 All right, we're going to start over again with the camera working, we hope, and shift gears to H687 and look at the timeline that was provided to us on February 26th. I want to check out the opposite legislative council. So you know, I'm not a graphic designer. So they're not lines, they're more like charts, but there are three of them. So the first one on the first page is the big dates, well, it's all the dates from the big components of the bill. The third timeline has the individual dates that are within the designated area update, and so those aren't directly reflected on here because those are sort of internal dates, but this is the dates by which things are going to happen on the first page. And some of the dates have changed since the bill was introduced, so I do think not everything totally... So starting at the top, the first thing that is going to happen is we're this bill to pass with the appropriations intact, the appropriations and creation of new positions at the board, the NRB, would happen on July 1, 2024. Next, there is a study in this bill that we did talk about at the end of yesterday about a report back on the RPCs, so that's sort of the newest component in this bill. And I know you're working on that, but it is currently just a summer study, summer fall study committee. So that's only a six, five month turnaround on that. So that's actually the delivery date, not the start date. Correct, yeah. So it's start July 1. Oh, yeah, it's a start date, well, yeah, it starts a start date up there. Yeah, that's what it's due. So then next, the next date that comes up is that the new force block connecting habitat, habitat connector rules are supposed to be filed with L-CAR by June 15, 2025. Maybe good to just keep going, because the ERB board, understanding that relationship, which board is filing those rules, so let's go there. Yeah, and actually you're right, it's not going to be the ERB, it would be the NRB, because it doesn't become the ERB until July 1, according to the whole death thought. So the members of the new ERB are supposed to be appointed by July 1, 2025. And so this is a full year from passage date, and so just to remind you too, there is the, you'll need to stand up the new nominating committee, the members of that committee will need to be appointed. Is that on this list, the timeline? No. Okay. Are there any dates embedded in it? So I went with all the things that had dates certain. So yeah, there's a lot of things in between all of these dates that will need to happen. So would you mind, I cut you off, so we're going to stand up the nominating committee in order to get the board on board, stand up the nominating committee, that begins up on passage. Correct. So there is an implement, there is a start date for that process. Sure. Okay. And there is a, I think if you talk about how it unfolds in your bill, right, so first and foremost. Would it be that outside of our authority or proper for us to say that the nominating committee should be appointed by the speaker and the committee's by July 31st? Probably did. You're saying those dates are not in the bill, but I should say the thing. The appointment should be made by July 31st and then that they should, and then give some deadlines internally to say that they should, once they're stood up, they should develop the rules for the procedures, or that they should open a nominating process by like say November 1st or something like that, so that we give some internal dates. Keep it on track. As we go through the bill, we can think about what it does in. Yeah, we should do that. Okay, yeah, because they will need to be appointed and then post the job descriptions, receive applications, review an interview, and then submit names to the governor. So that will take probably at least six months. Oh, yes, do you have a relevant experience in that type of proceeding? I did testify on my experience with Canada's control board. And so at least six months probably. It was very smooth and direct. Oh, okay, yeah. So people were appointed within six months. Okay, so, all right, so that's good to keep in mind. So once the members are appointed, again, and something else that doesn't have a date, I suppose, but should be on here is, there is a, well, they're going to have to start doing a few things. I guess, okay, so I guess some of them are listed here, so I'll just go through. So then they will need to draft guidance for the planned growth area, but I guess Tier 1A application. And that's currently set at January 1, 2026. So that's within six months of them being appointed. The new criteria are set to take effect on July 1, 2026. And so you have some options here. This is six months after the rules have been filed with LCAR. And so after they've been filed with LCAR, there is an eight month adoption window. It's actually more like a year, right? So of course, what's making that rule appears as filed to 1525. Right, but they'll be filed, but they won't be adopted immediately, because they'll have to go through LCAR. And so you don't know when the effective date on that will be. It will be a few months after that. So you have some options here on when you want the rules to take effect. You want them to take effect after the rules have gone into effect. I don't know if you wanted to... Initially, I think last year, I think it was last year, we had discussed giving a buffer of at least a few months after the rules take effect before the criteria goes into effect for new permit applications so that there is notice to people who are developing applications. So you can move this date up. Oh, you can do either. So also on July 1, 2026, the new ERB will need to have drafted the rules of procedure for permit appeals that they are going to hear. And that is because the jurisdiction over Act 250 permit appeals will transfer under this bill to the ERB starting on July 1, 2026. Did those rules go through? Yes. And then also on July 1, 2026, you have the... NRB is slated to start review of the future regional land use maps that are ready for review. So that's the start? Yeah. Sorry. Just a clarifying question here on draft rules of procedure for permit appeals. And that is if we make a choice to move appeals to the NRB? Yes. So this timeline is based on the current provisions of the bill in draft 4.1. Yeah. So it reflects what is being... Yes. So if we did not move appeals, we did not need to draft rules? Yeah. And then... I'm sorry. You started on the next one, the jurisdiction over Act 250 permit appeals. Right. So it's the same thing? Yeah. Yeah. So then you do have a date in the regional plan section of the bill that the RPCs are supposed to have adopted their updated plans and maps by December 31, 2026. So, you know, I don't... That's a deadline for them to have taken action. And so under this... The way that the bill is currently drafted, the ERB is already empowered at that point to start hearing and doing the review of the plans that are ready before that. It means that just to be clear, the RPCs adopt the updated regional plans. It doesn't necessarily mean they've all gone through the ERB. They've adopted them. They're ready to bring them. Yes. And so