 last draft recommending system. Good morning. Welcome to the House Committee on Environment and Energy. We're going to continue picking up where we left off yesterday on our walkthrough with 687 version 4.1 with our legislative council beginning up on page 93. Ellen Tchaikovsky, Office of Legislative Council. Yes, so last night when we left, we were talking about page 93, which starts the amendments to the Municipal and Regional Planning Fund to add resilience. So you started talking about the concept. I didn't talk about the specific language in it, so I didn't know where you wanted to start. With the language, that's great. OK, thank you. So just to remind you, we talked about this a little bit yesterday. There exists in 4306, the Regional and Municipal Planning Fund. It is funded by 17% of the property transfer tax, plus any appropriations of which there have been a few in the last few years. That pot of money is then divided between 10% goes to the Vermont Center for Geographic Information. 70% goes to the Regional Planning Commissions. And then 20% are municipal grants for a lot of different planning projects. And so the language, the new language, starts at the bottom of page 94. So this section is adding reference to resilience and climate change in a few different places under this. And so under the Disbursement to Municipalities, a municipality shall, so down on line 19, shall have voted at an annual or special meeting to provide local funds for municipal planning and resilience purposes and regional planning purposes. It then adds language, similar language, on page 95. So funds allocated to municipalities shall be used for the purposes of, and then down on line 17, acquiring development rights, conservation easements, or title to those lands, areas, and strictures identified in either regional or municipal plans, as requiring special consideration for provision of needed housing, aquifer protection, flood protection, climate resilience, open space, farmland preservation, or other conservation purposes. So that's in addition to those other two things, which are regarding things they can already apply for grants, which are largely around planning, so municipal planning, the different types of plans, and by-law adoption. So it's adding flood protection and climate resilience specifically as what they can use the funds for. That's a good point. Flood protection would be pretty broad, I guess, in climate resilience. So communities would have a lot of latitude. I guess that's a question I shouldn't make that statement. Sure. I do think that the department issues guidelines on what types of projects they think would be eligible, and then the municipalities make an application for a specific grant amount. So yes, I think it's fairly broad. Thank you, Madam Chair. So in 2019, what you just said, so vote on a special meeting to provide local funds for municipal planning and resilience purposes. Does that mean when municipality is that defined, could that be the planning commissions or the town-wide or a city-wide vote? I believe it's a town-wide vote, yeah. Is that an annual or special meeting? So they would add that, like you say, either a special meeting, like, OK, so the annual meeting. So they would just add something to the list of whatever they're voting in. Yeah, and it would be to make an application for these funds. They have to apply for them and then receive a grant. I see, OK. Thank you. So do you know what? The same section, line 15A, 4350 of this title shall be confirmed under section 4350 or? So 4350 is this section that is the process by which a municipal plan is confirmed to apply the regional plan. The town puts it in their town plan. They doubt me to vote on it. Is Cochrane, do you have insight into this? Yeah, the RBCs confirm the municipal plan. They need a planning process, and the RBCs need to confirm the process for them to be eligible for these votes. OK, but then there's a list of things like or, or, B. I guess I'm surprised about the voting, the thing that the language is inserted. How to vote to apply for planning? We want the municipal, the local board, the town leadership to be aware that they've applied for this grant. The intent behind that is oftentimes the Planning Commission, or in the past, the Planning Commission has applied for a grant, unaware and didn't inform the select board of their plans. The work happens, and there's not a lot of local support or awareness about what was applied for. So making sure that everybody is on the same page before the application is submitted is the intent of that. OK, so this is not a town-wide vote. This is a vote of the legislative body of the town. OK, thank you. Sorry. Got it. OK, so, OK, it's not something that, when you go to the polls, it's not going to be there. OK, OK, thank you. All right, any other questions on the section represented? Yeah, I'm just talking up on the word annual. I'm a select board member. And we meet twice a month, except for the summit done in once a month. We don't really have an annual meeting other than after town hall meeting to appoint the new select board members. So what is a little explanation on what it means by annual meeting? So I'm not misinterpreting. And again, this isn't the municipal, correct? Peter Gregory? Peter Gregory to Rivers Out of Quiche Regional. Commission Chris was correct about making sure select boards know when what's going on as far as applying for municipal planning grants. But this section of statute talks about the process that we as RPCs have to go through to lead to confirmation. And one of the requirements of confirmation is that the town is supporting local planning and regional planning. It has nothing to do with the grant application, the municipal grant application. So if there's a planning commission, they provide them some budget for their operations. They're doing some kind of regional planning and then the RPC can check off that they are doing that. And the town's appropriate money at an annual or special town meeting, so that's where they're at. So it's like in their town budget. We can find a planning commission budget. They do a capacity study, funds, hallways, planning. Okay. Thank you. So I have a question though. Does it make sense that because it's really sort of, is the town doing broader, are they committed to planning? Does it make sense to have this added language planning and the one that's better? Is that a question? Yes. If the fund is being renamed resilience, I think it might be helpful to demonstrate that a town is providing funding for resilience planning as well. If they're undertaking, say, a hazard mitigation plan with 80% FEMA money, they've got to come up with a 20% match. That's a demonstration that they're using local funds for resilience planning as just one example. Thank you. When you say you contact the select boards, in what manner do you email letters or do you contact the town clerk for forwarding? If we want to contact the select board members, we do so directly or through the town manager or something like that, either in person or through email, not town clerks. I mean, we go right to the source. Yeah, we have a town administrator that. Right, so we would defer to that chain of command. Good, thank you. Chris Cochran from the department. I would say the municipal planning grant fund is incredibly flexible right now. I don't necessarily see this language as even needed. A directive to focus on climate adaption of resilience is something that we're doing. So do what you need to do, but I don't think that specific directive languages is necessary. I guess the program is flexible right now. That's really, you give us an example of a results grant that has happened through this program. Jacob, could we fund it? Yeah, Jacob Everett, Department of Housing, Community Development. Just last year, for example, Salisbury is working on bylaws that looks at their forest blocks locally. So that potentially could be considered an element of resilience. And off the top of my head, I can't think of another direct flood resilience related project, but we can follow up with that representative, Sabelia. Great, thanks, Nick. Yeah, but you know, it's, the fund is small right now. And really the focus for the last several years has been bylaw modernization to support housing. So that's been our priority. Additional funds were added for that. If there's additional funds, there's more opportunities to fund different types of projects in absolute way. So would specifically a town, I have a request from three towns in our region that are struggling to deal with water. A rent thing help with hydrology study and also thinking about grants for projects that are gonna be necessary as a result of that. So is that something that you'd be considered under the, specifically I'm not under the current structure. Something like that, the MTAP program is a capacity booster and opportunity for communities to get additional assistance for other grant writing. We tend to have more specific focus on like, what is the project you're trying to achieve? We don't support generally just staff time for grant writing. MTAP of course is temporary. All right, so on page 96, there's session law regarding this program. So funding for it. So on page 96, section 41, ACCD shall rename the municipal planning grant program as the municipal planning and resilient grants program, resilience grant program. In addition to other funds appropriated to ACCD for grants under the section, $1.5 million is appropriated from the general fund to the municipal and regional planning and resilience fund for the following purposes. Assistance to municipalities to support resiliency planning and identify and plan for resiliency projects to reduce damages from flooding and other climate related hazards. And funding for regional planning commissions to increase staff in order to support municipalities in conducting climate resiliency planning, project development and implementation and hazard mitigation locally, regionally and on a watershed scale. I just asked this question and it seems here, assistance to municipalities for resiliency planning and identifying plans for resiliency projects to reduce damages from flooding and other climate related hazards. So is this a one-time use that we would envision here? My town said we're struggling to deal with water and they have asked for help. This is the help that I think they're asking for but I think they said that would not qualify. So can I just ask the council to clarify this? So this, we've renamed the fund, is that this would be going into the fund that exists now with a one-time allocation of 1.5 million from the general fund as it's written right now? Yeah, well combined with the changes in that price actually we're just discussing with this. Yeah, okay, I think that just level sets so we understand what we're doing here and then Representative Sebelius' question about how would the agency kind of interpret this and utilize those extra dollars? Yeah, well we take our direction from you, obviously. Most right now currently, you know, the Municipality applies for the grant but many times they choose to work with an RPC but they also can work with an independent consultant. So these are provisions that are already allowed so I don't know if, you know, it's up to, is necessarily needed because that's the way the program already works. If you want direct applying which are the types of projects that we can qualify for, we can do that. There are other funds, you know, Vermont Emergency Management pays for hazard mitigation grant planning and then there's a lot of other pieces of money into the works, but. So we're doing two things here, right? So we're changing the fund first to allow for resilience projects to come out of the fund and then in the second we have a session law proposal to change the program forever? No, not forever. No, and so I didn't draft this language but this is attaching to the 1.5 million like conditions. Just to that one point, not to the actual program. Well I think, so the first part is broadening the program so that more types of grants can be given, right? So right now you can apply to this program already for updating your town plan and bylaws. So, but the existing funding is divided among those different types of projects. This is adding a new type of project to that list and so then there's this 1.5 million dollars that's being added for the following purposes so that it's for that new category specifically, I believe. So when that money is spent, does that use go back? No, but it's, so I didn't, again, I didn't draft this but it seems like it's sort of to jumpstart and then once that money is gone in the future it'll just be a category and the existing budget which is somewhere usually between I think 500 and 600 and $7,000 somewhere in there. It's just on the list of things that municipalities can apply for out of that existing pot. I guess that follow-up question would be how does this interact with the flood, the work that's on this crew? Hi, Catherine Dimitriuk, Northwest Region Planning. I'm just sad that I actually think this is a very positive change. I did a great addition that will serve a lot of communities in this time of need where we really need to focus both locally and regionally on mitigation projects. The Municipal Planning Grant program traditionally has been very flexible, easy to access by municipalities in contrast to all the other mitigation funding which is very complex. You have to go through all the FEMA booths. So I think this one-time boost and the addition and broadening of the program generally long-term will be much needed in new eyes of our communities. And I want to just remind folks that this is taken from the larger resilience bill that was introduced by the Washington County communities that were hit the hard side of flooding. That's Smith against Deming. Thank you. On line 14 and line 17, there were two purposes. One, the assistance for municipalities and the other is funding for regional planning commissions. If a community, NVDA has 52 or three towns, they need more staff. Does the town of Derby ask for a grant to help provide that staff or do they go to the Regional Planning Commission and ask them to ask for the grant? To me? Anybody that can answer it. That's a good question for the regional planners in the room because the, thank you. So, kind of like. In my opinion, the way that this is drafted, either path would work. So the town of Derby could apply on their own and then choose to hire the Regional Planning Commission to do the work or NVDA itself could apply to get funding to add a staff person to then do that one-on-one technical assistance. Okay, that's good. Thank you. So no wrong door. Okay, and then let's just get to the next section because that also speaks to staff. Right, so on page 97, section 42 is adding some new staff. So in addition to other funds appropriated to ACCD in fiscal year 2025, $125,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the agency for the purpose of creating a new permanent full-time position to staff the Climate Resiliency Grants from the Municipal Planning and Resilient Grants Program. In addition to other funds appropriated to A&R in fiscal year 2025, $125,000 is appropriated from the general fund to the agency for the purposes of funding a new permanent full-time position in the Water Investment Division of the Department of Environmental Conservation for the purposes of assisting in the financing of climate resilience projects from the Special Environmental Revolving Funds under 24VSA Chapter 120. So a new person to administer the grants and then a new person at DEC for Financing Climate Resilience Projects. And I don't know too much about the revolving funds. I don't know anything about the revolving funds. I'll just say that. Thanks Madam Chair. Yesterday we asked ACCD about how much is granted and what the capacity is. And I believe it was stated that 673,000 in grants had gone out to 57 communities, but that there had been about 1.27 million in requests. And my question is, I'm not entirely, so that funding pot and those overall requests, that was for the Municipal Planning Grant Program? Okay. Well, I'm shaking my head, but I- No, someone else was shaking their head. Okay, good. So to Claire, and typically, is there a typical? I mean, right now we're saying, so for FY25, we're saying instead of 673, there should be 1.5 million. Is there a typical amount that- Excuse me. 1.5 over the property transfer tax dollars that go in there, so it would be significantly more. And, sorry for the question. No, that was what I was trying to get at. So it's 1.5 plus. And I guess I would ask Mr. Cochran, do you have a, does it, do you need to increase capacity in order to, if the money goes up, do you need more staff? All these proposals to increase the fund and to add staff and out of the Governor's budget. So that's what I have to say. And I guess I would say to the committee that as we've been told and we're gonna take up our budget letter this afternoon at one o'clock, I think we need to be very cautious or careful in the things that we ask for extra money in this year's budget. And expect some trimming after our, when our asks get out of here. Representative Bongard. Not a fully thought through thought, but we'll say that I'm sitting here looking at the section thinking about the municipal grants that didn't get funded. And wondering whether if we're gonna put more money in because those grants can be used for everything here. They can be used to plan for flood resilience and that's part of the municipal planning. I just wonder if we'd be, Catherine I want you to tell me if you don't agree or just say it if you don't agree with me. But I'm sitting here wondering rather than doing this section, this section of the section law, if we're gonna put more money in it should simply be to more money for the municipal to fund municipal grants. And, but I'm wondering what others think. I don't know. Representative Tory. Thank you. I just wanted to share that the town I live in applied. It's time to do our town plan again and did not get funded. So that ask, that support that we need is going to be in our town budget, tell me. So, that's quite a lot of need that we just heard and some of it's really time-sensitive and these choices they have to make about who to give money to are hard. So I'm very supportive of more money for this because I think planning as we've been studying together is so important right now and we're going to be having to step up our game in a lot of ways. So. Representative Tory, you asked about the kind of, I'm not sure the word you used, but anyway, the adding the word flood protection, climate resilience on page 95 and whether they were to, I don't know, I'm not sure what your angle on that was. I'm curious what you're feeling or thinking about adding those words. So, I'm just wanting to make sure that we, I mean, I think our communities need a lot of help thinking about what to do with water. And so I'm just wanting to make sure that there's flexibility there in terms of, you know, that could be some community discussions or facilitated community discussions. I mean, some of these conversations could be excruciating in the communities. And so it's really wanting to understand what the limits are of and what that flexibility is doing. Does that, I hope? I think so. I mean, I guess, yeah, and I hope, I think that it's even, even though it may already be happening now, if we've put in statute, it's a sign to our communities that we think it's important and that we encourage them to use their planning efforts, hopefully we can fund them to do this work. So I support putting that language in on page 95 and to the extent that when we do our budget requests, we think about this other section that includes one-time dollars and then always remembering, I guess the planning positions would, we're asking that those go more broadly into the general fund and not be one-time in the spills, is that correct? Well, they would be one-time funded for the initial and then they would go into the each agency's budget long-term. Question on this one for now? Yes, on the second position. And then water investment division. So I just want to make sure I understand the uses. I was just looking that up. So I've heard from some of the engineers in our region that the applications are really held up on water, so it's not as extensive as it holds up, which is a concern I'm thinking of. Some of the other aspects of this legislation. But it also talks about other projects that can be funded, other water projects that can be funded or from the water. So I'm just wondering, this talks about climate resilience, certainly clean water is, where did this language come from and what is it intended to do? Lots of good projects, I just want to make sure I understand what people do. I think it's intended to do that. Michael O'Grady drafted it, so we need to have him on it if we want it. If we want to pursue that and include it. And it came from Kerry Dolan's bill, five, six, right, one of those six, eight, six, eight, five, six, eight, the one we kept. All right. Okay. So on page 97, section 43 starts the designated area update based on their report. Oh yeah, so the timelines from yesterday, the third timeline, is it really a true timeline? I pulled out all the dates from the designated area report to line them up because I don't think they all quite match. But as is the case with this bill, it's been drafted in pieces over time, so you just want to line them up. And so there is some new language in this section, later sections, but just to remind you, there was a report on updating the designated area program. Currently in statute, we have five designated areas, downtown, village centers, and new town centers, plus the overlay districts of growth centers and neighborhood development areas. The proposal is to streamline that into, well I guess two designations now, which are either centers or neighborhood development areas. There is a proposal to have the third, which was planned growth areas, which your bill adopts in the earlier sections, and that's the areas that can be exempt from Act 250. So, how are these drafted? Currently is that it first repeals the existing Chapter 176A, which is the downtown program. So actually I think I need to just rewind because yesterday we agreed to say that those were not designations. The Act 250 is a status, it's like a process that you go through to get exemption, it's not. Sure, I'm just reflecting that there were these reports that sort of lined up. And now, what's in here probably doesn't reflect what you just said, or at least it's getting closer to that. So first it repeals all of the existing Chapter, and creates a new Chapter where it does take some of the existing language and keeps it, but a lot of other changes, a lot of names of things are being changed and the processes have been changed, so that's what's going on. So Section 44 is all of the new Chapter on the State Community Revitalization Program, that's what they're gonna call it now. So the first change in the definition section, there's just some minor changes, it strikes the definition of downtown or village, partially because there's this definition of downtown center or village center, which is gonna be sort of the primary designation that people can seek. And then the reference to 4340A is being added here and on the next page, so that's the section on the element of the regional planning, the plans and page. So on page 101, the reference has been added to 6033, which is your Tier 1A status. So, I'm sorry, just come back here to, I'm with you, we repeal the old and then we're re-establishing. So how much of this language on page 98 and 99, like if I were, is existing language that we're modifying slightly? Most of it, so the last time I walked through this, we did this, right? So the first one, Community Revitalization Program, means the program, established in this chapter is adapted from the former designated area program, so obviously that's a new definition by referencing the prior one. Complete Streets, that's referencing the existing definition in the transportation chapter, so that's just a cross reference. Department, the department. So subsection five, which references downtown and village center, that's the new designation that's essentially taking over for the core designations, which, so that is a new definition here. Infill is a definition that's being added. Local Downtown Organization is an existing concept that I think is defined in the existing chapter. Planned Growth Area is new, that's part of the new concept. Regional Plan Future Land Use Map, that's an existing concept that wasn't defined here previously. So Smart Growth Principles, this is kind of a big one. This is the existing definition from Chapter 76A, just being moved over. Sprawl Repair is a new definition. At the bottom of page 100. I apologize, I haven't heard time tracking that changes on this, so. But is it in the section by section that you did for us, whether it was already existing or new? No. And I will just say, I think that