SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-01-30 - 1:15PM

[Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Thank you very much. Welcome back to the House Committee on General and Housing. And we had this morning a joint hearing with the Senate on, with where, the administration presented their housing proposal. That proposal is not yet formally a bill, but we determined that it was time since since it had been prepared. It was good it was timely for us to hear from them. At this point, we're just gonna devote a little preliminary time for committee members to comment on what they thought about it. So why don't you start? [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Me? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Am I am I format for this. Okay. You can say whatever you think. I just think it's good for us to begin. [Emilie Krasnow ]: Sure. Well, yeah, I I appreciated you know, again, this is my second term. So this is kind of a a different style than the bill last year that was presented. I am still digesting a lot of what we heard. It was a lot of information, and I'm gonna take the next couple of days to really dive deeper in on my own time. But I agree with a lot that was in there, and they touched on a lot of points that I think we've been hearing both from constituents and people across the state that there are some changes and additions that we made often when I don't tell this group that when we have laws, acts play out, there's often gaps that we find after they've been implemented. And so it really touched on a lot of the things that I've been hearing from folks. You know, I am in Chittenden County, so a lot of the as we discussed, some of the stuff really assisted. And I think, Senator Clarkson, you know, touched on we have made progress in in a lot of the exemptions and and seeing where that lies. I obviously love the data section and the directive to continue working on that. But, so, yeah, I I I'm coming away with a positive feeling about what was presented to us today, and I thought it was thoughtful. And there's a lot of good in there, and I just have to kinda take some time to look into those details. And then I'm hoping it will give us a good picture of when we start really diving into what we're gonna focus on, where we can pick up from there. So I am grateful for for the presentation. That's kind [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: of where [Emilie Krasnow ]: what I'm feeling right now, but I can't you know, right now, I'm not like, [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: I hate this. I hate that. I love this. I love that. [Emilie Krasnow ]: So that's where I'm at. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: I concur with what Representative Krasnow has said. I've been on this committee. This is my ninth year. So housing, housing, housing. And housing has always been an issue for years. COVID just blew it out of the water. It's just such a problem. And everything depends on housing. You can't people can't take jobs here and come here because there's no housing. I can't tell you the number of calls I get from professional people that we've hired this veterinary. We've hired this teacher. Do you know of any apartments available? It is today's presentation, I'm grateful for it. I think there is a lot of information to digest, But I also feel that it's been a number of years that we've had this problem. And it's good to see that the governor has a a plan. But how long is this plan going to take? And what happens in the meantime to all these people who are, you know, unhoused? They're they are human beings. They're not all bad people. There are a ton of children, and that absolutely breaks my heart because children should not be living in motels. So I, you know, I would like to see I would like to see things move much more quickly, but I'm I'm willing to listen to all of the options and, go from there. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Kale? [Leonora Dodge ]: So I'm really new to all of this. I have a couple of questions. When they're talking about the appeal process, what exactly is the appeal process? Is it the same as when you have a home and you get the permit and then it's fifteen days and then somebody can appeal? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: It's there's two processes. I didn't even fully understand this before, and I'm not certain I fully understand it now. If a project a how a project is approved by a local the local town, it could be approved by a zoning administrator. It could be approved by the select board. It could be approved, you know, it's whatever it is. There are, I believe, a a butter, someone who lives adjacent to the project can appeal it. But there's also a process by which under the act one eighty one as it was approved last year, any ten people or is it twenty? [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: It's Ten. Yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: It's twenty. Any twenty people can appeal Ten. Even if they aren't a Butters, but you have to get twenty people together. Mhmm. Yeah. Then it would be appealed, you know, to the it could be appealed if it's an act depending on the permit. If it's an act one two fifty permit, it goes to the Land Use Review Board or the environmental court. Excuse me. If it's a zoning permit or a zoning permit, it would just you'd have to go to court. And the concern is that that that's been expressed is that a single person in the past, a single person can decide they don't like a property and appeal all the way up to the Supreme Court and back. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: And that's the one single person, they would need to get those other [Leonora Dodge ]: the nineteen [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: It was under the law as it is now. They could it couldn't be it it couldn't be an individual. Okay. [Emilie Krasnow ]: And as we also heard too from folks that have testified in their introductions to Western Housing is one of the biggest problems with the appeals process is obviously how long it takes. So someone might a developer or another person who's working on an important housing project might be like, I'm canning this. This has taken way too long. Every minute that something is stalled, the costs we've heard both last year and now are just rising, and it's just not worth it to those folks. So the addressing the appeals process, which I believe we've heard from a number of witnesses, was an important thing that we really need to look at this year because that is causing harm to the projects that need to get off the ground. [Leonora Dodge ]: Well, my my second question is when I speak about sewer, do they also mean septic? Just sewer? Yeah. In other words, there's [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: there's one set under act two fifty as it was amended last year. There's one set of regulations that apply to areas that are served by water and sewer. And then there's another set then there's certain areas that still have exemptions allowed if they're served by if they have, quote, suitable soils. And I presume suitable soils means per septic. What I don't really know very much about is group septic. Mhmm. There are towns that have either tried to or it in some cases, succeeded in putting in group septic. But for example, in the town of East Calais or the village of East Calais, where I live, it's mapped as a a village area or whatever the designation is, and you can have up to fifty units because it if the soils are suitable and Right. There's no sewer. So and in fact, the reality is for much rural Vermont, there's not only isn't there water and sewer, but there isn't gonna be water and sewer for a long time. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Mhmm. Forever. Forever. [Emilie Krasnow ]: And and that kinda ties into what they talked about about investment in infrastructure, which was one of the goals of the administration, I believe, which was being able to put more investments in infrastructure so that it could encourage places that don't to be able to get money to do such a thing? [Leonora Dodge ]: As far as sewer or septic capacity? Sewer. Because one's good. Sewer, isn't one a lot less expensive than the other? [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: I mean, you know, I mean, Japan I mean, the the infrastructure to extend sewer lines and water lines is very expensive. Very expensive. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: But the large scale, if you're gonna do [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: a fifty unit, the amount of land and the quality of that land to absorb that much because it's done by bedroom. Like, how many bedrooms you have per unit? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Right. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: That's a big plot of land to create a septic that can take a fifty unit building. [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: That's a big I think I'm assuming that in a rural area where that would be the consideration, it's not gonna be a fifty units. It might be five. Mhmm. Yep. And that would be I don't know. It would be interesting to ask a septic engineer. So how how how long would that it depends a lot on the soils themselves. But [Leonora Dodge ]: And also, those are the only two options. That's it. Yeah. For So sewers out. [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: That's about it. It's sewers. Can't [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: I can't have special composting toilets, but [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Yes. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: I don't think that's [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: I see. Gonna happen. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Mhmm. But some Vermont law school has composting toilets, and they work fine. Yeah. Yeah. Of course, there's no no more bye bye. But [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: No. It's [Elizabeth Burrows ]: it's in my my house in Rutland Town, we were one house away from the sewer connection that served the the veterinarian's business. But we all had a a septic system, which had to be pumped out once a year. Mhmm. And we all had central central well for water. And when the owner of the central well decided to go out of business, we all had to dig our old well. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Right. [Elizabeth Burrows ]: We couldn't form for some reason, we couldn't form what they call a fire district. Mhmm. So we had to dig them down. [Emilie Krasnow ]: Yeah. That's how I [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: grew up, Canada. And you also have there are towns. For example, in my area, East Calais and Plainfield have water districts. They don't have sewer, but they have water districts. These water districts and you you you think, oh, wow. Water. They have water. They are usually tiny, underfunded, under run by volunteers or close to volunteers, and they have very little capability of complying with the ANR requirements. And they often don't have the capacity to add any additional housing without they it would just take a lot of fine a lot of money to expand. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Newberry as well. Newberry? The village. That's water. No sewer. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Did you have other questions or thoughts? Well, let me ask you a question, and I and asking you everybody. One of the things that I've hoped that we could do here, and I've tried to do it with some of my questions, is get everybody up to speed on things that they you know, there's different levels of prior knowledge about things. And I'm wondering, are we doing okay that way, or are people still pretty mystified? [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: No. It seems to work. Well, I feel like I can tell. [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: If I am mystified, everyone else will have to tell me. I think, for example think it's congealing. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Do people understand when we talk about tips. Do people understand facts and clinical financing? [Leonora Dodge ]: Well, I do not because I asked you about it in a couple of weeks. So that Yeah. [Emilie Krasnow ]: And I think that that's an area that I've heard from folks in the building that as we continue to discuss it and work through that, that that may be an educational opportunity for folks in here to educate others out in the building because there is a lot of misinformation around or just misunderstanding about tips. And so I think that that's something to flag that we, as a group, can really educate our colleagues about that as we continue to discuss it. I think we'll be important because it is very unique [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: to Google. What's your name, Tom? [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: Of this morning's presentation, I think between the housing bill and the priorities in the budget, there are a lot of things that are that are well addressed, and there's some probably some details of that. It it does as much to take some things off our plate as it does to say, okay. Here are the things that we need to look at because they're just not part of this. You know, there are landlord tenant stuff, for example. I think the did you and I'm I'm not sure that I caught this, but just picking up on where you left off, are the are the budget proposals that have come from the governor's office, did they adequately cover the everyday crisis of people not being, you know, a roof and shelter sufficiently to buy the time to get to where we wanna be. So do are we are we addressing the lag time? And it's easy to say, let's go build a housing unit. That can be you know, if you're sleeping in your car, that takes a long, long, long, long time. Mhmm. So in the meantime, I'm just curious to know, are we are we adequately addressing that while we're moving to the the solution? I think we have to we have to address some of the root causes. I mean, there is a solution in in in the permanently affordable housing and some of the routes to homeownership that have been described, which I think is fantastic. Some of the root causes of the crisis, the this dynamic with long term rentals, the landlord tenant relations, they're very complicated in driving landowners into short term rentals. The the drug crisis, I mean, these are all things that are feeding. It's just lack of housing and people not wanting to rent out. So those are, you know, side things that aren't necessarily part of this bill that we should probably I would wanna take. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Yes. Just to comment on that. I'm not addressing so much as the the substance of what you're saying, which is all of these huge philosophical points, social forces that are impacting the housing problem. Generally speaking, roughly speaking, human services committee deals with the motel motel program, and to some extent, the shelter program as well. Then we deal with that housing and what happens when they leave the motel program. Not so much the services they need, wrap what we call wrap around services, but the little literally the physical things. Right now, there has been testimony to put in the BAA one point nine million dollars in order to cover people who are in the motel program until June thirtieth, I think. Whereas without that money, they'd be out as of March thirtieth, I think. And I think the feeling is that's actually for a rather small amount of money, pretty good investment to be from being thrown out of the street in the mud season. However, I think everybody is concerned that the motel program is just beating the it's it's how did the governor put it? Feeding the problem rather than the solution. In other words, it's the the it's the humane thing to do, but it's incredibly expensive. And so the question and what you're dealing with is a very diverse population. Some of the people there are people who have drug problems. Some of them are elderly. Some of them are elderly and have major medical problems. [Leonora Dodge ]: And mental health. There's mental health. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Yeah. Mental health. Mental health problems and which, of course, has its origins decades ago in the deinstitutionalization program where we would take care of this at the community level, but we don't. Yep. So And some of them are families with kids. Mhmm. You know? So it's this very diverse group that's very difficult to you can't plan for with one housing solution. Mhmm. I do think you're on to something, both of you, in that the idea of trying to come up with efficient ways of expanding options that are outside of motel program is really a good idea. One of those is the VF program. In that, there there are two VF programs. One's five years of affordability, and one is ten years of affordability. The five year one, at least, you you have to take people out of homelessness to qualify for that. And people have we had we heard testimony that it is working pretty well. So, anyway, that's a long way of saying it. Right? Yes. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: But it's wrap around services that you're talking about. [Leonora Dodge ]: If you put people in a hotel and you don't have those wrap around services, all you're doing is creating a a revolving door. Because if you don't get to the crooks of how did they wind up homeless to begin with, And typically and I worked with homeless. There's a mental health slash substance abuse issue. There's, domestic violence. There's so many things. It's like everything is intertwined. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Yeah. And if you don't if you just provide housing and nothing else, it doesn't It's abandoned. Yeah. Mhmm. Well, and the fact that produces sometimes terrible housing. Yep. Right. [Emilie Krasnow ]: And if I can just add to the Vannick, for me, one of the frustrations, though, the last couple years is that there hasn't been a transition plan that is acceptable. Because my morals and values, I am not comfortable as a policymaker with a seat at the table just saying, well, you're out. So while these programs are costly and ineffective in many ways, At this moment in time, it it will be another Band Aid. That is true. And so, hopefully, I mean, in my heart of hearts knowing that was the work that we're gonna do for housing solutions that we are seeing working, that it will eventually get there. But at this moment in time, I'm not comfortable. Again, this isn't in our jurisdiction, but I'm not comfortable just being like, see you later until we're ready to get things online. We have to continue to provide a bridge for people to exit homelessness, in my opinion. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: There was a plan. One of the issues that people have been they've been reading about is there was a plan to there's the administration was asked to pair a plan to deal with this problem. It did not. There was a legislative plan produced by Champlain Housing Trust, which would have provided housing permanent housing for the entire unhoused population in ten years. It was very expensive. It's it's not as if it couldn't be dealt with. And we will, of course, deal with it every year of a big fight over motel rooms. Joe, what did you think? I'll make it short [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: and sweet. I would have left, but that would have, kinda messed up our quorum. So, hopefully, somebody gets back soon. So here's mine. Mine would be the wetlands. I'm not I'm not a big fan of moving in on wetlands. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: I'm doing what? [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Moving in on wetlands anymore than we already do. The road rule, I think, was ridiculous to begin with. Glad that's gone in this proposal. The spark project or spark, basically project based TIF for smaller towns, It's just that for smaller towns. I don't think it's a rural program at all in my view of rural. There's I don't see towns taking on something like that for the the scale of projects that rural towns do. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Like, four like, four units. Right. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Yeah. Nobody's doing a TIF district for tearing down an old junk building and putting up a duplex. [Emilie Krasnow ]: Right. And they could be built battling over time. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: One thing that was brought up in our thing was how the it's a really a ground up for the mapping. We're using the town's maps and doing it that way. Just wanted, for clarity, I know I certainly felt that during our process, I'm gonna I would imagine there's other towns that do as well. Creating those maps that we're saying are we're now building from the ground up, creating those maps is a bit of a top down process to where you don't I mean, you kind of get to decide what your town wants. But if it's not gonna be approved by the regional planning commission, well, then you're not gonna do it. So you kind of are funneled into a certain here's what you can do for your town map. So I think that's kind of a I don't wanna say disingenuous, but, like Ground up with permission. Yeah. Using those maps isn't necessarily ground up because creating was kinda top down. What else? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Town doesn't have the expertise? [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: No. It's the town says, I would like to do this, and the regional planning commission saying, well, at the state level, they're saying that they don't wanna see that type of sprawl or that type of this or that type of so you can't we're not gonna approve your map if you do that, which then you're not you don't qualify for grants and this and, like And you only have [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: one seat on the board of the Exactly. There's no dynamic where all the towns would shake hands and say, look. You just crack my back up Yeah. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Yeah. No. [Leonora Dodge ]: In an ideal world. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Something you had brought up with the interim exemption going far out and then when the plants are actually set. I was just kinda curious, like, how far into the building to the process would you have to be when the plans are finalized? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: I I don't [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: I I think it's weird. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: It's weird because we've had testimony here. Remember, I've asked I think we've all asked Peter and others, look. Are you gonna make twenty six? And they all say, yeah. I mean, it's that's that was my Yep. Why exactly you go out what is it going to twenty thirty five Yep. With something that's gonna be done in a couple of years? It's unclear. You don't. Okay. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: Well And my last one would be, if I leave, is I would like to see more of my I think something that is great for really small towns, ground field cleanup. I think how we how how we define that is really and, you know, is really good and open, expansive, can be used for a lot of good things in small towns. Two million is really, really low on that because a million of it is just to test with or that was I guess, I did [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: really long times. Yep. [Thomas "Tom" Charlton ]: And sometimes it's not bad. You know, it's just some lead remediation and asbestos cleanup and this and that. You know, it's not anything crazy. But having the actual funds to remediate that type of stuff, I think, could be excellent for small towns to get derelicts, insufficient buildings torn down, ready for development because that's much more, appealing to somebody, whether it's a single family, duplex, four units, a nice grassy lot. It's a lot better than half an acre of garbage everywhere. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Did you have to go? [Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin ]: Yep. I agree. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: So we still have a forum. So is that Good. I can't Thank you. It's just because he left, everyone else is in the mail to their seats. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: So sorry. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Yeah. He's saying [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Just to follow-up yeah. Thank you. Well, just to follow-up on his part, was that two million, again, like, away you know, like, when we looked at the infrastructure, it was only nine point one million, and they were like, well, this is really more to be able to leverage federal monies that you know, if you're if you're if you're if you're putting in money that has other conditions, you wouldn't be able to leverage the federal grant money. Is it the same thing for the for the brownfield cleanup amount? Is it is it again just sort of special money that now has the ability to be multiplied? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: That through the I said Okay. And I don't see any I didn't hear any regulatory reform around on Brownfields. In other words, the complaint that it takes too long, and we'd have we'll we'll have to get to the bottom. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Okay. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: What else? Anything else? [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: You know, transit. I think we need more details on what what they're it it doesn't strike me that like, they're kind of saying where there is transit, we will build, but there's no vision of where transit makes sense, we're gonna keep investing in transit, and it's gonna lead to, you know, being able to skip steps or, you know, make the appeals process or etcetera, etcetera. And I think that we are going to right now, when we're facing a huge shift in how we provide transit and who who runs what, it we're gonna see a lot of cuts in these areas that that we're using the exemptions based on transit, and that's gonna mess up our it's really already scaring our planning in our our planning commissions and our and our, you know, DRB and whatnot in our towns. Certainly, Essex is is really nervous about losing the transit, which they've been planning their development around Oh, [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Burlington as well. Mhmm. I don't think. I think it's safe to say that their plan does not really address the transit issue. Right. I mean, it extends certain boundaries, but it doesn't address the underlying issue that that you're concerned about, which is lack funding and closing down routes, etcetera. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Right. So they're using it as, like, this can be another reason why we can build if you have transit. I guess I'm just asking that we try to better coordinate, if you're gonna build a housing plan that, you know, there's more coordination around transit, especially for affordable housing. I Multi unit dwelling with less charging. [Emilie Krasnow ]: I agree that the more and more I'm here and serving and and learning, I think that I would like to see a plan and acknowledgment that of what we're talking about, that if we continue to build, especially affordable housing, and we've said this already again, that they do prioritize that. Because, also, where I live, when we're facing cuts in my district, which is a lot of affordable housing in South Burlington, people moved there and are continuing to build these projects. But once if the bus lines go, that leaves people without a job, a way to get to work, a way to get to the doctor, a way to get to the store. And so it's concerning. So I would like to see the administration prioritize that conversation and, you know, have a budget that reflects those values, as well. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: I guess, I have pretty complicated feelings about the proposal. It's I feel like it needs a lot of work by us. I don't think there's I think, there's a lot of good things in here. To give me on the financial side. I as a general matter, I think that I'm skeptical whether regulatory I think it's worth looking at regulatory reform and appeals and all of that. I'm a little skeptical about how much effect it's gonna have when the real issue is money. The real issue is there's just not enough money. The gap between what people can afford and what it costs to build a house today is there. The math is there. And unless we and we've heard it again and again. All these projects that are shown to us one of the major funders is BHCV. And BHCV, they're they need we have to find a way to get them more money, and then this is gonna be doubly difficult if the federal government gets out of that area. I'm not saying we shouldn't work on all these other areas. I just think it's nibbling around the edges. The real issue is money. I I understand that people don't like the roadless rule and the other etcetera. I I think that there is a reluctance here to immediately reopen a grand bargain that was reached last year. It was not done lightly in the sense that it was very, very difficult to get the development community and the environmental community to agree. And I think I mean, I certainly understand the concern that you, Tom, articulated that there are