then there is the... Once they're... After they have been adopted, they have to be submitted to the ERB and the ERB has to make a decision on them currently within 45 days after they've been submitted to the ERB. Sorry. I got distracted. So can you say that sentence? So after they have been adopted, they have to submit them to the ERB for approval and then within 45 days of their submission, they have to be... There has to be a decision. I'm trying to remember if there's a specific amount of time in which they have to send them to the ERB after they've been adopted by their internal process. I'm not sure if there is. So you also may want to think about that if after they have been adopted by the Board of the Regional Planning Commission, if they have to... Well, we can talk about that on the next page, I guess, too, that process. We're going to sit here. So the future of land use maps. I'm wondering about the interplay there with... And if those are dependent, I think they are. Okay, I understand. They're not with the ERB drafted guidance for the planned growth area. And that would come out. And so you couldn't map that until that came out, right, the guidance. I think that's an open question because the way that it's phrased currently in the bill, the guidance is actually for the municipality's application for Tier 1A, which is specific to their bylaws. Okay. And then the criteria. Does that need to be... What does that need to be in effect for the future land use maps? So those things are coming in to play at the same time? Yeah, I mean, I don't think they necessarily have to line up. Criteria are different and they will not be necessarily reflected in the maps in any way. So the criteria are the sort of qualitative demonstration that an applicant will need to make. And also, okay, well, I'll just flag that criteria and the tiers and the future land use maps, like I'm not sure how those things interplay at this point. So not asking for a lengthy explanation, just saying that they don't necessarily understand the work together. Can I rewind, though, to the representative's previous question? Yes. Under the ERB draft guidance for plan growth area application. So they're just saying, here's how to apply. That's what the guidance they're drafting is, not what it takes to apply. Not the standards. The standards are currently in the bill. Right. Yeah, okay. And so... Make sure that you caught that. I'm not sure that I'm following exactly the difference. Well, one is, like, how do I apply for this? And the other is, what do you need to be eligible to apply for it? So how do I apply? Is it like, procedure? Right. Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? Right? So that would already be the one supplying for tier one a So they're sort of separate. They are related, but they are sort of separate applications that will have to happen. Oh, see, and I should have... this is not one of my great skills here, so on December 15th, which is actually before December 31. This is one of the new things in the bill also, shall report on legislative recommendations to better align designation benefits with strategic priorities. So that's just in there also. But then. You should have seen that language yesterday. Yeah, you didn't need it. Yeah. It's tucked in one of the, it's a statutory provision on a future report back. And then so finally, this is a little bit fuzzy to me, but I think it's January 1, 2027. So the switch to location based jurisdiction, because I believe right now that's the date under which the ERB will begin reviewing application for planned growth areas or tier one, as you would say. Sure. So maybe, yeah. So that is something for you to consider because tier three is kind of in flux. Tier one B and tier two are directly connected to the regional plan, future land use maps. And so there isn't at the moment a specific statement on whether, so that's the only date that's in there right now is January 1, 2027 for one tier one A review and approval can begin. And so you, yeah, I mean, you may want to consider a date certain by which all of the, if all the tiers take effect on the same day or how you want to structure that. I suspect it'll be somewhat different. So that's the overall timeline. Don't have, unless I'm not seeing it, it's implicit, but we don't have a time by which the board should have the rules for reviewing the future land use maps. If you'll just sit there and I didn't. No, I don't think I saw. So we have. Well, so you've been going back and forth about whether you want to do rules or guidance on that. Right, okay. And I think we've actually had their own guidance will work for that, right? Okay. Guidance for, I'm sorry, which? Guidance for review of the, what's required to submit your map? Oh, future land use guidance. Yeah. Represents. So under review future land use maps and review regional plans, that's the NRB. So what is the difference? I'm sorry, between what representative Bonn-Kartz is asking for this. I think it might be the same thing we just did for the plan growth area guidance. Like so, how you do it? Yeah, so the commissions know what they have to do for how to submit the maps. You've empowered the board to adopt rules or guidance depending on where you land, but there isn't a date certain currently by which they have to do that, but it's slightly implicit. I thought that I heard representative Bonn-Kartz saying that there's something missing from the timeline. No, it's just asking. So it's this thing right here? He's asking whether or not there needs to be a separate line item by a date by which they adopt the guidance or rules for that procedure. So they have the regions are supposed to... Don't the regions actually adopt and then submit? So that's just the deadline. They must be done by then. They can do it sooner. Okay, got it. Yeah, okay. So yesterday, a section that you moved that may not be reflected in here is directing BAFTA to come up with methodology for the maps. I cannot remember if you had a date on that, but that would also be relevant to their development of the maps. Right, and so I did make this draft days ago, 100 years ago, and so it was based on 4.1, and then you did make a lot of significant changes yesterday, so it does not reflect the decisions you made yesterday. This is where you were. So there may be a couple of other things missing that I sort of missed, but that's what I did on Monday. When did we get to know or finalize how many of those would be helpful to hear from the LCT and the RPCs specifically that they have kind of done the mental or paper exercise with these dates once we settle on that policy? The other two timelines are much more specific to individual things you're doing in this bill, so the second timeline is not really a timeline. It's the sort of procedural outline on how a regional plan will be adopted, and it compares the existing to what's in draft 4.1 of 687. So if you're looking at the column on the existing, if there is nothing in the box, that means it's currently not addressed in statute what's happening. So most of what you're, you're building a lot of new procedure around the Regional Planning Commission planning, both before and then after they go through their adoption process. So new to the bill is that 60 days before the first hearing on the Regional Plan update, the RPC will submit a draft Regional Plan to the ERB and ACCD. ACCD will then coordinate with the other state agencies on the state response and then respond to the proposed plan within 60 days. 30 days before the first hearing, RPC gives a copy of the proposed plan and reporting document, compliance lists to the parties entitled to notice under the statute, and then they may submit comments and participate in hearings if they wish, and so that's part of the existing statute. They have to hold at least two or more public hearings on the plan, and that's part of the existing statute. 