 Thank you. And here we are. It is Thursday, January 13th. And this is Senate government operations. And just, I just want to remind us, I think that I haven't said this for a while, but, and we only have two guests with us so it doesn't, it really isn't relevant right now but we don't use chat. Because chat is seen by the committee is seen as side conversations, and if we were in the state house, we would ask people to take their conversations outside of the committee room so just to remind people that the only time chat is used is if somebody refers to a website or a document or something Gail will post it on the chat, but other than that we don't really use it. So, today, I believe, Tucker, we are going to look at, as you remember probably two years ago we passed a municipal self governance pilot bill. It passed the Senate, and it did not meet with much favorability in the house. And so this year we're trying a slightly different tack, and Tucker will explain to us what it is that we're doing here and how this might give us some of the same outcomes, but in a slightly different way. So, with that, Tucker, do you want to lead us off? And just just I want to make sure Mark, are you Sheriff Anderson are you here for this bill, or did I mislead you on something. Good afternoon Madam Chair, I am here regarding s 181 I missed the reference that you're talking about but if that's the one that's what I'm here for. Is it thank you okay I just didn't sometimes I might send people the wrong messages so okay just wanted to check. Thank you. Okay Tucker. Well good afternoon everyone Tucker Anderson Office of Legislative Council. I will walk you through s 181 as introduced for some background just some general differentiation between what you have in front of you, and what Senator white brought up about the municipal self governance pilot program that you all worked on last biennium. The key difference with everything in this bill is that the authority that is granted under the bill you have in front of you is universal for all municipalities. This doesn't establish a pilot program where there's a limited number of municipalities that are selected first by commission that's recommended to the General Assembly, and then you would pass subsequent acts. Through this authority is granted immediately upon the passage of the bill and is available to all municipalities in the state. There are a ton of subject areas that are covered within the four corners of this bill. There is going to be a lot to unpack here within some of those subject areas, and I'm sure that you will give it a lot of attention. So to start let's jump into the first chunk of the bill under the reader assistance heading on page two ordinance authority subject to permissive referendum. The authority granted to municipalities that they will express legislatively through their legislative body that is subject to a referendum of the voters so it could be overturned by petition by the voters. The first section that we will deal with is one that this committee has worked in quite a bit 24 vsa section 2291. This contains enumerated regulatory powers. This is ordinance authority. And for each of these the municipal legislative body would have the ability to adopt an ordinance that carries either a civil or criminal penalty. There are some exceptions in 2291 that we don't have to get into here. But that is the background for how this comes to be. The first amendment appears on page three subdivision one. And this is a modification of the existing regulatory authority that municipalities have over sidewalks and bicycle paths. And this allows municipalities to set off portions of public highways for sidewalks and bicycle paths and to regulate their installation and use. So this is a clarifying amendment that says that municipalities would be able to regulate the installation of sidewalks and bicycle paths and authority that apparently they do not have currently outside of 2291. And in sub division four we deal with another municipal highway section under existing authority this allows municipalities to regulate the operation and use of vehicles to erect traffic signs and signals to regulate the speed of vehicles. Here we are striking subject to 23 vsa chapter 13 sub chapter 12 eliminating this reference the intent of that strike is to allow municipalities simply without qualification to regulate the speed limits on town highways. If you go to 23 vsa chapter 13 sub chapter 12 it very specifically will limit the maximum speed limits and minimum speed limits that may be posted on town highways and requires traffic studies. Eliminating this reference the intent and there may need to be further amendment is to state that municipalities can regulate the speed of vehicles absent those qualifications. Languages immediately added after that to allow municipalities to implement traffic calming regulations. Traffic calming regulations is not narrowly defined here, but if you look up some of the traffic calming measures and devices that Vermont uses, you would find things like rotaries, or diagonal cross streets that redirect traffic to main thoroughfares. These are examples of some of the engineering level measures that government entities use for traffic calming broadly wanted to highlight that for you there. Moving on subdivision six, which currently allows municipalities to regulate the location installation maintenance repair and removal of utility poles, wires and conduits water pipes, or water mains. We add storm drains. This would allow municipalities to regulate the location installation and maintenance of storm drains. This is general. It is not narrowly defined. And this is an area that I will flag you may want to hear testimony on