landowners in tier three who are really worried. And, you know, I I hear that. I'm just saying as a political matter, I think that might be difficult. I I think there's a lot of interesting ideas in here. And also, I think there are gonna be a lot of interesting ideas that we're gonna independently come up with that are worth looking at from the testimony that we received and will receive. I think one of the things we wanna do is ask people, like the nonprofit funders and others, what isn't in here that you would like to see. In one area I'll give you an example of an area that really interests me. In much of the country, when somebody's proposing a development and the development has infrastructure in it that benefits the development, one of the ways you finance it is not tax increment financing. It's just this special assessment district where you create it. You draw a line around the district. And let's say it's to build a park. It that's just going to and a playground that's just going to benefit this development. And then you just you assess taxes. The tax goes up for those property owners in an amount necessary to pay off the bonds that bill it to park. And in most in many states, if you wanna create an assessment district, you either need an affirmative vote of the people who are gonna be taxed, Or you don't need any vote. Like, I believe in California, it's simply the the city council can just create the assessment district, and then there's a chance for the property owners to protest. And if they protest, then the city council can override the protest, but only by a four fifth vote. It depends on the state. Vermont, the weird thing, at least I find it weird in Vermont, is the whole town has to vote to approve the assessment district even though it's just assessing one piece of property. And that's weird for two reasons. It means the town might people want the town select board might impose an assessment on a piece of property that doesn't want it. But the rest of the residents say, well, no skin off my nose. I'm not paying the taxes. Only they're paying the tax. Or it could go the other way, which has happened in Vermont, where a developer wanted to let's say, I think there was a special assessment for septic, a a large septic proposal, but some people in the town were opposed to the whole development, and so they used this vote as leverage to turn it down. So I'm very interested in seeing you know, how we've talked about project specific tips. I'm very interested to see if we could change the vote requirements so that the only vote that's required is the property owner that's subject to the tax. And that's another financing device, and we're gonna have Michael Cohen, who is the bond bank guy, runs the bond bank. We'll have Billhead and he'll talk about that. So, anyway, that's I I think that we have work to do. [Emilie Krasnow ]: I agree. Now that I went first, I thought no. I also would like You're [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: listening to everything. [Emilie Krasnow ]: Right. Yeah. Absolutely. I also would like to hear and we'll continue with testing, but I would like to hear from some more developers who are really the boots on the ground, folks who are experiencing some of these issues and talking about, like, we're saying, like, how to make these this work because that's some of the what do you need? And I do get lists, of their wish list, right, from ones that are in my community. And there are some things that were absent from the proposal that I've kind of made a list of. So I would just like to hear from two different developers who are experiencing what it's like to meet those those goals of getting things online, I think, would be helpful in our committee's work to get some of those folks in as well. I do recognize that some of the things will be contentious of the grand plans and and the work that went into, you know, senator Clarkson expressed who is you know, it took a lot of of different folks at the table in that working group to get to some agreements. But we also have I'm not pushing back completely, but we have a different body, in the building now and different, you know, set of goals sometimes. And so while I am a complex curious person, I know not everyone is. But it is some I know it's fine. But I am interested in having those discussions at least to just kind of open it up to to the new makeup of of the legislature and others, but I do recognize that it will be contentious. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: I'll tell you what. It is two o'clock. Why don't we go offline, and we will Tom, I see you are I see you're there. He's over there. But I think here he is. I have flipped at Tom. It's [Emilie Krasnow ]: both ways. Both. Yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: But I think we should take a break, and we're I like to keep to the schedule just because people rely on that. And whoever's out there in the ether that wants to hear you, I don't want you to testify now and be done by the time they check-in. Plus, they give us all a little break. So if it's alright with you, let's go offline and come back at two fifteen. Right? Two thirty. Two thirty. We had said two thirty. So it's half an hour. The thing is don't be late Right. Because we have to be we have to leave. I mean, Molly will start sticking her head in the door and [Emilie Krasnow ]: Oh, yeah. [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Coming after us. [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: Can we do two fifteen? [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: We could. I think [Vice Chair Ashley Bartley ]: think we should do two fifteen, [Emilie Krasnow ]: but it's probably get intros and [Chair Marc Mihaly ]: Yeah. Alright. On two

Play Clip Play Full Video Pause

SmartTranscript of House General - 2025-01-30 - 1:15PM

This is useful for seeing what happened at the meeting without wading through the whole transcript: