is what we've done in a really big picture, not very exciting kind of way, because it's just numbers but the chair was wondering about how much housing we had done and a little over 14,000 units over, over that period of time also working for us natural areas, recreational areas. We do historic preservation projects for buildings are going to be for community use. And then, about 20 years ago, we established a farm and forest viability program thinking that not only do we need to keep our working lands open but we need that we need the businesses and the owners who take care of that land to be able to remain viable so we provide technical assistance business planning succession planning and those kinds of services help 850 over time. The pictures you see here are just a smattering the one of the top left is in Putney. This is a small church it's now a performing arts center. The middle photo is a vital form by ability client and I gate small axle farm, and then at the top on the right is prospect mountain, which is, which is a much beloved recreational asset in the area that's now been conserved and living a new, a new phase of its life. Okay, we can go to the next next line. So I'm a major tenant of what the CD does is around permanent affordability so when we invest state when we when you entrust state dollars to us we invest them in housing and conservation in a way that's going to be protected over time. The housing project conservation easements. If it's if it's a housing development it comes with a housing subsidy covenant that requires the rents or the homes to remain affordable in perpetuity. The housing the 14,000 housing units that we've done summer rental summer home ownership over time. The housing is restricted by housing subsidy comments. The details vary greatly as you can imagine lots of different types of housing but generally, those are affordable at 80% of the area median, and one third of those affordable at a deeper level at 50% of the median income. Now recently, a lot of the focus and emphasis has been on creating homes for folks who are coming out of homelessness and so some of them are specifically dedicated to that purpose some of the apartments. Another example of a variation is when the state asked us to use the resources from the housing revenue bond they said please use a quarter of it for apartments or homes that are affordable at one of a middle range so between 80 and 120. So there is variation but it generally that's what we look to for affordability and rental housing and home ownership. Again, also with housing subsidy comments, our statute allows us to do that for households up to 120% of the area median income. So it's at 100. And we sometimes we provide funding for the construction of new homes but a lot of what we do is through what we call the shared equity program where we provide funding to a eligible perspective home buyer, they go buy a home with the assistance from us through one of the local housing nonprofits and in exchange when they sell that home, they agree to just take 75% of the equity with them and 25. Excuse me it's the reverse they take 25% of the equity and 75% of that value remains with the home. So each time that that property sells and they sell it like an average every seven years. So that means a little bit more affordable for the next, the next purchaser. The quick question Jen, how do you, when somebody, the end of that seven years when somebody else buys it, how do you ensure that the person buying it fits the criteria, the local housing nonprofit is in charge of that basically and they they help find the next eligible buyer and the restrictions are in the land records. And this is a property in in Bennington, a new neighborhood that was developed down there it's called Monument View for obvious reasons, you can see the Bennington Monument in the past. It's a location that was within walking distance of the downtown and a good infill development. Okay, we go to the next slide. So we're moving on kind of the principles through which we do our work so a little more on home ownership is that we provide funding to create new homes and help new owners. I talked about the shared equity program we've done 13 hundred of those statewide and as they've turned over or new buyers they've served about 900 families. And 157 homes that were built by the new homeowners through the Habitat for Humanity program here's a couple examples one in retland. And then one in East Montpelier. And we can keep going a little bit more on home ownership because an awful oftentimes we talk about rental housing a lot but we are doing home ownership. A point I want to make here because you've been thinking about environmental justice is one of the main ways that we can, one of the best ways we can make our communities more welcoming and inclusive is to make sure that there are people who have been historically disadvantaged to make sure that there are affordable homes. So here's a few examples there's a Manchester Habitat for Humanity home and a woman and her son. She works at one of the local businesses moved in there in Butternut Grove condominiums in Winooski the city contributed a piece of land and the Sheppland Housing Trust and Ever North have developed condominiums and their marketing and outreach is going on right now and it's focused at BIPOC households in terms of the marketing and outreach now these aren't restricted to BIPOC households because that raises all kinds of constitutionality