30 days before the last public hearing, the RPC may make changes, may make changes to the proposed plan. If they do make changes, they have to provide a notice and copy to the list of notice people at least 30 days before the final hearing. So they have to re-notice everyone if they make changes. That's in the existing statute. The Regional Plan is then submitted for adoption but adopted by a vote of the municipal commissioners of the Regional Planning Commission, and that's what's in the statute currently. What's next in the statute is that the plan is adopted 35 days after it has been approved by the commissioners unless there is an objection by 60% of the commissioners or member municipalities. That is being changed in the statute to there's submission, after the vote of the municipal commissioners, it is submitted to the ERB for review. Within 15 days of adoption, the interested people may file objections to the plan with the ERB. Within 30 days, after submission to the ERB, ERB staff provide recommendations on the plan. ERB posts notice of a hearing on the plan within 15 days before the hearing. They then hold a hearing and then they issue a written recommendation on the plan within 45 days after receiving the plan. So I'll start at that fast. And so we've got these final five places where the public can come in, our interested parties can come in with objections. And what the ERB effectively can do if they find some validity to those objections is what. I think what it is, is they can say, go fix this RPC. And then that was back to what we were talking about yesterday. What if the RPC didn't, but they will. Then the municipalities would lose. Okay. And does the bill, I think the bill does specify timelines. Yes, it does for go fix this RPC when that has to be done by, okay, great. Thank you. In 18 months we'd know if they have to make changes. Okay, before the town's lose. If I have two other questions that we might, going up to the top, ACCD coordinating with other state agencies and responding within 60 days. So I think we've seen that state government sometimes has some unexpected delays in being able to do their work. And so do we have provisions in the bill? So could ACCD, can they stop this train? To, do they have the ability within this bill to say we don't have enough time? Cause I know we've got public notices in here. No, but they have additional opportunity to submit their comments. They miss the sort of pre-hearing window. There's then the window of time between when they start the hearings and end the hearings to provide comments on the plan. So to flesh that out a little bit, you asked if they stopped the train and the train is these 60 days. I think the answer's no, but then they would still, if they missed it, according to Ellen, they would have a chance to come back if they, for whatever reason, then other state agencies or ACCD missed the opportunity, they'd still have another chance. Okay, great. And then just looking at the existing, the places around notice and the process for the plan, which are all the same. As when we were, 30 days before the final public hearing, RPC may make changes to the proposed plan if the changes are made a copy. I'm just wondering how long the RPC can kind of stretch that out. So you're, so they can set up to two public hearings and then like, what is, is there a top finite amount of time which they can stretch that out or they can stretch it as long as they want? No, I don't think so. But I think what would maybe happen practically is if they had to make changes, they would then schedule another hearing 30, at least 30 days after those changes because they have to have that 30 day notice period that changes have been made. So if they're, if say there were some new regulations that were causing a lot of consternation within the towns and making kind of adoption difficult, the RPC has plenty of time to keep coming back and sending hearings. There's one given a testimony we had from a few people. There's some, was there some thought on the fifth from the bottom to extending the period to object from 50 to 30 days? Do we have that discussion? I think we did. I think in the 50 days of adoption. On the theory, this is before, just to give a little bit more time, we have to make sure that that then fits within the timeframe given to the ERB for acting. So we have to push that out by 15 days. But just to be, I think we did take some testimony to the fact that people might not even know what's going on within those 15 days. And at some, the notices are sometimes in weeklies. And so. Yeah. So I want to push back a little bit to file an objection. They have to have participated in at least one of the hearings already. That's, you're right. So hopefully they are at least are, I know what's going on because they have to in order to object. So they may not know the deadline, but I think if they are seeking to object, they will be interested in knowing what the deadline is. Also, so yes, you may also want to consider broadly changing the 45 days, if whether. So, so yes, you want to make sure that the objection is filed before the ERB is actually going to hold the hearing so that the objector can participate in the hearing and be heard. But then also whether or not the decision within 45 days of filing is enough time. You mean the last line? Yeah. You're in determination within 45 days of receiving the plan. So that takes us, oh, that doesn't seem realistic. Right. That's, I don't know, I mean, maybe should it be within 45 days of getting the objection or within some number of days receiving the objection or from when they had the hearing? That should be the, it should be the front line. Okay, definitely. So hold the hearing within that space. But with enough time to make sure they can actually do it. And that have an issue, yes or no, issue within 40 days or something like that after the hearing. So make sure we have a good time. And actually, I know these are shortened, but so fourth, one, two, three, fourth from the bottom within 30 days after submission of the objection, all of this is related to the objection procedures? No. Okay, so we've just submitted the plan. Yeah. Sorry, good. So the objection is just before it. Before the meeting comes, they have it before the meeting or the hearing. Make sure they know about the objection. Right, so I did want to point out, I was saying this a few minutes ago. I don't know if you currently have a deadline