because there is a substantial amount of interaction with federal law when it comes to storm water runoff. So this may be more complicated than I can appreciate with a lack of background in those federal regulations. Subdivision 13 modifies existing authority that allows municipality to compel the cleaning or repair of any premises that in the judgment of the legislative body is dangerous to public health or safety, and adds language the states that they can establish property management standards that are applicable to all premises within the municipality. When this language is left general. You may want to investigate what some of the property management standards, could be under subdivision. Com or did you have a question. Yeah, thank you manager I don't want to get too deep in the weeds Tucker but could that possibly mean the color of buildings or things like that. Because if you have a neighborhood everybody has to have either a white or a red house or something like that. I'm just thinking. Because of the context of that subdivision, I wouldn't place it on the more zoning or residential standard side of things like colors of houses limitations on things like that. I would associate this more with the previous clause that deals with the cleaning or repair premises, and I would understand this to be related more to, for example, keeping the premises around a building in a clean state. But you may want to hear more, for example from the league on what municipalities are looking for with this specific power. Thank you. Thank you. Moving on in subdivision 24. We have modification of the existing power contingent on a determination by a building inspector or health officer that a building is uninhabitable to recover all expenses incident to the maintenance of an uninhabitable building clauses added to extend that authority to vacant or blighted buildings. So again, the existing authority, the standard is an uninhabitable building upon the determination of a building inspector fire marshal etc. The municipality can, you know, repair that premises and then recover the expenses for that repair as a lean on the property. This would extend that to vacant or blighted properties. The last amendment within the second section adds a new subdivision 30 to section 2291 and grants the authority to municipalities to remove abandoned or damaged and leaking boats from bodies of water, provided that the boat is located within 100 feet of a shoreline within the territorial limits of the municipality and to seek damages against the owner of the boat for the actual cost of removing the boat from the body of water. There's quite a bit to unpack within this power and you may want to change some of the policy decisions within this. But again, this relates to either abandoned boats or damaged and leaking boats, located on anybody of water, provided that it's within 100 feet of a shoreline and that the shoreline belongs within the territorial limits of the municipality. And then the way that the costs of that removal are offset is through effectively in action in court for damages against the owner of the boat. Next chunk of authority here under the reader assistance heading municipal authority that is subject to voter approval. So difference between what we just went through and what you're going to see here the this authority, each of the authorities that is proposed under this next chunk. And this is going to be presented to the voters at either an annual or special meeting. And the voters will then vote to approve this authority in the previous section the legislative body is just given the authority to adopt the ordinance and the voters can overturn that. Here, the voters are given the power to vote and say yes this is the authority that our municipality should have. First, section two, we are adding 17 vs a section 2645 a this will allow municipalities to vote to revert to authority that is provided by general law, this will be available to municipalities that have a charter. And to give you the high level overview before jumping in the proposal here is to allow a municipality that has a charter where they might be constrained by the authority the written words in that charter to revert from their special powers back to the general law, contingent upon the approval of the voters. So, subsection a municipality may propose to seed specific authority granted by charter, and instead use authority that is delegated in later enacted general law, provided that the proposal is approved by the voters at any annual or special meeting worn for that purpose. So, a few things to pick out here for you all. They are seating their specific authority and using later enacted general law. So, for example, a charter that says specifically, we elect a treasurer at our annual meeting, then the General Assembly as it did. Oh Lord, seven years ago now allows the appointment of treasurers contingent on a approval of the voters that chartered municipality could point to the later enacted a point of treasurer law and say, we want to use that general law, it's more advantageous, and it was passed after we adopted our charter provision. And that solves not only a few issues for the municipality, but also a few constitutional issues with a municipality using authority other than what the General Assembly has specifically laid out in the charter. Because here they're using authority that the General Assembly has given every municipality at a later time. So it's really the legislature that is giving this authority, not the municipality that is creating it. Subsection be the proposal may be made by the legislative body of the municipality, or by a petition of 5% of the voters. To specifically identify and contain the later enacted general law that the municipality proposes to use in lieu of its charter. The proposal shall be filed as a public record with the clerk of the municipality at least 10 days before the first public hearing and be available for inspection or copy. The legislative body shall hold at least two public hearings prior to the meeting to vote on the charter proposal. Notice of each public hearing and of the annual or special meeting shall be given in accordance with section 2641 voting on the proposal shall be by Australian ballot. The requirements here are similar to charter amendment, not as stringent or specific to highlight one reason that some of the notice and public records requirements are carried over here. So I believe that you all as the General Assembly can have some for some sort of notice and knowledge of when this is happening, because likely you will want to clean up the charters where the municipalities have said we don't want this power anymore, we're going to use the general law. You're likely going to want to eliminate the confusion of having a contradictory existing law in your codified Vermont statutes annotated. On to a new subject section three. This would add a new 17 vs a section 2646 a which would permit the election of non residents to town office. It states that not withstanding section 2646 title 17 a municipality may propose to allow non residents to be elected as town officers. The proposal must be approved by the voters and the annual or special meeting. The proposal can be brought by the legislative body or by petition 5% of the voters and shall specifically identify the town office that may be filled by a non resident and again voting is required to be conducted by Australian ballot. There are going to be a few sections that will move through here that are dealing with specific requirements for the election of town officers. And for the composition of certain boards. We will move into the first here 17 vs a section 2650 is being amended in this section to permit municipalities to have more than five members on their select boards. In the first subdivision be one a what you are doing is you are striking the word to so that that subdivision now reads that a town may vote at an annual or special meeting to elect additional select board members. It is not so prescriptive as to say two additional select board members, it could be more. We have a clarifying correction subdivision be to a if two or more additional select board member positions are created. They shall be for terms of the same length, if the terms of the new positions are to be for two years. The terms of the members shall be staggered with a member or members elected for one year and the other select board member members elected for two years. This is an existing staggering provision that applies to when municipality moves from three members to five. This is just clarifying that it's also going to apply to those municipalities who choose to have six or seven or 70 members on their legislative body. This is a section five. Some of us were listening very closely. Section five. This deals with the elimination of the office of constable. Again, proposed by the municipality and approved by the voters. Each of these sections that will move through. I'll walk you through this one so that you know the mechanics of how this particular office is being removed. But this is replicated for each of the offices within the bill. So I'll move through the subsequent sections a little more quickly as we go along. Section five. Eliminating the constables. First, we're adding a subsection D to state that a town may vote by Australian ballot at an annual meeting to eliminate the office of constable. If the town votes to eliminate the office of constable, the select board shall appoint a qualified law enforcement officer who need not be a resident of the town. He shall not carry out any of the duties that are assigned to the constable for the town under statute. The law enforcement officer that is appointed by the select board will have the same powers and duties as an elected first constable and shall proceed in the discharge of those duties in the same manner and will be subject to the same liabilities as first constables. A vote to eliminate the office shall remain in effect until it is rescinded by a majority vote of the registered voters at an annual meeting. And the term of office of any constable in office on that date. On the date a town votes to eliminate that office shall expire on the 45th day after the vote, or on the date upon which the select board appoints a law enforcement officer under the subsection, whichever occurs first. This is very similar, and in fact taken directly from some of the elimination of offices that you have already put in title 17 for local elected officials. Section six whole new topic entirely but still within local elections and local officials. This adds 17 vsa section 2668 to deal with the recall of local officials. This provides that any elected municipal officer may be removed from office subject to the procedure for voter initiated petition that is contained within the section that we're working in now. A petition for a vote on the question of recalling an elected municipal officer needs to be signed by 15% of the active registered voters of the municipality and presented to the legislative body or the clerk. When a petition is submitted under this section, the legislative body is required to call a special meeting within 60 days from receipt of the petition or include an article in the warning for the next annual meeting if it falls within that 60 day period. When the petition is approved by a majority of the ballots cast at the special or annual meeting, the officer that is named in the petition shall cease to hold office vacancies that result from a recall shall be filled in accordance with general municipal law. And a recall petition and this is an important limitation shall not be brought against an individual elected municipal officer more than once within any 12 month period. So the voters get one bite at the apple per year to recall an elected town officer. Section seven amends 24 BSA section 138 this is your local option taxes section. As you know currently, there is a limit and specific requirements for a municipality to adopt a local option tax under general law. Other municipalities that do not qualify under the specific formula that is articulated inside section 138. So let's use the charter amendment procedure to adopt local option taxes here. This is eliminating the formula for determining municipalities that qualify for this power, and is just stating if a legislative body of a municipality by majority vote the voters of the municipality can vote to adopt one of the following 1% sales tax 1% meals and alcoholic beverages tax or a 1% rooms tax. The short version, this is just allowing any municipality to propose and then vote to adopt a local option tax. Section eight. This is an amendment to 24 BSA section 4460 dealing with appropriate municipal panels, which is a very poetic name for panels such as your development review boards, or your zoning adjustment boards or zoning boards of adjustment. I can never remember which order it goes in. I'll keep my high twos about zoning boards of adjustment to myself. This or just planning and zoning most. There we go. This would add a new subsection F that would allow a municipality to vote at an annual or special meeting to change the number of members that can pose a board of adjustment, or a development review board. Changing the number it doesn't specify that they need to enlarge on any basis, to some extent, under current authority, there's already authority to determine the composition of these boards. Section one on page 12, the proposal to change the number of members serving on one of these boards may be brought either by the legislative body or by petition of 5% of the voters. The vote to approve is going to be by Australian ballot. If the number of members on a board is reduced, the legislative body determines which of the appointed members shall remain in office. The authority to continue those members in office is left to the legislative body under that subdivision. And just to highlight something there, the members are appointed by the legislative body under current law. So appointment and removal power already exists there. The next section, the next chunk of sections deals with voter approved. Tucker, can I interrupt you for one second here to tell the committee that this bill is way also I wanted to give Tucker a chance to take a drink of water. This bill is way pared down from where it started. We started with hundreds of changes to general law and this is where it has come so if you think this is long, it would have been eight times longer before. Just so you know, this isn't that long. It's only 27 pages. I know, but I'm just, I'm just saying that it would have been a lot longer had we gone where we really wanted to go right when. Okay, thanks. Well, Tucker. I'm sure that my monotone will make it feel like it's Tolstoy or David Foster Wallace, but we are halfway through right now, I promise you. All right. You're doing a great job and actually it's fun for those of us who are listening carefully because you're making it fun. Yes, 70 members on a select board. All right. That could be more than members of a town. You could just build a representative annual town meeting with that many members. The next chunk of sections deals with voter approved authority to appoint moderators, trustees of public funds and cemetery commissioners. So this is shifting required election of these officers to the ability based on voter approval to appoint some of these positions. So I'll walk you through this amend 17 dsa 2646 and subdivision one to allow the moderator to be appointed. And these sections that are referenced such as section 2651 G will come up later in the bill. We have a modification in subdivision seven that recognizes the some municipalities under the authority that we covered in earlier section may have eliminated that office. Subdivision 12, we deal with the trustees of public funds subdivision 14, the cemetery commissioner. And we get the fun of moving through each one of those individual sections that deal with the procedure for moving to appointed moderators trustees of public funds and cemetery commissioners. We had 17 bsa section 2651 G to allow moderators to be appointed. A municipality may vote in an annual meeting to authorize the legislative body to appoint a moderator. A moderator may be removed by the legislative body for just cause. Subdivision B, a vote to authorize legislative body to appoint the moderator shall remain in effect until rescinded by the voters at an annual or special meeting. Subsection C, the term of office of a moderator in office on the date a municipality votes to switch to appointment shall expire 45 calendar days after the vote. Subdivision B, the date upon which the legislative body appoints the new moderator, whichever occurs first, unless a petition for reconsideration or rescission is filed in accordance with 17 bsa section 2661. Subdivision B, to authorize the legislative body to appoint the moderator as provided in the section shall extend to all municipalities except those that have a charter that specifically provides for the election or appointment of the office moderator. So I want to highlight that in particular, because