questions but that's the way they decided to try to get at that issue they wanted to develop home ownership opportunities in Winooski a really diverse community. And then separate commons and Woodstock has a little bit of a notorious reputation the rental housing that was already there was subject to appeal was caught up in appeals for 10 years. Eventually the rental housing was built and now there are some home ownership units that are being constructed there so that's so that's exciting. Okay, go on. A lot of what we do is to renovate old buildings here's a couple examples of these are with emphasis on those experiencing homelessness ones in old school in Rutland. And one is a historic building in the neighborhood in Bennington. And those are either completed or will be before too long, we can keep going and I'm just trying to give you a flavor of the kinds of things that the HV or the state's doing through the HV. A lot of emphasis on revitalizing downtowns and village centers mean smart growth and putting things in the heart of our communities is very much a part of our consideration whenever we review a project application. And you can see a smattering of what we've done here a couple in small places like Guilford and Lindenville. And some in sort of moderate size, I borrow more pillar as the French block downtown you've heard about that when it was vacant for 75 years and then now there are two floors of apartments on the top. And in St. Albans, that community has showed incredible leadership and welcoming downtown and there's a public private partnership there, but we can move on. I think maybe Chris and Jacob have heard this before what do you guys think they're both on their phones. We do new construction, this is a smart growth area. This is an example of one that we just like closed closed in terms of like sealing the real estate deal and construction will begin soon. Stuart Avenue and Colchester and it's in a, it's in a growth center, and it would qualify as a priority housing project. It's part of a larger private development to have more than 200 market rate apartments and condominiums retail commercial space restaurants and the daycare center nearby. Next slide please. How does, excuse me, but the market rate, how does that relate to affordability. Well, market rate is something that's unrestricted so it would be an apartment that could be rented at whatever the market will support. So it's primarily just addressing housing needs not necessarily exactly general housing needs and not specifically what we call affordable housing. So smart growth as I mentioned is part of our DNA, BHCB's DNA and one way you can think about that is the Vermont Natural Resources Council does a smart growth sort of report card or progress report. Periodically, one came out not too long ago and they looked at investments by a bunch of different entities from FY 2013 to 2019, including the housing and conservation boards. What they found was that 90% of everything we funded was in smart growth locations. They said about 9% of what we funded would qualify as being in a sprawl location and then unknown as 1%. But I think, so we're pretty proud of that. I think the thing to really known is that all the investments. New housing or in smart growth locations. So sometimes and often we will provide funding for the upgrade of a mobile home park or, you know, mobile home community or some other existing housing. That may not be in a smart growth location and that's what you would find in the, that's what comprises the 9%. Okay, we can go on. So to get to some of the current funding, you know, we're working with our usual BHCB typical state funding also doing a lot of work right now deploying the American Rescue Plan Act. Housing resources that the legislature has allocated to us and there are lots of different layers to that in terms of how we could use that funding. But the very top layer is the US Department of Treasury's final rule and associated guidance. It's like this thick. So that's, that's what really establishes how that money can be used. The next layer down is at the state level in the state appropriated the funds to us specifically in last year's budget to provide housing and increase shelter capacity with priority for those who are living in motels but then also to create housing in the next income settings. And then at the BHCB level we have additionally adopted guidelines and procedures for what kinds of projects are eligible for that funding and what our priorities are going to be when we get a batch of applications. $62 million in applications that our staff are reviewing right now 26 different projects about 400, 400 to 600 new homes. And these, these are additional requirements that we have added on to that to reflect our state policies. So those include permanent affordability, and then also prioritizing smart growth locations. So that's a lot of the work that we're doing right now. Okay, the next slide. And here's what's been funded so far with both our funding and some of the state supplemental there was some one time general funds that the state directed to us to get at that homelessness issue people were so and still are so concerned about the people in motels. And so there was funding for that. But here are the results so far. Some of these are completed some are still rounding up other funding sources and summer and some are in construction but 431 rally units. More than half of those for households experiencing homelessness