by which after the RBC votes and adopts how many days they have to then to file it with the ERB. The planners have a, we were just, we were just discussing, I think partially it depends upon how complicated the application guidance is that the NRB adopts, but I would say within 15 days it should be reasonable because I trust that they won't make anything too complicated. That's absolutely right. One other, I have made a note here yesterday in doing some of my homework on the RPC study and the public engagement with the RPCs. I understand there was discussion when I left early about the environmental justice rules and that they are not obligated to use those in statute at this point. And there was discussion, I was hearing from them their willingness to have that become incorporated in their statute. And so then I just wonder about this timeline given that. And so I think we just wanna secure. Hold that thought, yeah, flag it, yeah. So I'm not up to date with everything that's happening other than the rules haven't been adopted. But a lot of that would happen in the first couple of blocks on the timeline, right? Because public engagement, you wanna do it sort of early, earlier in the process as opposed to the end. So, and as we just talked about, it is sort of flexible how they structure, holding their public hearings on the plan. So there is time for them to hold more than two meetings and do additional public outreach because there isn't specified. They have to hold, it doesn't say like, they have to hold two meetings within 30 days, because it doesn't say that. They have to just hold at least two meetings. So there's flexibility, I think, to fit that in. That seems like we need to track what we need in certain bill, I think, which we suggest in 15 years, the regional planning area approving their plan needs to be submitted to the ERB. This is, yes, there's on this part of the timeline. That's really worse. Okay, Madam Chair, just I'm trying to grasp the number of plans that the ERB may be receiving from the RPCs within a certain timeframe, and if they're gonna be able to hold all of this, if they've got, say, 10 plans, are they gonna be able to review them all, hold public hearings, and give a written determination on the plan within 45 days. So it's just, I just wanted to be comfortable that we're not gonna put stress on the ERB, and they're not gonna be able to hold this. I don't know where to get the answer for that. One thought I'm having is that they're gonna kind of roll in. I mean, there's a deadline by when they need to be done, but we've taken pretty considerable testimony that a number of RPCs are already moving in this direction, and they're gonna be ready. So, do you have further thoughts, Representative Bomber? Well, a couple, I mean, it's a good point, I'm glad you brought it up, because, theoretically, you could have the initial crunch is what you're suggesting, and then over time, once that was done, it wouldn't be an issue. So it raises the question about how complicated the reviews are going to be, and it may be that they're actually, so many RPCs have been careful in their submitting plans that are actually gonna, they know they're gonna get adopted. It should be fairly easy and quick. They could even, theoretically, hold a couple of hearings in one day at the board. That's not clarifying anything. I'm just thinking out loud here a little bit, but the other thing about this is that, unlike, for instance, when there's a contested proceeding and property rights are at stake or whatever, where you have, where time does matter, here, although it matters, it's not urgent, ever that these get done, it's been a couple years, and if it takes an extra 60 days, it doesn't really matter. So, we don't wanna make the timeline so short that we create difficulty in one hand. I'm sensitive. But it's the fact that the RPCs are doing public hearings, and some of them started mapping already, for example, so this will be rolled out over a time period, and then they're going to upload these to the ERB for the approval, so that's where I'm just trying to, I understand there should be limited, the amount of objections or the timeframe to review, because most of that work should have been done, but I'm just, no, I'm, yeah, I'm just, I'm with you. Okay. I'm sure we have a right. I think something you could consider is the deadline by which you want these maps to then be jurisdictional for use in Act 250, so you could bump, I mean, right now we're sort of estimating January 1, 2027, you could bump that out so that there was additional time, so that most or nearly all of the plans had been adopted before the use of Tier 1B, Tier 2, Tier 3, all of the tiers are officially used for the Act 250 process. If I heard correctly on that, Madam Chair, and thank you all for that, I don't think it would be the goal to have all of them approved. Maybe I'm misinterpreting my thoughts. Have them all approved before we roll out to Tier 1 here, because there may be some that are better prepared and ready to go, as opposed to having to wait for all of them to catch up, if I understood that correctly. Sure, I think there are different dimensions to that. Like, I think there's a policy decision there. What if I said that from receipt to the board has 90 days, that seems like a lot of time, hold hearing within 45 days in which you're decision making. A motion decision ought to be relatively, that's quicker. So maybe we give them 60 days to hold hearing, which is a lot of time and hopefully they'll do it sooner. But, and then 30 days to the shoot the decision. Let's try that on. Where are you suggesting a change? That when the time they receive the application, they have to hold the hearing, when the board receives the application for the maps from the region, they have 60 days to hold the hearing and 30 days after the hearing to issue a decision. Move forward, just move forward. So you're changing this item four up from the bottom. We need 30 days, you're saying, within 60? I was thinking if he's sort of changing the last two, although I've always found the staff recommendation piece a little odd, but I think that it's, I guess maybe the function is so that the staff, people are guaranteeing that someone is looking at the plans within 30 days of them being submitted, but it seems like it might be before the hearing? It has struck me as an odd thing to have the statute in front of the staff to that, because they should just have the staff to it. I was just wondering about the way it worked, the PUC, because we're kind of thinking about this ERB acting more like the PUC in terms of this government's structure, because the staff do have, you know, a role that's, I don't know if it's in statute, but I don't know if that came from having that in mind or not. Yeah, I don't, I actually don't think the PUC has like any, they have deadlines for the smallest projects on which they have to act, otherwise they're deemed approved, but I don't think most projects they review have timelines established in statute, but yes, this, it made me think of the PUC hearing officer process where the staff, the hearing officer reviews the case and then makes a recommendation to the, to the commission for their review and approval. The commission can then either accept or reject the proposal, but I'm not totally sure. I don't know if anyone has a thought on that, on that part of this procedure. Is that necessary to you? Looks, I'm actually going to keep on the path of the next ERB hold public hearings on the plan, and then assess proposing within 60 days. And then I, I'm going to also say that this nation will be for 15 days, the last item. I will 30, but 15 days is fine too, because I don't see anything. Sorry, can you say that again? So the second to the last item on this list, ERB holds public hearing on the plan within 60 days. Okay. We'll see. We'll see. And then issues of written determination within 15 days. Within 15 days. With the close of the hearing, in case the hearing would go to for some reason. And are you striking the stack recommendation? We decided, I mean, I only told us, like, those are people that follow the process, and that feels like it. Yep, okay. But do you want to add that the RPC needs to submit to the ERB within 15 or some days after their adoption? Would be a reasonable thing to expect, yes. The last part of this document is pulled out all of the dates that are in the designated area update section of the bill as of the last draft. And so you did make a lot of changes yesterday, but I did, and I was starting to, but I wanted to sort of pull out that the dates don't actually line up. And obviously this part of the bill has been worked on piecemeal over time. But they don't all match. I mean, I think they largely match, but these are the individual dates within that whole chapter. But some of them we were believing entirely. So like, we're not putting in a section anymore because it's already in the. Yeah, but it's mostly not that. I don't think there have been too many, I don't know at the top of my head, but I think most of the things that are on here are still in the bill because you actually didn't talk about all of them yesterday. And it is basically about the transitions. Which ones did we talk about? All of centers, 5804-D. Yeah, 8804-D, because that's just D. Yeah, and it's the whole middle chunk there on that page. Talked a lot about the pre-existing designation between where they were, how they were inspired. So we talked about it because it appears in like three different places in the bill, but you did skip over D, I believe, which is the biggest paragraph on it. So yes, this whole chapter is structured kind of in an odd way because it addresses transition in three different sections. Because there's concern about making sure that the benefits expire in a timely sort of way. So you do need to think about how you want to structure the transition. Big picture, just how are you structuring the transition from the current designated areas of five designated areas to the new designations of the two designations? Key to this, I think, is that we are giving time for the regions to get their maps in and through. Yes. And we put a deadline for that on the page as... December 31st, 2026. So this is plenty of time. So let me listen to something that I said as well. Except for the date, not all the dates match. So if you just want me to like line up... I mean, just literally December 25th and December 31st. Right, like... Do you know what page 58 or 4 is on? Which are our four pages? It's in the last, it's part of the last 40 pages so it's probably somewhere around 100. So it's 58.05, it's on page 116, one of seven. One of seven, here we go. I mean, and maybe it makes sense to wait until we go through today's draft and then update this timeline to see if it works now. I like that idea. Yeah, yes. I think it makes sense to walk through the next draft. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so with that, let's take a five minute break. We are reconvening our meeting and continuing... Well, starting our walkthrough of draft 5.1 of age 687. What we're gonna do is walk through the changes that are highlighted that I encourage members additionally. So what I'm gonna do is follow along in my 4.1 just to make sure that things that we want addressed get addressed. So we're gonna begin walking through with Ellen. Thank you for getting us this in such a timely fashion. Okay, so draft 5.1, first of all, it hasn't been edited because I already found a typo. So forgive me, but... We have a question for representatives in this area, so I'm just gonna make sure that they... Okay, so you remember the changes. So if we have other items that have not carried over as changes, this would not be the time we're gonna talk to. This is the time, thank you for clarifying. Okay. I think this is the time for us to keep a list at the very least. Okay. So we're gonna be resolved in a timely fashion. We're gonna resolve it now, and other members. A lot of times what happens is Ellen, first of all, wasn't in the room for all the testimony we took, and she did her level best to get the changes that we walked through with her in person. But we will have things that we caught from other testimony and our other thoughts that now is the time. Okay, so I will be looking for direction on whether or not I'm doing that right, but I would just say, under the purpose section, I had flagged that in 4.1, the purpose being to hear, for the ERB to hear appeals, which I am opposed to. So just flagged that as something I'm still opposed to. I would also like to add something in this draft as in the prior drafts. Things that are bolded are things that I am unclear if you made a decision on or not. Because in the first few drafts, I was going with just keeping things yellow and that got confusing about whether or not it was new or in flux, and so things that are bolded are things from prior drafts that I am unclear what you're doing with. Questions on. Okay, so working on that, page two, there are two things. And so flagged, in general, I think you have had a conversation about whether or not any language in the purpose section needs to change, and then specifically, if the last sentence of the purpose section needs to change. Sure, so the last sentence of the purpose section, which is section one, is the structure established under this act used to guide state financial investment and infrastructure. Do you have a question about that? I did last time, no, we had a brief discussion about that. Okay, it doesn't seem vague to me, and I guess I'll try and explain why. I mean, for me, we're actually identifying, we're using a planning process to identify areas that our communities want to grow, and those broadly are supported by infrastructure investments, like most obviously, well, often transportation infrastructure, but also water and sewer infrastructure comes to mind for me when I read that sentence. Representative Logan, sidewalks. Thank you, and also the designations program resources are related here, too. I don't know if you want to say infrastructure and community development. Show investment, infrastructure, and you're thinking I think the last third of the bill. But I guess I understand also your question about how is this going to be used to guide state financial