of the earlier earlier authority that we covered where municipality could take advantage of a later enacted general law. You have built into many of these sections that allow, for example, the clerk and the treasure of the municipality to be appointed. The election is included in all of them and the General Assembly here is expressly saying that this authority will not apply to municipalities that have a charter that specifically provides for the election of a, in this instance, moderator. There's nothing that we need to revisit to make sure that we clarify. If this is moving forward that that access to general law authority earlier in the bill will permit municipalities to access these title 17 appointment authorities. Same language is applied in section 11 to trustees of public funds. No difference so I'll move through and to the newly added 17 bsa section 2651 I to cemetery commissioners. If we are all still in the wagon together. I'll move on to the next chunk, which is the authority of the legislative body without voter approval. This section deals with authority that the legislative body can wield without expressing it through an ordinance and without submitting the issue to the voters for approval. 23 vsa section 1007 we have specific authority dealing with local speed limits, brought it up earlier in the bill where we struck that reference to this particular sub chapter when dealing with speed limits that the municipality can post for their town highways. Here we are going right into that section and eliminating some of those limitations. So, languages struck in a one sub a dealing with maximum speed limits and sub b dealing with minimum speed limit references also struck in a to their the bottom line with what is happening in the section is that this would remove the specific speed limit limitations that are placed on municipalities, the maximum speed limit on a town highway could be more than 50, and the minimum could be less than 25. Section 1424 vsa section 961 is amended to read and you all dealt with this section last year. This is the section of statute that deals with the vacancy or suspension of officers duties and dealt with this in the context of members of a legislative body that doesn't take their oath of office and never assume their position on the legislative body. Last year you visited that, and you established a procedure there, where if I believe it's within 30 days after the election of that member, if they don't take a oath of office and assume the position, then it is declared initially to be vacant, and the legislative body affords that member an opportunity to show up to take the oath and to assume their office. If they don't do that, then it becomes vacant, and you run through the procedure to replace them. This adds a subsection E states that when a member of a municipal legislative body fails to attend within a one year period, the minimum number of meetings established by the legislative body in an annual attendance policy, the members office shall become vacant. However, the members office shall not be deemed vacant pursuant to an attendance policy until the legislative body of the municipality has warned a regular meeting for that purpose and affords the member the opportunity to demonstrate that the absences were due to a reasonable basis established in the attendance policy. An annual attendance policy may only be established by unanimous resolution of the legislative body and shall be renewed by the legislative body annually. This section works backwards a little bit. The legislative body unanimously working together establishes an attendance policy included in that are some reasonable bases for absences and a minimum attendance measure that will be applicable to all the members. And because it's a unanimous decision itself binding here everyone's agreeing this is how many meetings we have to attend within a year. The member fails to meet that attendance goal. Then they are subject potentially to having their office deemed vacant. However, they have an opportunity at a meeting to show up and explain their absences. Section 15 amends 18 VSA section 5361, and it adds one word to statutes relating to the care of cemetery grounds to allow the town to improve the cemetery grounds. The currently reads appropriations may be made when necessary for purchasing, holding and keeping in repair suitable grounds for burying the dead. This adds the term improving so that improvements can be made with monies that are held within those cemetery accounts. Section 16 amends 24 VSA section 3107. And the general description of this is to require that prior to the issuance of a final permit under the municipalities building permit structure that all other essential or necessary permits and inspections need to have been complied with. So jumping into subsection D. The section is being amended to state that that certificate shall not be granted until the inspector is satisfied first and this is existing that the structure when completed will be properly built and fireproof and provided that the building inspector or issuing the building certificate shall be satisfied that the issuance of the certificate or the building of the structure will not violate a bylaw adopted by the municipality. And that the owner builder or architect has acquired any necessary municipal permit or certificate that is related to sidewalks, water supply sewer building codes or signage. This sets up that the building certificate that's issued by the building inspector is not going to be issued until those that are building this structure are in compliance with existing requirements in the municipality around, for example, the village around the building as we say in legal terms