this entire proposal has been in flux, and so that's why perhaps some of the language is rough and needs to have the consistency lined up, make sure it's still in. And it is somewhat tied to the decisions you have made recently in the first part of this bill too. So, State Board, there is already an existing State Board. Do you want me to read the definition? So I just want to make sure I understand. So you said this is a new definition, in term, is this something, is this a new concept or is this employed somewhere in our state policies right now? Are any of these policies, is it called something else? I'd like to, so it's being added because it is, in fact, being added in the text, is not, to my knowledge, currently defined in this statute. Chris Cochran, just speak to why it's here. Yeah, Chris Cochran from the department. In some communities, these auto-oriented areas, they have road systems, they have infrastructure, they have, in some communities, sidewalks, but they're auto-oriented. So they are ripe for redevelopment. I think the future of our retail is a little uncertain, and we would like to be able to support communities that want to make these areas more walkable, accessible, and looking for these places to be in housing or redeveloped as housing. But it's never been defined. It's a concept that's out there, but it's not something that's been on the books. And this definition came from your process, your off-session process. Did it, Jacob, do you remember? Yeah, well, Jacob, I remember from the record, the way that it's been used in this bill is under the establishment of the designation as a funding priority mechanism. And the reason it's being mentioned is because the regional land use concepts of the village areas and the planned growth areas includes both existing settlement, but it may include some areas that are transitioning from kind of a sprawl straight to a more compact walkable settlement. And so when you see that appear in the bill, it's going to be in 5805 talking about that the priority should be given, the funding priority, that any subsidies should, for spores pair should come after the maintenance of a primary commitment to centers. I think that's, I'm reading this right. That was half bar. The quick fourth discussion went after the maintenance of the centers. The funding priorities should come after the maintenance of the sprawl repair. Yeah, so it's used in 5805 says, sprawl repair and field development locations within a neighborhood is secondary to a primary commitment to maintain the livability and maximize the climate resilience and flood safe potential of these areas. And that may, there may be another appearance where you'll see it as you read through these sections. So it's a new, so a state board, there is already a state board, but it's getting a new name. The community revitalization board, which we'll talk about in the next section. State designated downtown or village center is being defined here. That is the new center. And we'll just need to make sure that this definition lines up with how you decide the process is going to work. And then same with state designated neighborhood, that's the other designation that's being created in this group section. They're just flagging. So here, I'm struggling, I think. I feel like this is an accomplishment to be able to articulate with the definitions of the types of lands in the tiers, with the definitions of the types of land in the map, the new future land use maps. And then here, and reconciling those definitions. Okay, so I feel like I hear an affirmation. Okay. Yes, I sympathize. Senator Chair. If I may ask Chris, so this whole chart that there's an update for us. So state designated downtown and village center or center, would that be what is listed here as core? Okay. And the state does it in neighborhood or neighborhood is neighborhood, but okay. Just clarifying that. I think we did those maps in January, or that chart in January. Thank you. So the intention here is that the state designated downtown and village center, the center is going to be, the center is going to be, the center is going to be the same thing as an area with a tier one A status. That seems like what it is implied here. So as I sort of just mentioned, this year, what you've been developing in this bill has been evolving, right? So I don't know that to be true. I would go back to page 99 definition number eight, the plan growth area is, plan growth area means an area on the regional control, I need some apps, which may encompass downtown center or village center. So it may have, if it may be a center, we mean, I think it would be a center, but I don't think a center necessarily is a plan growth area unless they get, apply for that status change. So I guess under 13, that center definition, then we want, we don't want the language about designated by ERB under, right? Yeah, so I was kind of just saying that, I don't know if that definition is accurate anymore based on the decisions you've been just making. And I actually don't, even plan growth, the plan growth area definition that you just referenced, again, you are creating in 6033 tier one A status. So the proposal from the designated area report was to create this designation called plan growth area, where there would be active 50 exemptions. So I think that that concept is being sort of subsumed by your tier one A status. So you may not even need this reference? Yeah, and actually it was gonna ask Chris like, it seems like, I don't understand why it needs to have the status of active 50 embedded in it. Is there a reason for that? No, so we could remove that. We were all working at silos. The opportunity to kind of roll these things up has really been in here. So I think there's opportunities to clarify who does what and things like that. We will continue to make that another. And so related to that, on page 102, there's a definition of tier one A plan growth area that needs to be lined up with the decisions you had recently made. Well, I think I need to ask you Ellen, does it need to be cut off? Well, probably not, but I. I'd like to remove it. I mean, I'd like to make sure that makes it. I don't see why I've never quite understood why they were completed. So like I like that on table. Thank you. And similar on page 101, line 17, 18. Again, that's designated by year B language. Yes, I, yes. Thank you. Yeah. We need to clean up quite a few things. Ultimately, thanks. Ultimately, I mean, I think that'll be super helpful that the last 30 pages are incentives through ACCD and the mid 30 pages are planning with some of the tiers. And then the first 30 pages is professionalization of the board. Like I just, thank you for, yeah, yeah, yeah. Right. All right. So there is a definition on page 102 for doesn't ever Vermont downtown program. So that means a main street America coordinated program that helps community revitalization and economic vitality while preserving the historic character for months downtown course. The Vermont downtown program provides downtowns with financial incentives, training and technical assistance supporting local efforts to restore historic buildings, improve housing, design walkable communities and encourage economic development by incentivizing public and private investments. So this language was sent to me. So I don't know if this already exists. Chris, this is new language but it reflects our current practice right now. This is essentially our downtown program tier our flagship designation that offers the highest benefits to our larger regional centers. Many of them participate in the main street program which is a national program. We just want to, into the lobby. But do you have to participate in the main street in America? It's not required. It's odd to call out something like that in statute. We don't normally do that. So unless there's a benefit to doing it, is there a benefit to doing it? The municipalities decided they want to participate. But yeah, I mean it's something that we strongly encourage because they get a lot of support from this national organization as far as connected to a network of all the national downtowns are connected to a listserv and all the resources of this organization. Above and beyond what we can do. Right, I understand that but in terms of the definition, this is a definition section of the Vermont downtown program. You don't have to be in this main street in America program to do that. So I don't think it's a good definition. If, do you see what I mean? The staff person who runs the program felt strongly that it should be here but if you disagree with them. Why don't want towns that don't participate to not be eligible to participate in the Vermont downtown program? Is it changing that? Well, based on that information too, I think I could maybe reframe this a little bit because I did kind of think it was part of main street America. So it may be better to even just rephrase to say a program that is part of the department that coordinates with main street America or something like that. But I was very confused by this definition and also I don't even, you might not even need it because also why would it, wouldn't it be like a segment of the community revitalization program? We found that it's helpful to have the program to find for people to go look, we could, we could say the Vermont downtown program helps support community revitalization and just get rid of the robins to the main street American coordinating program and you could still do it, you could still bring that in, but I agree it's a question of if we're gonna leave it that might be a way to do it and then a question is still, does it need to be there? So the community revitalization program is different from this, from a downtown program. Chris? So, this is focused on the operation of the downtown program. It is the downtown program is a member of the coordinating partner of this main street program. It's not requiring municipalities to participate. But is it separate from your other program, the community revitalization program? There's, yes and no. The, you know, I have a separate staff person who is the downtown program manager. There's a definition of what the benefits are for if you're a designated downtown. So within the umbrella of the revitalization program, there's downtowns and villages. So it is different. It provides different benefits to the community and it has a full-time staff person who supports the designation programs or the downtown designation. Okay. Let's just keep moving forward and see how it plays into the rest of the program. And then the last definition is village area, which I think you may have changed the hamlet yesterday. No, we don't think we can. It's elsewhere. It's elsewhere. Yeah, we're not doing that. I'm hearing. Right. Well, you just let me know. Love. Village edge. Marketing. This is also on the future land use map. Yes. Peter Grigory. Thank you. I think this was another one of those definitions that don't belong in this section of the bill. You know, as we compartmentalize between the ERB and the planning and the incentives, this is the definition of regional planning not of any of the state designated programs. Well, and helping us find our way and the other definitions that that same category is really much appreciated. Yeah. I mean, I think there was an interest in specifically having this cross-reference because I think it's used later to say if something has been mapped as a village area on the regional planning commission, it can be designated as, I don't know, whichever one, village center or neighborhood. So, yes, it is in a separate thing, but I think there was intent originally that those two things should be used together. So, again, we are kind of in flux here a little bit, but I do think it is used later. Okay. So next is the state board. So currently it's the state downtown board. It is being renamed here as the Vermont Community and Civilization Board, but it's still being referred to as state board. There is a list of, this is largely the same membership of the board that currently exists with a couple of exceptions. So on page 103, the highlighted language is, so a member of the community designated by the Director of Racial Equity. Currently I don't think the Director of Racial Equity is a member on the board, but this would give her the ability to designate a member to be part of this board. As per their suggestion, but I'm not sure that we need to change it because they can designate that person, so they can designate whoever they find. And we also for RDCs. I need to write more. RDCs are on