recovery housing transitional units. And we've done some other things too so home accessibility projects a big grant. To the Vermont Center for Independent Living they do home access projects to help people with disabilities or to be able to stay on their homes. Well the home communities and infrastructure improvements. And then a farm worker housing rehab loan program is something that's new and it's right at the intersection of our housing and conservation mission. I guess I'm rolling that out. And anyway I mentioned that 62 million applications or we're doing right now and we'll make recommendations for a board in May and June. Okay, the next slide. So I thought it might be helpful to talk about priority housing projects a little bit because it's a lot of what's in the bill. So I included a couple of a few data points here that I think might be helpful. So essentially as you heard Ellen, and as you well know active 50 includes a definition of a priority housing project and the project meets that definition. Then it is not considered it doesn't meet the definition of a development it's not considered a development for the purpose of active 50 and does not need to go through the active 50 process. So, in our view, those PHP provisions in active 50 are really important. And these are the reasons why from our perspective and that is that government, federal local will never be able to fund the creation of enough housing to satisfy our housing needs so we need to do what we need to do and we can to, but we also need the private market and private developers obviously to be able to develop to and one of them read one of the things that the PHP definition does is that it incense private developers to include affordable housing in their developments that really works and that's been a great thing because if they include 20% of their units affordable at 80%. And they're in certain areas, they meet that definition and don't have to go through active 50. That's a pretty big incentive of a developer and you've heard that doesn't need to go through active 50. So, it really helps direct development to those areas where we really want it to be, want it to be and in smart growth areas designated areas. And it really does have that effect. It reduces the cost and time to develop projects. There's an extra word in that in, I think a lot. And as Seth explained projects are, we need them to come online quickly and they're also getting increasingly expensive so that's a good thing. And then there are those who have concerns in communities about bringing affordable housing in and who might live there, and that's an unfortunate reality. But if a project does goes can go through the local zoning process but not have to also go through active 50. It eliminates a point at which people can raise objections. And at this point, I think, I think what a, and we from phcb's perspective because we always look at it from both sides the housing and conservation, that that's an appropriate balance that these priority housing projects are really made, or that avenues are available, only in those places and I think so doesn't compromise some other conservation value that or there's some other process that's already in place at the local level or they've gone through the designated, gone through getting a state designation so the things that we would all be concerned about in terms of location and design have been addressed somewhere else. To help put all this in context on the Senate side and Natural Resources Board provided them with information that said that 21 housing developments in the last five years. Matt the definition of a priority housing project and we're there for except for Mac 250. I get this question a lot but 40 of those were developed by nonprofit housing developer and 60% were by private development. So there really are private developers who are trying to meet this definition, including affordable housing in their unit in our projects. And then, in terms of what VACV is funded so far with ARPA funds, we fund it so far and we're like I said we're doing a bunch more. We have funded 17 projects so far. And two of those are mobile home communities infrastructure improvements so they don't, you know, that doesn't trigger active 50, but 15 and one more rental housing developments, seven of those 15 that we funded our subject to active 50. And of those seven, five qualify as a priority housing project. So the priority housing projects were out of active 50. I'm sorry, I didn't catch the question. It's seven of them are subject to active 50 and of those seven, five will qualify as priority housing projects but priority housing projects don't aren't subject to active. Otherwise be subject to active. So seven of the 15 would be covered by active 50, and five of those qualify as priority housing projects so they don't don't. Yeah, maybe. Well, my question to what was a little different. The approach of those seven, which are projects are funded our subjects, seven of those only five qualified as PHP. They qualify when they're developed as such. When they're not developed with a 20% they don't qualify. So does this statistic mean five of those that could qualify. Of those seven, five, didn't because they didn't want to include. So these are ones that are funded by the hcb and everything we fund because of the funding we provided they're much more affordable than what a priority housing project requires so. So one of those five meets the affordability threshold