the sidewalks, some of the utilities that are provided to the building, etc. Starting in section 17, we're going to have from here on a few pieces from what you refer to as your off the shelf authority related to emergency operations of government. First, we have an amendment to the state's open meeting law in section 17. It proposes to add a new section 312 a to title one that deals with the meetings of public bodies during a state of emergency. I will try to bring you back to some of your previous discussions as we move through this. We have a set of definitions in subsection a. We have affected public body. And again, public body means any commission board legislative body of the state or its political subdivisions, a public body whose regular meeting location is affected, or is located in an area affected by a hazard. And that cannot meet in a designated physical meeting location due to a declared state of emergency pursuant to 20 vs a chapter one and hazard is a defined term bringing you back to your discussion. Last year the year before. Subdivision to hazard means and all hazards as defined in 20 vs a section to subdivision one. Subdivisions all hazards could be, for example, natural disasters, chemical spills or more recently public health hazards. Not withstanding subdivisions 312 a to D and C two of this title during a declared state of emergency, and you just passed this temporary authority out of your committee in S 222. This would allow a quorum of a public body to meet electronically without designating physical meeting location, or requiring members of the body or the staff to be present at that location. It further allows notices and agendas to be placed into electronic locations in lieu of two physical locations. Subsection C, as we ran through last week feels like ages ago in S 222. When an affected public body meets electronically, they shall use technology that permits the attendance and participation of the public through electronic means allow access to the meetings by telephone and post information that enables the public to access and participate in meetings electronically and include that information in the agenda for the meeting. The legislative body of the municipality and the school board are required to record any meetings that they hold pursuant to this authority. And finally, notices shall continue to be posted in or near the municipal clerk's office. Thank you, Madam Chair. So Tucker, it may not be important, but I did notice the phrase whenever feasible is still in here with respect to the use of the telephone. Is that on purpose or was that just sort of because I remember we talked about that and left it out of the other. I think this had already been drafted when we did that. Okay. Yes. This had already been introduced. I'm not sure where we are. Because I don't have I only have one device with me here. So I'm not sure where we are in terms of. Can you tell me Tucker. What, how much time we might have left in the meeting? Maybe a few minutes because again, you've already gone through a lot of this and we're about to hit page 22 of 27. Okay. Yeah, because the ones that we just went through, I don't think we need to. We need to go through them at all. I'm only aware of that because we have another issue. And I don't want to get too far behind the schedule, but go ahead. Section 18 contains the authority that you dealt with during the COVID response and in your off the shelf bill. That would allow boards of civil authority and tax officers to conduct property inspections for purposes of grand list appeals through electronic means, rather than being in person. And again, this is during a declared state of emergency. The way that this is set up. Moving all the way to page 25. Section 20 contains the language you all put together that would prohibit disconnections from water and sewer supply during a declared state of emergency, provided that it relates to the water system. And provided further that there's something about the declared state of emergency that would have a financial impact on the rate payer and their ability to pay for the system. And there's a caveat in there that if the disconnection is because the water system is contaminated that they can force a disconnection at that point. Section 21 would amend the emergency powers under 20 vs a chapter one to add a new section 47. That would allow during a declared state of emergency for municipalities to extend statutory deadlines that are applicable to municipal corporations and to extend or wave deadlines that are applicable to certain licenses or plans that are issued by the state of emergency for operation. And there's a default extension under here and 90 day extension of any existing permit for the duration of the state of emergency and up to 90 days after the declared state of emergency ends. And the bill section 22 contains one repeal it repeals the statute that requires segregated accounts for town highway funds and the general funds of the municipality it would allow for some commingling there. Effective date of this bill is proposed. July 1, 2022. And those are all of the words on the page. Thank you. What I'm going to do is there, there was a lot of stuff here. And there are a lot of things and I'm sure that there will be some of these. We really need to take more testimony on some of them seem pretty straightforward I can't imagine why we wouldn't allow a town to use funds to improve their cemeteries but apparently we don't. So what I think that will do is jump to mark to Sheriff Anderson because he's been here. And I suspect that you don't really care about improving cemeteries I mean, not that you don't care about improving cemeteries but that you don't that's not your prime