investment and infrastructure. Is that what you're asking? It was before my question, and now I'm hit, and I don't want to get too weighed down in here either, but what would happen if this sentence was not in here? Like, what is the function of this sentence? So if it wasn't here, then I think it would represent bond cards. I actually think it's important because I think the maps and the growth areas and the transition areas, we want to make sure that state investment is made in ways that supports, as opposed to undermines, what the towns and regions are coming up with their, with the maps, and the big one B, and also of course the one A's and the one B's. So I think it's actually an intent of the bill is to help guide investment to follow this new level of decision making at the local and regional level. And so infrastructure, so if you needed, so if you're in a rural community and you're trying to install water, could this be helpful? It's meant to be. It's meant to be. So what's your, were you finished? Because I want to ask your concerns. So my concern is that it could be unhelpful in terms of building or replacing critical infrastructure. And I'm cognizant of it being state financial investment in infrastructure. So thinking about only that, but again, I don't want to get to you in the weeds. And it's purpose, yeah. I mean, yeah, I know this is representative Smith. Thank you. Was this, when you mentioned financial investment infrastructure, would this include housing that would that would be state funded? It could, I suppose, if you consider that infrastructure, I mean, infrastructure more, I haven't thought of that state, but those are state investments sometimes. Yeah. I would just add that I think if you want to keep it, structure is maybe an odd word here. The- The structure established, oh yeah. Yeah. And so it may perhaps program updates established under this act, but big picture, purpose sections. This is a session law purpose section. It won't have a lot of legal bearing unless there's a court challenge, which at the moment, nothing you're working on specifically has raised any constitutional flags for me. And even if it were, it isn't currently, so this isn't like framed in the legal way. This is more of a statement for those reading the bill which I do generally advise against, but just because it's sort of saying why you're doing this. The structure program updates suggestion. So then section two is the statutory purpose section. And so again, this was a discussion you had last time. It maybe should also be bold, but so the purposes of this chapter are to protect and conserve the environment of the state and to support the achievement of the goals of the capability and development plan of 24VSA 4302C and of the conservation and vision goals for the state established in 2008-02 while supporting equitable access to infrastructure. From Representative Sibylian. Good ball, but I, yes. Senator Chair, just a question. I know people who hate, excuse me for that word, but really dislike purpose language and then other people who really appreciate it. My question is, I have heard people, my question is this language addresses the updating of Act 250, the ERB. I've heard some confusion as to how much this bill will dot, dot, dot result in more housing. So I'm just wondering I find it helpful to have this change would allow the Act 250 program to be a more citizen friendly process. I guess I'm just wondering, does it make sense to add a sentence about the fact that this bill will make certain areas, well, is meant to make certain areas easier or not easier, but the Act 250 exemptions, I've heard people say, what is this, what's in this bill for communities? And it's critical that we list all this because this is in here, but we're kind of not including the incentives of Tier 1A, 1B in here, as clearly as might be helpful if we're gonna keep a purpose section. I would note we're to say this bill intends to make it easier to develop, I might want us to say, and more difficult to develop in other places, and I don't know that that's helpful. I'll always see that slightly differently. Representative Tory. I'm just gonna throw in that, we're looking at two different types of infrastructure of the built and the natural. We're protecting both, which is the mission of our committee. And I think maybe a stronger statement on that front could be helpful to all of us to get ahead around what we're actually doing here and how important it is. The purpose two, were you referring to the session on purpose in section one? I think this is a great conversation because we're just in this stage of bringing the whole bill together. And I encourage members to keep thinking about this and also unless someone has something more to add right now. Yeah, Representative. Just to remind folks of what my concern is here, you could ask before. The yellow one. Yeah, the problem that I'm worried about. I think I've brought up a ton or two around moving critical infrastructure out of the woods, the electric utilities. And the challenges associated with that. So I wanna make sure that what we're doing contemplates that we need modern infrastructure in the existing rural communities. And so we don't want to inhibit the ability of rural, existing rural communities to have modern infrastructure. That's what I'm worried about. Okay, thank you. That's helpful. I think that that's a kind of consistent with what Reptoria is saying if we can word correctly. Well, I actually, I think that Reptoria is talking about natural infrastructure, making sure that we don't lose track of natural infrastructure as well. And I am talking about poles and wires and water. She said both. She said both, that's why I think it's consistent. Yeah. On page five. That's feedback regarding environmental justice. I know we're taking testimony from Karla Ramundi tomorrow, but that testimony is on community engagement and she has testimony that's broader than that. For example, on page for the board, the composition of the board and the nominating committee. There are recommendations that we received regarding candidates competencies with environmental justice concepts and policies. And page three, I've been over here writing up language based on some recommendations. For example, so we might want to ask for testimony on this. I don't know if we wanna consider changes right now and I'm looking at something that you all haven't seen yet, but on line seven, for example, you might recommend inserting an or before community planning and then a period and then a sentence like candidates with competency in environmental justice concepts and policies shall be offered preference or something like that. And then another recommendation would be for section A to add on in line 12, no less than two members shall be individuals who belong to or are well positioned to represent environmental justice focus populations. So those are fairly significant recommendations. Yeah, excuse me, they are very significant. I think we'll hear from you tomorrow on those. Yeah. But I like, excuse me, I think seating, this is fine. Okay, and then on page for last point on this section before we get back