the next page. Yeah. How many people are on your board now? 13 currently, this would add three more, as opposed to the additional, the additional units are the director of the Vermont on-bank, the treasurer, and representative appointed by the Office of Racial Equity. Do you consider having some from the regional development corporations? Just not consider it. The thoughts on that. I appreciate the pick up on that, Madam Chair, and given that these designations are really about economic and community development incentives, and I feel like that may be a good addition. It is a quite large board. Quite large. If we have the time, has the board ever, like the history of some of the votes, I mean, has it ever been super contentious or voting no on X, Y, or Z? I mean, my sense is, just a little background about that. Yeah, well, when Peter Gregory was on the board, it was very contentious, but it's very, it's very, the old history of the prior administrations when the gross center designation was very prominent, and I think such positions were very controversial at the time. I think I've been doing this job for about 10 or 11 years from my experience, most decisions are unanimous. So things are rarely contentious, I can't think of. There are times when the board disagrees with the staff recommendations, but that's their prerogative. The decisions are usually very predictable. And you have already, I think, spoken to this, but since it's helpful for us to hear again as the bill evolves a little bit, speak to how your suggestions, like your change vision for the board. Right, this is just backing up a little bit. Sorry for repeating. The downtown designations was an area that everybody can kind of agree at. These are places that should grow and develop, where housing should occur, where investments should occur. There was difficulty in finding an agreement on kind of active 50 exemptions for the center, so they became a proxy for deregulation or an active 50 exception. What this proposal does is it disaggregates those concepts. So this board becomes primarily a coordinating board and an investment board to support community revitalization. It moves the regulatory functions and currently reside with the board over to the ERB. And I would add, it simplifies the process for becoming designated by working closely with the RBC's work they already do to not communities and areas for investment by recognizing the work they do. It integrates state investments in centers with the regional planning process, tangentially linked before, where this actually kind of gets us all working on the same page. Yeah, I'm wondering whether revitalization is really the word that makes most sense here. Like when I think of revitalization, I think of, perhaps in this context, I would think of like a community that has gone into like some state of long decline and we're trying to bring them back to some former state. And I'm not sure that's really what we were wanting to do here across the board. Like that might be the case in particular communities, but presumably there will be communities in this program that are fairly well-functioning and not like we're trying to bring them back to some former glory, but just trying to keep them moving in a healthy direction. So. I thought on a different, better word. Um, I had originally just called it the state designated area board. It's handing out incentives to designate areas. But for what purpose? It's, I think, to represent this. When we, when we did our designation 2050 stakeholder engagement, nobody knew what designation program was. No, I don't think it's a designation program. I think it's an economic development or a community investment board. Community investment board or community investment board. Because then it doesn't get across to other projects, or other community investment programs. I just wanted to clearly articulate what the intent of this is. Thank you. My community certainly doesn't have any problem with revitalization. But one day they'll be vitalized and want just investment. So on page 104 into 105 is the list of duties for the board. This is a little bit of a line here because based on our discussion last Friday, maybe, we're trying to get the board out of this. So I'm sorry, the designation or the investment board out of having any. So to review and issue comments, not recommendations. Did we get to the language yet? How did that business? Yeah, so I'm just gonna do like an overview of what's included because currently their list of duties is pretty short, at least in the statute. So first, they are gonna elect their own chair and vice chair. And then, so online eight, though. So the department shall provide legal staff and administrative support to the state board in cooperation with the ERB. Shall produce guidelines to direct municipalities to seek designation under this chapter and for other purposes established by this chapter and shall pay the per diem compensation for the board members. So there was this proposal to add cooperation with the ERB, don't know if you. So then next, they shall meet at least quarterly. The board shall have the authority to adopt rules of procedure to use for appeal of its decisions and rules on handling conflicts of interest. So it's important to remember this, some of this is existing or is it? So I've been trying to point out, so this is not existing. Neither is the me quarterly. So no, right now the list of things that the describing the board is very minimal. So right now, chair and vice chair and then administrative support from the department, that is existing. Reference to the ERB is not. Meeting at least quarterly is not currently in the statute. And then adopting rules is also new. In addition, the board shall have the following duties to serve as the funding and benefits coordination for the body of the state community revitalization program. That isn't specifically in the statute currently, but that's implicit in what they do. To review and issue recommendations on proposed regional plan future land use maps prepared by the regional planning commission and presented to the ERB for designated center and designated neighborhood recognition under. Dear one. Well, no. Yeah. So I believe, and I can be corrected, this current language that's in your draft 4.1 is having the ERB make designation decisions. So that is that. And I think we have looked at that before, though I'm getting confused. So. I mean, it seems like what I understand is just trying to articulate this further. The room is open to adjustments, but that the, through the planning process and the future land use maps, communities are going to identify these areas and the environmental review board is actually going to approve them. And that this board, the community investment board will then run their programs to support those identified areas. All right. Does anyone disagree with what I just said? Okay. So that's what we need the language to say. The statutory interactions and whether how they need to be laid out. We need to just, that's what we want it to reflect. Senator Morris. Yeah. Thank you Madam Chair. Just, yeah. You asked if anybody agreed with what you just said. And I, and the principle is correct. However, the municipalities aren't creating the maps. Those reside with the regional planning commission. Well, they're working together to create the map. Correct. It's what's a, we're supposed to be bottom up feeding, but it's a, in what you said, you talked about the municipalities had control of the maps or we're deciding the areas. So it's a, it's in conjunction with the RPC. Yeah. So I'm just trying to keep that clear of my mind, Esther. Great. Thanks Madam Chair. So building off of what you're saying, I'm inferring that the next draft, we will not see, you know, the ERB necessarily in here in this area. I think we'll, it'll make sure it's in there if it needs to be in there. We'll think about that. That what I just stated as the goal. And then a follow up. Sorry. I sometimes flexibility is more helpful. And I guess it's a question to Chris or whomever is most appropriate. Presumably this language is in here because you think it'll be helpful. So, but I think you did just decide that the reference to the ERB needs to be here. Line one. Yeah. Thank you. Seems to me that for at the bottom of 104 lines, 20, 21, we can get rid of the and the fine. The sentence can end after commission on line 21 and everything that commission go away. Review and issue recommendations on proposed regional plans. So yeah, I mean, it's sort of the timing of when this happens. So they're going to read, I think they would, you're right, review the recommendations on the future land use maps before they're approved by the ERB. And is that just to make sure that the RPC didn't forget about a certain community that the investment board has said we're giving money to them? Or I guess I'm, What's the purpose? Yeah. From there. What we did earlier in the bill, even though we're separating, we allowed the investment board to comment just because they're kind of in this together, even though it's really the regions and ERB in the towns, they're making all the decisions. And on one level, the investment board is irrelevant to that. But we thought it made sense to allow them to comment just because there is ultimately interaction. So I would, if we were going to leave this in here, I would get away from the word recommendation and use the word comment. Because it's, I think it's legitimate to comment. It might be helpful, but that's it. And so you could do it either like representative Logan said that works, or you can let it go on a little bit longer through and present to the environmental board, period. But either way, comments are going to come in as the key because I think you, yeah, I agree with what representative Logan suggested and what you just suggested. Comment and then period after commission. Okay. Representative Sibilia. I'm not sure if I'm seeing NRB. I can't see them. Yeah. They're waving. Yeah, sorry. Beagle Executive Director of National Resource and Board. I'm just remarking that under this section, or the previous section, I should say the NRB or the ERB, sorry, is part of this board, this new board, whatever that might name might be. Right. And it is also potentially either providing recommendations or comments to itself or in front of itself. And it's going to be reviewing that application. So it just seems a little bit awkward the way that that is structured. So you're agreeing with our striking it? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe I'm just not following where we're ultimately going on this piece, but I just wanted to flag that. So, well, I think you're alluding to line three on page 104 that they're a member. So we had to, I raised this in the last draft, whether or not you want to keep them as a member. I was wondering about that too. And that must be that I remembered you raised it. I'm wondering why they would be there. They're currently a member. Yeah, we are a member right now, but we don't have the same review capacity of their decisions. So this now that there's creation of a review capacity by the ERB, it's a little awkward. With the large board. Okay. That's right. That's right. That's right. And we did say we would put the regional development corporation along there. So they had the same size. Oh. Are you want them to acquaint their own members? The RDCs? Or? Yeah. The others are doing. Just saying. Yeah. On page 105, line three. So that could be cut, right? Because we're having them common. Yeah. I would cut three. To me on two, are we ending after commission? Yes. Kate suggested. I would not, I would suggest maybe don't do that, but you can. I'll do what? Strike the end of that sentence? Why are you suggesting that? Well, because that is sort of specific to what the board is looking at, which is the designated center and designated neighborhood, which is what they oversee. So I guess you don't have to leave that in there, but that's sort of why I think I freeze it that way. But they don't get recognized under 10 VSA 63. Well, it depends. So that's the end. Two, 50. Right. So 33 might be the wrong cross-reference now. Maybe that's why it seems odd. Yeah. There was another 33 and a 32 at some point, so it might be the wrong cross-reference now. But I think the picture, I think that the, all right, I'll just stop. I'll just, no, but I can't read it. But the ERB doesn't have any role in providing recognition for designated centers and designated neighborhoods. Wrong. That's wrong. Maybe they approve the maps. Yes. They