reason for being here I suspect it might have something to do with the constables. So if you want to weigh in, and then I think we'll take this up in depth and go through the things and see where we need to go. Next time. Okay, it does that. Is that okay with everybody. Okay, so Sheriff Anderson, since you're here. I want to share for the record Mark Anderson Wyndham County Sheriff and President of the Vermont Sheriff's Association. The Sheriff's Association currently holds no position on this though. I believe it was section five specific to the constables. There is at least an initial concern raised by the sheriff's which has to do with the construct of this language I don't think that we necessarily will oppose it we just want to ensure it doesn't force a town away from the ability to contract with the sheriff. And we're also concerned simply just about some of the professional regulation when it comes to constables versus police officer. There's constructs under title 24 for police officers police chiefs things of that nature so just flagging it as a potential area that the Sheriff's Association may want to weigh in on we just don't have a position right now. Oh, okay. Thanks. So, committee, how do you want to go forward with this I'm thinking that it might make sense to to take different sections of it at a time, and I would suspect that I just lost my hearing. Okay. Sorry. That there that ones that just came off the that came out of the preparedness bill that we did. And the ones that we just passed around the ability to meet in without a physical location in turn in during an emergency. I don't know that we need need to take much testimony on those do we. We already passed them at least twice. No, I don't think we need to do much on that. And they're all contingent on a state of emergency correct. Yes. Okay. Yes, so what I would suggest then is that we, we, the other sections are, there are some things in there that we should just start addressing individual by individual allowance by individual, like the bike paths is different than the speed on town roads, and then the travel, traffic calming, and just start dealing with them one at a time, and see who we want to hear from. And just instead of trying to take the whole bill at once. Does that make any sense to anybody. It just, and just do like we do with bills often and just make our little check mark that one is fine we all agree with that. This one needs more testimony. Yeah. Okay. All right. So that means that that's being going through the bill again, in a sense, maybe not the whole bill but we're going to check. We'll go through the bill again. Yeah, it means us taking the bill then and looking at it and starting it and saying, what are the issues with this one and where do we need to go with this one and who who does anybody need to testify and I'll get. We'll make sure that we get the league in here. And maybe somebody from the agency of transportation since a number of these deal with transportation issues. Health officer maybe planning commission. Whoever we think is reasonable to have and come and talk to us. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. And I'm happy to keep the conversation. It seems like we should talk to select boards. Yeah, we can talk to as many as I want to come but in general, the league represents the select board so. Okay, that's fine. I can live with that. That's fine. But if a particular select board wants to come in and testify on any of this, surely we would allow them to. Because we're giving them a whole different line of power, which is fine. I'm not opposed to it. I'm just saying select boards are going to be affected by this in a pretty big way. Well, they don't have to be. I mean, well, that's true. They don't have to do any of these. They don't have to make any bike paths or they don't have to change the speed limit on any roads if they don't want to. They, they're, we're just giving them the authority to do it. Sure. Well, I guess what you said about the league, they're always, I would settle for the league that be fine. Gwynne. Everyone Gwynne Zacca, the front league of cities and towns. I would just recommend there are provisions in here that having the agency of transportation obviously makes sense. Also, there's provisions that deal with sort of like zoning planning sort of thing so I think the Vermont planners association might be have some planners in here to talk about those sections as well. We have, you know, a lot of these asks are not officially sponsored by certain municipalities but they these are essentially lists that we've been given from our members to sort of seek statutory changes to so we might have individuals like for example that leaky boat and that's from Colchester. That was when they were dealing with boats that were abandoned and off their shores and took much too long to get pulled out of the water. So, we would be happy to recommend names if there's any interest in having specific provisions addressed. I think, oh, definitely, definitely. And I think that we probably will need to hear from somebody from and our around the storm drains. Okay, anything else right now that we need should address. I just want to thank Gwen and Karen for and Tucker for going through the statutes and coming up with with these and there believe me there were tons tons more, but decided that some of them were were way too controversial, and that just beginning step by step, maybe to give towns a little more authority so that they can make some improvements in their cemeteries. It always stuns me what we don't allow them to do but anyway, I think that's a lovely example of them. Gail, do we have other people here waiting for 175? No, Madam Chair, not yet.