to page five is page six. There would be a recommendation under section B to add subsection four that no less than two members of the nominating committee shall be individuals who belong to or are well positioned to represent environmental justice focus policy or composition and nominating committee composition recommendations that we're hearing, but I'm not sure that the NRB has discussed with fellows on interagency environmental justice committee. Yeah, on those recommendations. Yeah, okay, yeah. We'll be here for you on that tomorrow as well. Yeah, that's good. I'd like to ask a question about on page six. Well, actually Kate brought us to six though. This consists of a six member board and they're going to be voting on things on occasion. Am I correct? They are, and I, well, yes, and we did talk about this. So this is based on the cannabis control boards and they were six and they actually, as testimony revealed, they had unanimous recommendations every time. What do they do in the event of a tie? Ties, no. It is? Emotion fails. Well, and so just it's the nominating committee. So they're voting on whether or not to send a name to the governor. They still could be a split, couldn't they? So if it was a tie, then that name would not be submitted to the governor. That's right. Okay, thank you. Page five. So we talked about this in the last draft, line 12. So if necessary to achieve a quorum, the chair of the board may appoint a member of a district commission who has not worked on the case to sit on a specific case before the board. Sorry for the typo. This was the, probably never happened, but it was the case for a vision. We're just talking about page six and seven earlier during the timeline discussion. Did you want to add language in here for the date by which the members have to be appointed? Page six. So I was suggesting that if you were to get this based on the time we would like to have the members of the nominating committee appointed by July 31st, for instance, we'll make this, don't know, it has to be done very long days, but hopefully that's okay. Sometimes getting appointments out of the house and sending, so hopefully they will be volunteers. Is it reasonable to say that the set of date by which applications can be accepted so that would mean they'd have to then do the forms like do we want it, so that once they're appointed they have to move relatively quickly to be in a position to make applications available or get, is that a necessary step to say or is it just something that happens? I'm not sure. One member is required to be from the department of HR, so hopefully they will be bringing their expertise to that. But if you want to, I don't recall if there was that requirement when the candidate's control board committee was being set up, I don't recall. So it seems to me that backing up from June 30th, we want to make sure that we got engaged to the governor by January 31st, let's say, or something like that. So you might be reasonable to say that the application deadline shall be June 30th, but that means they have to, in the meantime, do all the things to make it possible to apply. That's too much. Okay, all right. They know, okay, fine. Yeah, you don't know how many applications. Working in application process, I think you need some flexibility. What if people don't apply? What if you need to do more outreach? They know they need to move. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, Chairman. Thank you, Spine and Haskell from the NRB. I just think that having a requirement that someone be from the Department of Human Services may not be as helpful as you think, because we all, they can give us their advice and at moments notice, and it might be more useful to have somebody from within the administration actually understands what Act 250, you know, it's a complicated bill and it has some of those, that kind of background to be able to lend to a review of candidates, et cetera, et cetera. The, so I recall the rationale was that it's for us for making sure that it was adequate administrative support. So that was why it's there. That's why it's there. And do we have, I'm not. You mean the person who, I mean sort of think that the applications and would go through the DHR? Yeah. And just all the, everything would take to make the wheels turn while they're getting up and running it. That was the rationale. I'm not arguing, you, so that. I can't, they do that, but it's part of the, I don't know, I don't know. I don't feel at all strong about this. I just remember that's why we did it. So, I mean let's just review briefly the composition of this. Sure, so on page six, so the line's 12, the governor shall appoint two members from the executive branch, with at least one being an employee of the Department of Human Resources. The speaker shall appoint two members from the House of Representatives. And the Senate committee on committee shall appoint two members from the Senate. And this is, this is what they did on the Canada. There were seven members on the Canada's control board committee. An additional member appointed by the governor. So the governor had three, the legislative, I think you had removed, because you had heard that all of their recommendations were unanimous, there weren't split votes that you just figured it didn't need an odd number. Suggestions which are documented in that they're written with submissions and apparently well documented by a number of us on our draft 4.1. I think it'd be good to have those incorporated in the next draft. And if members have particular objections to that or questions about any of that, we could bring them up along the way. But I think, anyway, that's my proposal. Representative Sebelia. And I would support that. I think there were some questions and maybe there weren't, so I would definitely welcome being corrected on this. I think there was adding a requirement of a financial disclosure, a potential conflict of interest. But I think there were some questions around how we would measure integrity and impartiality, or maybe those were my questions. I don't know. No, I think that Jay brought those up, too. And also work ethic. And so I don't know what we do with that for Ellen. I'll just provide a little bit of information. I will say that this language I believe is nearly identical to what's currently in the statute for judicial nominations, which is also part of the PUC's nomination. This is what the committee is supposed to review. I think you added one of them. One of the lists here, I'm trying to check. But I think your original thought was to be very close to what is already happening for PUC commissioners and the judges. And then I guess my only personal opinion comment on that is that when you are interviewing candidates for a job, I have done that quite a few times and it's not always quantitative, some of these things. But I think you are, when you're looking for a job candidate to fill a job, you have criteria which you want that person to meet. And so you use your questions to suss out their qualities. Let's make changes to the statute around judicial. Yeah, I think we're doing it right now. And that was based, in part, on testimony