approve. I think you're at least thinking a little bit more than we first appeared, so. What was that? I mean, so the ERB really does get to say yay or nay like who ACC, like the downtown, the Community Revitalization Board gets to participate in these programs, these designated center and designated neighborhood programs, because that's what it seems to me to be saying. They get to. Because the designation program is ACCD. The Act 250 is ERB. Right, but so they don't say yay or nay whether they're in, but they do say yay or nay or whether the areas identified are eligible to be in the program. And then the process that occurs now and to the extent that we fund and then maybe grow the program, this board will oversee that, the choosing who gets a grant and who doesn't. Great, so I think, and I do think we should get clarity on this because this has been tricky for me this whole time, which is, I think initial designation is basically automatic based on if the map is approved. That's the intention is to get this board out of the business of worrying about that, or we've been headed. Okay, yes. Get through this, the duties of the board a minute break. Right, so then on 105, so we were just talking about three, but to recommend to the ERB condition designation approvals and modification to the regional plan, future land use maps presented for the designated areas. No, we're just talking about it. Thanks. And then you already struck in the last draft recommending suspension or removal of designation approved. And then five is to award that, yeah. Well, this is just our recommendation. They might. Five is to award the tax credits, which is already existing. Six is to manage the downtown transportation fund, which is already existing duty to have stand. And then number seven is to have standing and regional plan approvals before the ERB. That's why it's bold. And to review and comment on environmental review board guidelines, rules or procedures as they relate to the designations of this chapter. Is that one of the tasks of our environmental review board to have procedures related to the designation program? It's now the ERB doesn't look at designations, the ERB looks at status. Right, right. So that's the whole over word. Yeah, right. What we mean there is status. I didn't relate to that. That doesn't quite work in that sense, but. So I think. We wanted to say both. We wanted to say both and eight. The designations and statuses. No, it's just the designations under this chapter. Designations become automatic as a result of the status. Yes. Well, no, no, no, no. We need a workflow. The status. Yes. I would love if someone would be able to chart an overview of how this is going to work. Yeah. Well, what about as they relate to the act 250 status and future land use plans under this chapter? As they relate to the act 250 status and future land use plans under this chapter. Because this is on seven. Eight. Yes. So what we're doing is consistent with running the review and comment. With that, let's take a five minute break. We are going to reconvene our hearing and continue our walkthrough of each 687 draft 4.1. All right. So we're on page 105. Onto section 5003. So this is a new section to the chapter and it may be redundant based on some of the decisions you made, but I think it would be good to read through it. So mapping by regional planning commissions. The regional plan future land use maps developed per section 4348 of this title shall delineate areas within the regional planning commissions, member municipalities that are eligible to receive designation benefits as centers and neighborhoods when the future land use map is approved by the ERV per 6033. So 6033 is may or may not be the correct cross-reference right now. But otherwise, there's some new language there. The areas eligible for designation shall be identified on the regional plan future land use map as regional downtown centers, village centers, planned growth area and village areas in a manner consistent with this chapter. This methodology shall include all approved as unit downtown's villages, new town centers, neighbor development areas and growth centers existing on July 1, 2024, unless the subject member municipality requests otherwise. So I do think this is, because I'm just a little bit confused. This, I think in some ways this language is helpful, but I think it needs to make sure it lines up with what you have. For the regional plans already, so. I'm looking at the chart right now and so far so good. Those terms are lining up with the future land use map. I think that's good. I actually think this isn't, it's leaking it. So on page 106, exclusions with the exception of pre-existing non-conforming designations approved prior to the establishment of the program under this chapter. The areas eligible for designation benefits upon ERB approval of the regional plan future land use map for designation as a center shall not include leapfrog development that is disconnected from a center and that lacks a pedestrian connection to the regional plan future land use map. Pedestrian connection to the center via a complete street. And that's where your tie comes in. Leapfrog development. Did you see representative Clifford's tie? I think they came out of a vernal pool. Absolutely. I think a mapped vernal pool. Do those dry up? They dry up and you wouldn't see frogs like that if they did. Anyway, I'll seriously stress the question of leapfrog development as a term. That is pretty evocative to me of what that means. It's not a defined term. Is this new language? Yes. And so how does this sound? If it means what it sounds like it means, how does this connect to transitional areas? Peter, can you spell this out? Does leapfrog development tie to transition areas in some way? Or... Have you been following where we are? Yes, I believe I have. We are on page one to six. Yes. Leapfrog development to me is scattered development, right? Transition areas are areas that might be considered sprawl that are being repaired. As we talked about earlier. Or... But not extending, you know. So it can't be disconnected. It reminds me of the 9L criterion in Act 250. So that's how I view this. And my question about the language of the exception of the existing non-conforming designation, I was always under the impression that the existing designation program would not have approved leapfrog development. Do you know what that's referring to? I think early in the history of the downtown program when I was on the downtown board we had some approvals of areas that probably wouldn't fit our desire to contain. So there are some rather large existing designations that wouldn't survive today. Just at a very high level, the difference between leapfrog and sprawl, so do they mean the same thing? Maybe we should change it just again. Yeah, it's a great term. I was wondering the same thing, honestly. I don't know. Personally, I would not introduce a new term even if it is evocative. I would use sprawl. I mean, I think that's what we're talking about here, which is disconnected. Does it not include disconnected? What is sprawl? Just development without the word leapfrog. Development is discounted. Oh, yeah, it already does that. So just get rid of leapfrog. Oh, it doesn't need a mop. Boo! I'm kicking my tie out. Slam. It hurts. All right, moving on. All right. See, we're struck in the last proposed modification because planned growth areas are addressed in the earlier sections of the bill. And this is directing VAPTA to come up with a standard methodology for the maps. So that's addressed in E. So on or before December 31st, 2024, VAPTA shall develop standard methodology and process for the mapping of areas eligible for designation under 6033 in consultation with the department and ERB that shall integrate elements in the regional plan and plan for a municipality. The methodology and process shall recommend a streamlined procedure for minor amendments by the ERB to the boundaries of the approved designated area upon request by member municipalities to map eligible areas for designation under this chapter. So I do want to flag that yesterday you did, there is a language about minor amendments. Again, this language was drafted in a different silo, so I don't know if this is redundant, that part, but... Do we already directed to do that in the other sections of the bill, or is this the only place we directed to do that? So I don't think... No. I don't think this concept of standard methodology is discussed in the prior section on the future land use maps. I just think it adapts the language and adds it into the statute. I don't think there's a specific directive. Okay, so... Katherine, you agree with that? That there isn't already anywhere else in the bill if I do agree. So this section be in a different section of the bill? It feels like it to me. The future land use map section. Is there a logical... I think that, yes, that's where I... Thank you, that's what I was sensing. We're going to move this section. The last subsection here is G. The regional plan future land use maps shall be submitted to the ERB for review and approval with the advice and consent of the department and the board on those downtown and village centers and neighborhood areas per 4348. You want to say something? Yes. That should go. Well, and depending on where I move it, it would be redundant potentially. Wait, where are you moving that? Well, there is already a directive for the regional plans to be submitted to the board. Great, so we were saying strike it. You said move it. Well, I'm moving this whole section that it's currently in, so sure. I'm moving E, not the whole section. Oh, I'm not moving... Why... Oh, you just want to move E? E could just be a session law provision, honestly. But, I mean... Sure, yes. You're right, we just were focusing on the... Okay. You, I think, appropriately were a step out. So, moving the whole mapping by regional planning questions into that section. Great, then this actually may make sense. It may make sense. Most of you have it. Most of you have it. Based on saying the advice and consent of the ACCP and the state board on those downtown and the village center no good sign of anyone. Just a nice comment. Yeah, and based on consent is a weird phrase here anyways. Review and comment. So, next is the designation of downtown and village centers. So, as we've talked about the overall thing that's happening here is that the existing five designations are being condensed into two designations. And one of them is this concept of centers. Downtown and village centers. The other one is neighborhood. So, page 107, line 18, designation established. A regional planning commission may apply to the ERB for approval and designation of all centers by submitting the regional plan future land use map adopted by the regional planning commission. The ERB shall seek the advice and consent of the department and state board on areas eligible for center designation as provided under this chapter. An application by a regional planning commission shall contain the regional plan future land use map that delineates all centers eligible for designation within the municipalities throughout the region. The regional plan future land use map shall identify downtown centers and village centers as the downtown and village areas eligible for designation as centers. The application shall also include evidence that the municipalities have been notified of the regional planning commission's intent to apply. Evidence that notice of its application has been published in the regional planning commission's website. Information showing that the eligible regional land use areas that the standards for designee and information showing that the eligible regional land use areas that the standards for designation established in this chapter. This is redundant with the future land use or potentially redundant most of it with the future land use map section but it does also seem like there needs to be something said about this in this chapter. Yeah I think you need to have something here. But just something much shorter maybe that just refers to the future land use maps section. Maybe just section one. As long as the rest of this is covered in the future land. I don't know. So actually I don't think it's redundant. And so this is a question that I've been trying to line up. So this is specifically looking at identifying the downtown centers and village centers as areas eligible for designation. So I don't think currently the regional plan map section actually specifies that. I think there is reference to