for the priority meets and exceeds the affordability threshold and a priority housing project. Yeah, because we require them to do much more affordability. And of the, so five qualifies PHP's meanings they're super affordable. And they're in the areas where you can qualify as a PHP like a, you know, a downtown area. They're still in smart growth locations, but they might not be within the boundaries of it as a designated area. So they didn't qualify for that reason, but they were not developed out in that fashion. Pardon, or we're not built out with 20% in there. Well if we funded them they get the other two. Seven are all ones that VHCB is funded so they all have state or federal funding. Okay. Okay. Thank you. If I think it's just the designated areas as you saw them that are very, very constrained to tight areas. So there's and this kind of makes the point of the why we're having this conversation about this bill is we'd like to enlarge those areas there's a lot of smart growth areas that are designated. And if it was easier for communities to designate neighborhoods. I suspect those two that didn't qualify for priority housing projects likely. Yeah, they might have. Yeah, thank you. Look at that. So Lizzie I think if there are no more questions we could go on to the next slide. Okay, so not to get into the weeds of S 226. But just to speak generally to the land use elements of the housing bill. We really support the housing permit reform provisions so and there is largely based on H 511. We feel like it's a very important balance. So allowing housing where it needs to go is going to be housing development pressure. Housing is going to get built where do we want it to be let's create more space for them in the places that we want housing to be like these are kind of incremental thoughtful approaches to doing that. So picture actually so one of the provisions that you've heard Ellen talked about was saying that a municipal permit can't expire before the end of two years. This is an example of a project that had gotten caught up in that it's in the village center of Morrisville, or it's called Village Center Apartments in Morrisville and it takes a while to pull together all the funding and get through all the permitting it can take two years for a project to come together but sometimes there are delays. When someone got delayed and they had to go back through the municipal process again and there was no real public benefit to doing that. So that's an example of where we think that that we think that's important. When we did the housing revenue bond we were determined to also take a hard look at some policy issues that would outlive the actual creation of the of the units and tried and we were really happy to support the work that his team have done. We're working on the zoning for great neighborhoods, working with communities piloting some of these things and it's ultimately led to the umbylaw modernization grants and S226 includes the official authorization for that. You might recall that last year I came in and asked when you were looking at this and the other bill, I asked you to include the word affordable to make sure that when communities are doing that and planning on it. They don't do it. They do it in a way that make sure that affordable housing remains in that mix. And so thank you for doing that and the version that came over for the Senate has that language as well. Waste water connection permits were supportive of that if there's a duplication. That's not necessary. Let's let's not do that anymore. Yeah, the duplication can be. We can remove the local review and leave it to the experts at the state that's another alternative to the streamlining of waste water connection permits and a little uneasy of having the by removing the experts. I see. I don't have a comment on that. I would say that it would be best to not do it twice if it's not, if it's not really leading to a public benefit. There's some tweaks to the parking requirements we support and then also, and you've heard us mention the designation programs over and over again, there's such an important tool, but I know that department would like a chance to really take a look at that and see if they need updating or revising or improving and we would certainly support adding that to 226 if you have the opportunity. Then we can go to the next slide. And I think it might be the last. So that's how to get a hold of me if you have any questions and then I wanted to finish with this picture it's a project that we funded. And it illustrates the point and the value of raising the caps in the communities that's one of the h511 provisions and one of the. This is proposed to be 24 units and that's purposely to stay under the cap. And if, if the cap was raised for this community, you could get a handful more of housing there it's a good location it's in a neighborhood development area. It's been a lot of community input. So, it seems a shame not to be able to have added a few more homes there it's not easy. It's really not easy to site and permit an affordable housing or any housing development so if there's a general agreement that this place makes sense let's add let's get a few more homes out of it and I think raising that cat well, we'll have that will have that effect. Can I ask no question. Yes. Thank you and maybe this is something more for the state but then those communities with local zoning, and that are interested in this, at least have the capacity to be able to