from the Office of Racial Equity, right? The criteria. So it would be helpful to look and see if it passed the House the other day, I think, so what that language is. I don't know what that bill number is now. I'll look back at the calendar this week. This week. So I started looking into this issue about financial disclosure just this morning. And so I need to do a little more research on what is in other statutes. Currently the PUC, I think the only thing that they have for their commissioners is that they have to disclose any financial stake or stock in a business related to the work that they do with the PUC. So utilities and energy companies. So I think that's the only financial disclosure they currently have, I know that. But I don't know. So I may need some additional information on the type of financial information you're looking. Yeah, and I think it would be similar in that pointing someone to this board who had conflicts around. The point is, do they have a conflict in their source of other income because these are part-time people that would potentially put them at, make them less, make them potentially biased in their review of land use regulations. So I think it'd be similar, but it might be more broad than what the PUC has. Do members have? I think that's right. Thoughts? Yeah. All right. Okay. I think the next yellow is in until page 36. Myself here, I hope so, because I don't know what's on the top of page 10. So these are rules of procedure and we had the last draft talked about work procedure for proving regional plans for maps, which may be adopted as rules or issued as documents. And so we're giving them that flexible flexibility. So is there any reason that or? Well, that's a policy distinction, right? So you can require both, but the rules require a pretty strict timeline to follow and take a lot more time than the issuance of guidance. So you're gonna choose one way or another. I have a note here. It says the administrative procedures act as a statute. Did we hear from Baptist on this period? Yes. Statutes. I have a note, Baptist feels statutes clear enough for guidance and it would be more expeditious. So, but we, I think decided to leave it at war. Just noting on 13, I don't know how that I've clocked the rates, it's not noting again the appeals. Yeah, I mean, most of the rest of this language is about appeals. Until we get to page 36. H22, I think it's another J-grade. How do they go? Waiver for independence. Oh, sure. H22 and 23 filing fees? Yeah. Yes, and I could not remember if there's an existing provision for waiver of fees based on financial inability to pay. But if there isn't, you can add that. And the court does currently allow someone who can't pay filing fees to waive the fees for indigent parties. Madam Chair, my only question with this was if somebody is developing a property, putting up a home or a business or something, I'm going to assume the cost of that would be way more than the filing fee. So I was, I'm not saying I'm not saying in favor of or against, I'm just saying that if they're developing a property for considerably tens of thousands of dollars and needing the financial backing of a bank, et cetera, or some other institution, not to concern about $295 fee, I get the sensitivity of it and obviously it was presented to us as a possibility. So I'm not opposed to moving on this, but that was my first heard that when somebody's developed a property, 295 is not much. And I'm wondering if somebody can help me out. What other properties or NRB decisions or applications would there be that I'm missing something that I wouldn't be tens of thousands of dollars? Right. So this is the appeal stage and so it would potentially be a project opponent. Who's a need? Yeah, thank you. Sometimes you just need to be reminded. So I think finding out if it's already in statute or if it's not going out of the thing. So page four, it feels the way it's drafted. We need to do administrative health also. I would ask Sabine Haskell to comment on that. So we're on page 34, creating positions at the interim review board. There's a question about additional administrative support. Not sure where you're looking right now, but. We're on page 34, section 15. If you're not doing appeals, you probably don't need two extra attorneys, if that's what you meant. No, someone suggested that with the changes to the program you may need administrative health, not necessarily more legal though, but a new position for administrative support. Like how much administrative support do you have now? In the main office? We have two legal technicians that serve the central office. I mean, then we have district technicians that are administrative support with the coordinators. The short answer is that we would advocate for the two ARPA district coordinators to be made permanent positions. Yeah, and there will be, these would be people that would be added after this bill passes. So there will be time before the appeals and the RPC review process begins for at least one more legislative session between them for requests for additional staff to happen. Page 36, I just changed connecting habitat to Habitat Connector on page 37. Last draft, you considered ecosystem functionality. It's gone back to ecosystem protection. So I don't have a flag on this previously, but on the definition of fragmentation, would utility infrastructure be exempted here? I mean, it's not mentioned as exempted, so no. So. But, so it would be a fact determination because I think it's an open question about whether or not, depending on what infrastructure you're thinking of, whether it would actually cause fragmentation inherently. So we, right now, we have temporary exemption on moving existing distribution lines from the woods to the roadways that right now, sunsets that I'm proposing on both the sunset. I'm just wondering if there would be any further play with this definition. So this definition is used in the new criteria for review. And so when a project is going through the Act 250 process, the question is, is it causing fragmentation of a forest block or connecting habitat? Whether or not something is, is a fact specific determination unless you specifically exempt it, but whether or not the, I don't know how it relates to what you were just talking about because what you're just talking about actually sounds like it's the opposite of fragmentation, but, so. I'm playing it for myself, I'm happy to go back and think more about this and make sure I actually get something. Yeah. It's not, it's not to me the worst, but I think this is about two or more persons. No, this is a criteria that is applied when Act 250 has jurisdiction. And with that, we're going to break for lunch and come back at one o'clock. Madam Chair, I'll just pick up where we left off. Yes. Just noting, I had a meeting that I cannot move and I'm hoping to be back on time, but it may not be, and if I am not ready I will watch the tape. Okay. I'm hoping not to miss. What? You're not testimony, right? No, actually, we don't have testimony. Oh, you don't? It's canceled. So we're hoping to have you back. Yes, we're hoping. Somebody should tell me that. Yes. All right. Adjourned.