it. This is I think this is more specific. Maybe the reference needs to go the other way. Why do you want it to be shorter? I mean this process is already covered somewhere else. It's short. Yeah right so this has been really tricky for me because the regional plan maps are doing a lot of different things and this is specific to the designation program. So yeah so I guess I see what you're saying. I don't know if there are thoughts. I think I'm just going to think that the point was it's redundant but I also know that it does. I think this is a link that needs to stay and representative Smith and then Longard. Thank you. Just a question. Should this bill be split in two bills to simplify some things? Well we've been working hard to integrate them so splitting it now would be a step of the... I know. I should have asked you this two weeks ago probably. Yeah. Representative Longard. I think it is important to stay integrated but I understand why you're asking the question. I've been thinking about this just that the ERB process or thinking about the maps wouldn't even really be thinking about designations under this program at all. They're designating villages. They're designating 1Bs and those that are 1A eligible and then the program, the downtown program or now the incentive whatever the investment program just uses that to apply their benefits. They take what is given to them by having to do with land use and they apply their benefits accordingly and so while the two fit together on one level I think we're going back to making this two mixed with the ERB thinking about that the investment program isn't, I think, the way that I've been envisioning this bill and I think we're making it needlessly complicated I think what we need to do is just have those handful of statuses determined by the ERB and that this program overlays on top of it and utilizes what's laid out on the map since it's been approved and applied their benefits accordingly and I think we keep slipping into the board getting involved in this program and I don't think the board is involved in this program the ERB. The designation process is an RPC and ERB process that's on these pages. So I don't know if that confused, I'm trying to simplify, I don't know if that confused, simplifies our confusions but... Let's see if we're... Well just, I understand what you're saying but when you say the designation process to me you're talking about the incentives and what you just said was the designation process of making the designations like the actual programs to benefit the designated centers is programming but like actually designating the centers is a process that's RPC led and ERB approved or something like that and okay that's helpful because that's more along what I was thinking the other thing I was just going to flag whether or not I'm sure everybody else is on top of this but I feel like we started making some of these distinctions about status and separations like 20 pages ago so or maybe it was 25? 40? Well I'm not sure if we were like already there at the beginning of the ERB or rather at the beginning of the future land use language so I'm just flagging that I think when we come back to your point about maybe there could be linkage I think the next version will show where we missed it and we'll try to correct it and show those corrections so we can track them but yeah I already started going through and getting all of them sourced Excellent so I guess I'm back to feeling like this whole section 5804 most of this doesn't belong here because it's about the designation process which seems like it belongs in the future land use maps section except for at the bottom of 109 E benefits steps and then there's some other stuff up here about transition that seems yeah I would agree I think this whole application process that's in this designation section is a holdover from the silent creation of the bill and similarly a reference to upon approval of the future land use map under that section then these benefits starting then you do the benefits and steps I guess I'm confused though because going back to what Representative Von Gertz was just saying though you have to make a decision about if we have land use categories so what land use there has to be a reference to what land use categories fall into this designation yeah and I think that's what I'm saying that you could say upon approval of the environmental board the ERP of the downtown centers and village centers and you can refer to this specifically in uses then to take out the whole process part okay and that's something there's something very similar to that already in the neighborhood section some similar language already that could also be that there's parts around it could be removed and then just that simple process left in we're getting into the benefits life so step one step two step three that's right unfortunately the department just left please step one and here's to the areas that are not 1B the villages step two can we stop we have it on there yeah I think orienting us first of all we just talked about moving a bunch of this section or deleting it I actually think you're only striking one sentence so on page 108 so it's subsection 2 which will be renamed so I guess maybe the sentence needs to be reconfigured but it sounds like you're striking the last sentence of this paragraph that references the application but then there is here so are you on line 17 where are you I'm line 9 on so I think we were just discussing condensing this into something or moving this so just to reorient ourselves we're at 5804 designation of downtown field center and so we I thought I talked about just now moving this to the future areas or we see language application I mean I guess one thing I could do is just go through and make sure they line up but I think there needs to be a clear link here between what these areas are and the fact that they are being mapped elsewhere by another process so if you want to get rid of some of the application language sure but I don't think we can get rid of all of it right that's on 107 the designation okay but then we just add a sentence into this section to move anything that needs to be moved isn't already stated in the future language about the section and then start talking about the benefit steps hold on a second so I think is it the second sentence of subdivision 2 no starts on line 13 the application no the second sentence the regional plan future land use factual identify downtown centers and village centers so then we'll pull that into A because then we haven't talked about B yet which I think B may need to maybe move but I think is relevant so the area is mapped by the regional planning commissions a center shall allow for the designation of pre-existing approved village centers downtown centers and new town centers in existence on or before December 25th 2025 I think we already have that language no we need to keep we need to keep it I don't think we need to keep it anywhere else so I did want to point out but they have left that this is December 25th 2025 I don't know why that yeah and on your timeline it everywhere else is the 31st so I don't know if they were like basic district or something your state statistics are and you have to and when you look at the chart there are other dates and so you've got to pick a date as to when you're sort of grandfathering yeah and then this whole thing this transition section next we should hold okay page 106 line 4 are we saying the same thing as the Christmas 25 time line oh yeah yeah that's where I saw yeah July 1, 2024 those areas are included pre-existing pre-existing non-conforming designations what line are you on 106 line 4 so that no but this begins on 106 I'm sorry wrong page number line 4 page 106 okay not saying the same thing as this inclusion section well it's talking I mean I guess if you want to get I think they are talking about different things slightly but because this is about the methodology right that they're supposed to have but I do agree that all of this is very messy so it probably can be condensed yeah condensed it well so so part of the reason I was struggling with this is that is July 1, 2024 then we have December 25, 2025 then we also have December 31, 2025 so I mean isn't the point to grandfather in pre-existing and to use them therefore we would want it to fall on the same date as sure whatever date you sort of pick that's something I think what's happening on page 108-109 is the clear tie to the fact that this new center designation is the condensing of the three prior designations of downtown Village Center and Newtown Center so it is pretty similar to what's happening on 106 I see them as the distinct things though but right the mapping process the designation approval right an indication that there was these three existing designations that are now well yeah I wanted to remember it's here come back to it when we get to our bigger time yeah so on C briefly so C is the ERB shall conduct its review pursuant to 43-48 and that's fine believe there alright so then starts the benefits ladder so at the bottom of page 109 into 110 a center may receive the benefits associated with the steps in this chapter by meeting the established requirements the department shall review applications on page 110 from municipalities to advance from step 1 to step 2 and from steps 2 to step 3 in decisions so it did just want to point out that that is a big change that's happening here because currently the state board makes designation decisions but the department now is going to be elevating areas to steps 2 and 3 if a municipal application is rejected by the department the municipality may appeal the administrative decision to the state board so then that is also new and that's why the board has been giving the authority to adopt the rules of procedure it do find this to be an interesting concept currently designation decisions are not appealable but they're currently done by the board so now the staff is going to be delegated that I guess it makes sense for that currently the staff of the department assists municipalities in their development of their application that is then brought to the board so yeah it is a change in the role there but alright so to maintain an established step 3 center after the initial approval of regional plan future land use map by the ERB the municipality shall apply for renewal and meet the program requirements upon application for approval of a regional plan future land use map step 3 designations that are not approved for renewal revert to step 2 the municipality may appeal the administrative decision to the department of the department to the state board the department shall review applications and issue a written administrative decision within 30 days of regional future land use map approval appeals of administrative decisions by the state board at the next meeting following a timely filing stating the reasons for the appeal the department may issue guidelines to administer these steps the state board's decision is final perhaps we should invert those last two sentences just for logic but yeah so I'll need to read I'm a little bit confused about the step 3 thing that's happening there um step 1 requirements step 1 is established to create an accessible and low barrier entry point for all villages throughout the state to access site based improvement supports and conduct initial planning all downtowns and village centers shall automatically reach step 1 upon approval of the regional plan future land use map by the ERB onto page 11 regional plan future land use maps supersede pre-existing designated areas that may already meet the step 1 requirement so benefits a center that reaches step 1 is eligible for the following benefits funding and technical assistance for site based projects including the better places grant program access to the downtown and village center tax credit program and other programs identified in the department's guidelines and funding for developing or amending the municipal plan visioning and assessments there where that funding is coming from um step 2 requirements step 2 is established to create mid-level entry point for emerging villages throughout the state to build planning and implementation capacity for community scale projects a center reaches step 2 if it meets the requirements of step 1 or if it has an approved village center or new town center under chapter 76a upon initial approval of the future plan regional plan future land use map and prior to December 31 2026 uh so it did just say at the top of this page that the plan that the map supersede pre-existing designations again December 31 2026 you gotta I think figure out your date there I'm confused about what you're just pointing out, sorry so on line 1 of this page regional plan future land use map supersede pre-existing designated areas that may already meet the step 1 requirement so I think with that saying is that just because it's already been designated the map may override it but then this says it meets step 1 if it has an approved village center so it designated previously, yeah so this feels like it doesn't line up quite well so we did go over the transition section on page 109 but that does say that previous designations pertain benefits until x date until approval of future land use maps and designations expire previous designations expire and then the new designations go into effect thinking about if the land use maps don't get approved and blah blah blah maybe just because all the dates were highlighted I thought we should hold off on looking at it but we can look at it if the way you were just reading it was actually helpful for skipping the dates on the card too sentence by sentence on your timeline okay I'm reading this right, it suggests that they stay in effect until the maps get approved when the maps supershoot yeah so presumably it would be fine to have that approach because the map making process is iterative and it goes between the local communities and RBCs that being said can we imagine an example where a municipality thinks they have you know a certain designation and then all of a sudden it's not there because the regional plan future land use map supersedes it well it wouldn't be all of a sudden it would be after all the hearings is language in the transition section about if an area doesn't get approved they still get to keep their benefits until 2032 I think that was tall enough with the timing the eight year timing or something like that in a world where we have transitions to maps so we have historic designations designations yes that have been there for a while and so when we go to do the new maps is it possible for the new maps to change the area of the historic designation potentially the frog development and so so then here would be a loss potentially of benefits reconfiguring of the area in which the benefits are eligible so there are some benefits like tax credit is that a complication well the tax credit is awarded at one time that's a one time allocation so not necessarily could be you could you get multiple tax credit awards so if you have a project a big revitalization project on edge of town for a big building for instance an old high school in the future you would not be eligible for additional benefits I don't think it would come off in its stream because you've already been awarded something the intent is to make it easier to get benefits in the long run here we make more communities eligible or more and I do want to flag an aside for consideration the designation program currently has size limitations and I don't the size of a downtown is I think pretty compact and so the categories themselves I don't think actually have like specific radiuses included so I don't know how that's gonna play out but these potentially are larger swaths of areas potentially you say these the designation cause the designation is just gonna line up with the category and the categories don't necessarily have the same boundaries as what's established in the statute you say category that's three two levels I'm talking about the map categories so downtowns areas hamlets but not hamlets I would add that the way the statute is currently drafted all of the existing boundaries for the currently designated villages, downtowns row centers mangrove areas would be included in the new designated areas what might change is they might grow slightly because the definition as Ella noted in the regional map regional land use map is a slightly broader than the current downtown program so in fact the areas eligible for benefits might grow but the protection of them shrinking I think is in the statute with the language at the bottom of page 105 and the top of 106 which does state that our regional land use map will include those current designations so I think there's protection from the fear that the designated areas and benefits could shrink and in fact there's potential that they could expand and then just to emphasize that representative Sebelia on page 106 on line 4 only exception is if the subject member municipality requests otherwise since the bottom of page 111 so in addition to meeting the requirements of step 1 it has the the center has a confirmed municipal planning process and a municipal plan with goals for investment in the center on to page 112 so the benefits in addition to the benefits of step 1 a center that reaches step 2 is eligible for the following benefits general grant priority for bylaws and special purpose plans area improvement or reinvestment plans including priority consideration for the better connections program and other applicable programs identified by department guidance and for capital plans so is this tying into the municipal planning grants I don't know I kinda thought step 1 was tied to the municipal planning grants but I don't know so next funding priority for infrastructure project scoping design engineering and construction by the state program the authority to create a special taxing district pursuant to chapter 87 for the purpose of financing capital and operating cost of the project with the boundaries of the center priority consideration for state and federal affordable housing funding authority for the municipal legislative body to lower speed limits less than 25 miles an hour within the center state wastewater permit fees capped at $50 for residential development exemption from land gains tax and assistance and guidance by the department for establishing local historic preservation regulations just to know getting to level 2 is really quite easy quite accessible I think that's the step 1 is like almost everybody step 2 is a little bit with a good hand up play of benefits and step 3 yeah so on page 113 step 3 thank you ma'am gary line 9 on page 112 is that a district I think so but I don't know and the reference to the speak other towns can if they haven't achieved step 2 correct and from what I understand people are really interested in that so the statutes that are cited here with references these are things that already exist for at least one of the designations already so it's reconfiguring some of the existing benefits under the designated area program for step 2 can we just chapter 87 so part of chapter 87 is pace but then the first part is special assessments so I don't know if that's code for TIF is pace yeah so the property assessed clean energy program and that is not a TIF that is a different program entirely so the first one was what special assessments and I don't know if that's the same word I don't know if that means TIF I don't my reason for my reason for mentioning TIF my reason for mentioning TIF is I don't know if it's restricted under locations or the legislature is only allowed so many of them it's needed out by the legislature yes but maybe this gives me the authority to pursue it I'll find out if it's that yeah it's a good question well I was going to go along with what represent more if I'm saying is that a TIF district or is that something else that's the only part of this that has confused me wow thanks Brian you need to rock that there it's on page 113 step 3 step 3 is established to create higher level entry point for downtown just around the state to create vibrant mixed use centers a center that reaches step 3 and achieves status or maintains step 3 a center reaches step 3 and achieves status or maintains step 3 as a downtown if the department finds that it meets the following oh the status I think I think so if it maintains a step 3 and maintains it yeah as a downtown it meets the following requirements meets the requirements for step 2 or if it has an existing downtown designated under chapter 76a in effect upon initial approval of the future land use maps and prior to December 31st, 2026 is listed or eligible for listing in the national register of historic places has a downtown improvement plan has a downtown investment agreement has a capital plan adopted under 4430 that implements the downtown improvement plan has a local downtown organization with an organizational structure necessary to sustain comprehensive long-term downtown revitalization effort including a local downtown organization that will collaborate with municipal departments, local businesses and local non-profit organizations the local downtown organization shall work to enhance the physical appearance and livability of the downtown district by implementing local policies that promote the use and rehabilitation of historic and existing buildings by developing pedestrian-oriented design requirements by encouraging new development design requirements and by supporting long-term planning that is consistent with the goals of 4302 build consensus and cooperation among the many groups and individuals who have a role in the planning, development and revitalization process market the assets of the downtown district to customers potential investors, new businesses local citizens and visitors strengthen, diversify and increase the economic activity within the downtown district to provide annual progress and achievements of the revitalization efforts as required by the department guidelines it has to have available public water and wastewater services and capacity has permanent zoning and subdivision bylaws has adopted historic preservation regulations for the district with a demonstrated commitment to protect and enhance the historic character of the downtown through the adoptions of bylaws and historic preservation requirements of 44141 E&F unless recognized by the program as a pre-existing designated new town center on May 15 has adopted design and form-based regulations that adequately regulate the physical form and scale of development so a lot of what I am reading is part of the requirements for designated downtown currently I don't know off the top of my head I suspect that's already in here but I don't know the tips are caught on this side okay so then the benefits in addition to the benefits of step 1 and 2 it reaches step 3 is eligible for the following benefits funding for the local downtown organization and technical assistance from the Vermont downtown program for the center so we did have conversations about this this morning about the downtown program so this is the first reference we're seeing to it tax increment financing location pursuant to 32VSA 5404A so yeah so that's a separate statute a reallocation of receipts related to the tax imposed on sales of construction materials as in 32VSA 9819 eligibility to receive national main street accreditation from main street America through the Vermont downtown program signage options under the 10VSA section 94 49413 and 17 certain housing appeal limitations pursuant to chapter 117 highest priority for local for locating proposed state functions by the commissioner of buildings and general services or other state officials in consultation with the municipality and department state board and general assembly on to page 116 committees of jurisdiction for the capital budget the host regional planning commission when a downtown location is not suitable the commission shall issue written findings to the consulted parties demonstrating the suitability of the state function to a downtown location is not feasible that's an existing thing if the state is looking to locate state offices they look to the designate downtowns first funding for infrastructure projects scoping design engineering including participation in the downtown transportation and related capital improvement fund program established in 5808 of this title finally appeal a decision of the ERB on regional plan future land use map approval for designations under this chapter maybe appeal to the environmental division of the superior court within 15 days following the issuance of the written decision so this I think the system yeah you may want to call this a holdover but this was in a proposal originally your chapter on regional plan approvals does not allow for their appeal to the superior court so do you want to strike this type on the end of the well no this is a whole set of centers so the benefit section has ended and now we're on to appeals related to centers kind of grappling with two