look at the site design to ensure that that new development housing development in particular matches kind of that the, the community landscape or aesthetics, if you may, if I may, at least doesn't conflict with you know that and that helps tourism helps economy helps that vibrancy. There are communities that don't have that and you remove active 50. I'm just concerned as to whether how do we maintain that kind of sense of place that our rural communities would want to maintain so that that they don't become potential that come integrated into that the, that view scape of that of those communities. Yeah, well I. Maybe this is what you're asking me but I'm not suggesting that active that housing shouldn't have to go through active 50 at all I think that it makes sense in those areas where there is a local process or has gone through the designation program. And the community has embedded review processes that that's where it makes sense, but I wouldn't say housing shouldn't have to go through active 50 at all. Thank you. If I could add I'm sorry, it's a voluntary program so the community has to go through the process so it's not we're not making a blanket change that affects all communities they have to seek the designation meet all the requirements they have to have local regulations. So I think, I think the way it's designed addresses your concern. Thank you. I think you might hear for some communities that they feel like the state asked too much of them before they can go through the debt to be designated but that's a policy thanks balancing question. Thank you for your testimony. Go to see a possum. Yeah, you got to hang out in here a lot more often than your years and only seen one. Want to go. Well I feel like you have a lot more of that background. Well, we have, we actually have another, we have to get into another agenda item so I was going to wrap with you and Chris and Jacob come back we're not finished with this I was not expecting all of these presentations to go as long as they did. It's great we had lots of good questions great presentations but we, this is, this is chapter one of exploring the housing. You can just say you love the bill. Yeah. Well, good morning and I thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Katie Gallagher and I direct the sustainable communities program with Vermont Natural Resources Council. And as you know we are a statewide environmental organization and our sustainable communities program focuses on primarily promoting smart growth and preventing sprawl. So we are very interested in this bill because of course we want to see more housing in those right locations in our downtown and villages, where people can have more transportation options, we can take development pressures off of outline areas. You know this is mentioned I think by by some witnesses already this is an equity issue it's an economic development issue quality of life climate you name it this is housing affects all of these things. And we were very grateful to be able to work with our partners. This, this fall to help to craft and refine each 511 thanks to representative bond guards and James. We really appreciated that process felt like it was, it was very inclusive and thoughtful. And so, I think that as 226 is is a great example of the process that that resulted in a very thoughtful bill. So, thinking about this, you know we understand that the housing crisis is a very complex issue. And while we offer our support for the majority of the provisions in this bill I do want to state upfront that vnrc does not believe that regulations are the only or the primary way to housing production that said we recognize that regulations and active 50 process can be collective and in some cases, especially in towns with sophisticated planning and zoning. As we just talked about this is the case for municipalities that have gone through the process to get a neighborhood development area designation they they already have very sophisticated planning and zoning. And I believe that it's really important that any bill that encourages housing also includes provisions that protects our forests and working lands. You know we need to address the need for affordable housing but also the pressure that is going to be put in is already being put on our forests and working lands through, as we've talked about again the incoming. Both coming in from out of state but also those who are looking for homes here. If they can't find homes in our downtown areas in the places that we want, they're going to be looking to those places that we don't want housing development and we know that we are facing a loss of forest land at over 14,000 acres a year so this is a fairly significant issue. So in order to achieve a more balanced smart growth approach to housing development we suggest moving the active 50 related provisions in S2 to six into S234 which you're going to hear more of tomorrow this is an act relating to changes to active 50 recently with much of the same language that's in S226. And again you'll you'll hear more from my colleague Jamie Fidel on S234 tomorrow I believe. So, with that framing and that in mind, I'd like to just highlight a couple of the policies that we support in S226 and again we very broadly support this bill, but we do have a couple on suggestions from crew. I wanted to highlight some of those pieces that have more environmental and land use considerations. So I'm going to go into a bit more detail than the previous witnesses