ideas so and we talked about this yesterday the non-appealable regional plans and who's accountable which is a question that is still kind of lingering for me who can be held accountable if somebody is harmed we were talking about the yeah I guess that my frowning was about harm in that situation if you lose sure a brief base on what change of utilize your I so maybe I think based on the decisions there will be so it depends on where you're landing on two three if you're not landing on two or three being a jurisdictional trigger that's not the case right now it's a trigger I think yesterday we had the example of zoning being something that we're talking about notice and zoning and ability of municipalities there are elections and consequences there's really where can disgruntled folks pursue some relief so and I'm still thinking about that and I actually got a great suggestion I think from Charlie Baker yesterday thinking about so this is different this is designations there are existing designations and this is the regional plan future land use map approval for the designations and so there could be a change potentially an increase in the designated area is that right is that what Catherine there could be an increase okay so not a decrease probably not I'm just thinking of the leapfrog development I don't know how much there is of that okay I thought though my understanding was leapfrog development is sprawl sprawl that is currently in a designation is not going to be removed from a designation I believe that's what I understood so I'd like to be corrected if that's the regional plan require to retain the current boundaries in our future land use maps as a minimum this is why I was highlighting so at some point in the future well I'll stop I mean I guess that's a policy choice whether or not we're retaining the exact boundaries of the existing designation and then adding or if you are telling the RPCs to isn't there a reference to non conforming designations there's a big certain it takes effect we just talked to you so then the appeal just thinking about those two things which you highlighted for us consistent here here we're allowing an appeal and the recommendation is to oh on page 116 yep so who could be aggrieved in this situation if we were to remove the appeal so the way we have it in the future land use section is that an appeal could be made to the environmental review board and then this one is just this is like a whole other idea of having an appeal of an environmental review board decision on the designations go to the court which is seeming very it's simply a new idea for Brian Schup I believe that is a holdover from conversations that the revitalization board of the old downtown board was making designations decisions that had regulatory implications that those should be appealed and that was something that ACCD agreed but if you're separating the designations process from the regulatory process from our perspective who advocated for appeals for past decisions we wouldn't see any need to have that it would just be a benefits designation so at the bottom of page 116 designated neighborhood Act 250 jurisdiction was linked to designations we're unlinking them I know we're pulling the jurisdiction out of the designation however the areas the centers are tied to the future land use maps the thing that I'm concerned about is that I'm concerned about loss so if you're in a designated area now and we're also changing the future land use maps and we're also potentially changing the tiers and exemptions is it possible for you to fall out going back to this but I understand we're trying to disconnect but I think they are I'm happy to represent Logan on stepings it seems to me that it's not possible unless the municipality wants to do something different like that's the language that we see in the planning process is that it includes all the previous designations unless the municipality wants to change it but it does sound like the designated area could become larger which would mean the benefits would be better economic benefits however all the benefits thinking about the act 250 exemption benefits well those are not tied to the designation true they would also get a status act 250 status this sort of corollary to their designation the conflict between the future land use maps and which the ERB has to approve and designation are this well it's right here hasn't been officially graph graphic but it's here I think it's more around just the area and even if we're looking from the designation process the jurisdiction for the status I think it's a larger question of appeals and sort of hierarchy and how we want it to go and I think that we'll have that conversation soon and this is for me I'm thinking this is a little bit kind of an outlier in that conversation but it's important like we may when we talk about appeals if we decide that the environmental review board is an appellate body we'll have to talk about currently as the bill is drafted it has the environmental review board being an appeal for future land use maps actually and then stopping there but then also for act 250 district commission decisions and those would be appealed to the Superior Court not going to the Superior Court so it's I think we'll talk about what things we envision needing an appeal opportunity which you're bringing up and what's the appropriate body and what's the appropriate end to that decision okay thank you I'm ready to move on from that so does it need a neighborhood so just to remind there's an under the existing five designations two of them are overlaid districts called designated neighborhood development areas and EA's and growth centers and so neighborhood is intended to capture those two into one so we're going with the word neighborhood a regional planning commission may request approval from the ERB of areas of the regional plan as designated neighborhood we're going to check that across reference 6033 areas eligible for designation include planned growth area probably not actually and village areas identified on the well and on the regional plan future land use map yes planned growth areas okay planned growth areas as defined as a land use category in the regional plan section this designation recognizes the vitality that the vitality of downtowns and villages and their adjacent neighborhoods and that the benefit structure must ensure that any subsidy for sprawl repair infill development located within a neighborhood is secondary to a primary commitment to maintain the livability and maximize climate resilience and flood safe infill potential of these areas so on page 117 approval of planned growth areas and village centers as designated neighborhood shall follow the same process as approval for designated centers per 6033 and consistent with sections 4348 and 4348 at 8 I have a question that's just coming what we talked about a lot an hour ago for the center designation which is that the ERP is going to be approving these maps and so they will be approving the planned growth areas and village centers which then translates into designated neighborhoods so I'm not sure 6033 is the right cross-reference it might be but I don't know if that's the right and then 4348 is the regional plan and then 4348 A is the elements of the regional plan so there are earlier sections of this bill and so like we were talking about an hour it then strikes all the other references to the application process because it's just going to use the existing process for regional plan approvals so that brings us to page 118 transition read the transition paragraph probably well we did it before but it's been helpful but I have a question because yes let's get through this transition first page 118 line 14 any municipality with an existing designated growth center or neighbor development area will retain current benefits until July 1, 2029 or upon approval of a regional plan future land use maps whichever comes first all existing neighborhood development area and growth center designations July 1, 2024 will expire July 1, 2029 if the regional planning commission does not gain approval all benefits that are removed for neighborhood development areas and growth centers under this chapter shall remain active with prior designations existing as of July 1, 2024 until July 1, 2032 on to page 119 during the period of transition no renewal shall be required for the existing designations prior to the approval of a regional plan future land use map by the state board or the ERB only neighborhood development area designations may be approved by the state board prior to approval I was on a different okay on the bottom of page 118 line 19 or line 18 and 19 the regional commission doesn't get approved the the regional plans and maps get approved right so the regional plan and maps do not get approval because the commission doesn't get approval it's not seek it sounds like it's seeking approval am I reading that wrong I mean I think it's sure no one else would be seeking that other than the RPC right so I think yeah it can be planned they would get approval of their maps yes that's what I'm talking about but it would go to them yeah I can make it maps if you want exactly I'm just wondering if maybe that on line 19 if that is a typo that gain should be grant the regional planning commission does not gain approval well if they don't get their map approved gain I think they're not granting it they're seeking it and then onto the next page we have a question about can you still know where I get it take with it team a couple more minutes during the period of transition on the regional future map by the ERP we said we're changing that right yeah and then only neighborhood development areas as a nation maybe approved by the state board yeah so I think what's happening here is that there is an interest to keep allowing towns to get neighborhood development areas in the meantime yeah because there's a lot of granting them a lot do a comment on it here seems like a lot going on to Stevan's Logan and then shoot well maybe we should hear from shooters Brian do you have something yeah I was wondering you have with the housing bill you passed last year you did extend some caps in neighborhood development areas I'm wondering if you might consider sunsetting this to coincide with the approval of maps and I don't have to top my head know what the right days would be but to allow the neighborhood development area program to go forward until the regional planning process has taken place so I do want to flag we have to talk about a lot of the dates here drafting contingent language is tricky which is why and back in the centers designation there are dates on everything the department had originally proposed just be having it be contingent which is tricky it's not advisable in a statute to be fully contingent so you should have some year designation but yeah you I had forgotten about well yeah when they said they had their maps yeah yeah when they're supposed to have the approvals by there's a range there I don't really understand the only so basically because they're focused on housing potentially so so until we have the ERB approving regional plan future of land use maps it'll be the state basically what this says is the state board will continue to approve neighborhood development areas but not centers well so no one really is currently applying for growth centers anymore because it's too difficult very I don't think there's been a recent application for a downtown in a long time but so really right now the only and same for new town centers I think the only applications they've been seeing recently are for NDAs and for village centers so then well we're getting rid of village center for the incentive program so that's why it's not listed there well also we're we're so we're currently in the statute on neighborhoods so village centers are separate from neighborhoods and we actually didn't read the transition paragraph for centers so I guess I don't I guess my question is do we need the word only that's your only question no yeah it isn't I'm just talking out loud like clarify all this for myself just reminding myself that new applications for center designation can be approved by the state board up until December 31st 2025 that's what we say in that transition on 109 and applications need to be submitted by October 1, 2025 by a date certain on 109 and so this is just different this is just a taking a different approach to this designation program for the transition we could add a date certain I think that's where we're heading let's take a break for lunch