and appreciate all of the helpful context that has already been provided so hopefully this, this makes sense. But starting with in section two is allowing the neighborhood development areas to include the flood hazard and fluvial erosion areas that contain pre existing development and are suitable for infill development. This section we support because it acknowledges that most of our historic centers, as we know, we're already built along rivers. And this has resulted in an obstacle for those municipalities that are looking to to achieve a neighborhood designation area. So, this provision helps to bring the NDA program in line with the agency of natural resources guidance that infill development in these areas can be environmentally responsible if done properly. So we feel that this is a reasonable approach that that also has the benefit of requiring these local bylaws to also address river corridor protection outside of that small geographic area of the NDA itself so we have up and downstream protections from this from this provision. In section two C six. This is allowing municipalities to apply for an NDA prior to having municipal sewer or alternative wastewater systems. Chris and Jacob touched on this earlier, but this provision supports the ability of municipalities to move forward with community sewer or decentralized wastewater system or priority housing projects. I'm sorry. Page five. Thank you. To section to see. But that language has been struck. Well it's proposed to be struck in this in this bill. Okay. And you're saying you're in support of that of the. I think it's something that we, I would say, don't are not strongly in supportive but something that we are not opposing because we understand the benefit and the, and the trade off there that ultimately these projects would still require a state water and wastewater permit. And when we're talking about priority housing project is as a relatively dense development, it's going to need some wastewater capacity. So it's not something that that we're worried about contributing to sprawl for example with individual systems. Moving down to section five, this is the proposed increase of the, the high population cap for the priority housing projects. And that would increase the number of these priority housing projects exempt exempt from active 50. This would allow particularly smaller towns to build affordable housing with greater density. So we do support this provision. However, we do recommend that the increased sunsets after the ARPA funds are required to be expended in order to collect some data and feedback and actually evaluate the impacts of this change. So this is a an assessment of the state designation programs that we support that is being considered this session. That's floating around at the moment that this evaluation of that change to the population caps could potentially be a part of of that assessment. In 2012, the municipal bylaw modernization grants. We strongly support this section, they are a very important incentive based mechanism to support municipalities efforts to ensure that their bylaws for the housing density and accessibility that we're looking for. And then I just want to note that we support the appropriation of $650,000 that is in addition to the funding for the municipal and regional planning fund. I was unclear in the language whether that money was being taken from the fund, but it's just can't state how important it is that we are adequately funding planning in general, and the modernization grants should be funded on top of that. And then in section 14 the downtown and village center tax credit program. This is a really critical high demand source of financial support for the creation of housing units and adaptive reuse and our historic centers. So we support expanding eligibility to include the neighborhood does does it. Well, neighborhood. It's not designation development. Thank you. Wow. There is because it would provide greater access to these opportunities while continuing again to prioritize our, our smart growth areas. So we, we support funding for the program being increased along with any eligibility expansion to not, again, they loot that existing funding pool. So we're pleased to see the Senate support for this program as well. So I think I will, I will leave it there and again, there's several other provisions in this bill that that further support housing creation and I did not mention them but we are in support of many of the other pieces of policies in this bill. I feel like it's very positive step forward to address our housing crisis. But in closing, I would also just reiterate that we feel it's very important to pair housing development policies with force protections, which you'll hear more about in detail tomorrow. So, we'd be happy to provide any further testimony and happy to answer any questions if, if there are time, if there was time. Members have quick questions. Representative Dolan. There's a strong interest to try to streamline the permitting of water and wastewater and I think what's in this bill is eliminating state oversight and having the municipal. Do you have a perspective as to how we should best remind that I do not have a perspective on that. I would say John Grove might would be might have more, more insight on that particular position. Thank you. And if you could file your comments. Yes, I'm sorry and I will do that. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Do we have Ellen coming in?