They said, (OK — I said) it couldn’t be done. But it has come to pass: a compromise on Act 250 has been struck. Sort of.
The House Environment and Energy Committee on Monday unanimously advanced its amended version of S.100, the so-called HOME bill, that includes new exemptions to Act 250. The language comes largely courtesy of the House’s rural caucus, the tri-partisan group that has led the charge in the lower chamber to create additional carve-outs to the landmark land-use law.
To recap (and somewhat simplify): In current law, Act 250 review is triggered when someone builds 10 units within five years and five miles, aka the ‘10-5-5’ rule. Gov. Phil Scott, builders and the Vermont League of Cities and Towns have argued forcefully for relaxing that threshold.
As it passed out of the Senate, the threshold was increased to 25 units in state-designated downtowns, neighborhood development areas or growth centers. (This provision sunsets in 2026.) The environment and energy panel’s language adds village centers in towns with zoning. It also would allow the conversion of an existing structure into up to four units to only count as one unit toward that threshold.
(This would allow someone, for example, to take a handful of drafty old Victorians, chop them into four apartments each, and not worry about triggering an extensive state review.)
The rural caucus sent out an email highlighting the “very strong amendment.” Its co-chair, Rep. Katherine Sims, D-Craftsbury, hinted that while “a few possible amendments” might still be in the works, the group’s leaders were “grateful to the Speaker, the committees of jurisdiction, all members of our caucus, and Vermonters who supported the amendment for the terrific work on this important bill.”
Per Vermont Natural Resources Council Executive Director Brian Shupe, this is language the environmental group — which has urged lawmakers not to touch Act 250 until studies, already commissioned by lawmakers, are in hand — can live with. Josh Hanford, Scott’s housing commissioner, who sits on the other side of the issue, struck a similar tone.
But the League remains livid.
“At a time when homeless people are sleeping in hotels, city parks, emergency pods and parking lots, this bill is a half measure. And we don’t have time for half measures,” said Ted Brady, its executive director. Also upsetting for the group: The latest amendment would allow one person to appeal a municipal zoning permit, instead of the 10 currently required by law.
“That will increase the number of appeals. It will reduce the number of housing units being built. So (we) don’t understand that at all,” he said.
Shupe, for his part, argues that the new language is fine. Under this new construct, that person also would have to demonstrate that they hold a “particularized interest” in the development.
“That’s not an easy standard,” he said. “I mean, you have to be able to say, because of ‘x’ that is going to happen on this property, I’m going to experience ‘y.’”
S.100 could be on the floor as soon as Friday, although everything, at this point in the session, is at risk of being bumped into the following week.
— Lola Duffort
IN THE KNOW
Vermont prosecutors are pressuring one of their own — Franklin County State’s Attorney John Lavoie — to resign after an internal investigation found that Lavoie harassed and discriminated against his employees.
Lavoie has refused at least twice to voluntarily step down, according to the Department of State’s Attorneys and Sheriffs, which began a public campaign on Tuesday to force his resignation and has recommended that the Vermont House consider impeaching Lavoie.
Conor Kennedy, chief of staff to House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, said Tuesday that the House is looking into the possibility of impeachment, though it’s unlikely it could kick off proceedings before the legislative session concludes in the next several weeks.
— Sarah Mearhoff
Three people living in motels came to Montpelier on Tuesday alongside Brenda Siegel to hold a press conference on the rainy Statehouse steps, pleading with lawmakers not to unshelter thousands this summer in Vermont if a pandemic-era program for people experiencing homelessness ends.
And in the cafeteria, one motel resident, Brittany Plucas, confronted Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Orleans, who sits on the upper chamber’s appropriations committee, to make a personal appeal.
I asked the veteran lawmaker afterward if the impromptu conversation had changed his mind. It did not appear to.
“People with disabilities and things of that nature will still be able to sign up,” he insisted, echoing many of his colleagues, despite any evidence that the budget, as drafted by either chamber, would actually ensure this. “Everybody isn’t getting thrown out.”
Administration officials have been clear that they want the program, which they say is financially unsustainable, to end. And the money they’ve requested — which lawmakers have agreed to — would only provide shelter for some 150 households a month, a tiny fraction of the 1,800 that currently live in motels.
But even if there wasn’t quite enough money in the budget as is, Starr argued, lawmakers could just fix this next year, in the budget adjustment act. “We do that all the time,” he said.
If the budget is intended to instruct the administration that it is expected to shelter a particular population, however, that message is not getting through to state officials.
I asked Shayla Livingston, policy director for the Agency of Human Services and the administration’s chief liaison to the Legislature on the motel program, if language presently in the budget would entitle, say, someone in receipt of SSDI, the federal government’s major aid program for people with a disability, to shelter in the motels at state expense.
“No,” she replied.
What about a mom, with a five-year-old child?
“That guarantees you to have shelter?” she said. “No.”
— Lola Duffort
Editor’s note: Shayla Livingston is married to VTDigger editor-in-chief Paul Heintz. Heintz was not involved in the assigning, editing or publication of this newsletter.
ON THE FIFTH FLOOR
With the stroke of a pen on Tuesday, Gov. Phil Scott removed the residency requirement for medical aid-in-dying care, making Vermont the first state to do so legislatively.
Now an adult with a terminal illness living out-of-state will have the option of consulting with a Vermont-licensed physician about receiving a prescription for a drug that will hasten death. The process both must follow is laid out in a 2013 state law. The change is effective immediately.
Scott’s office announced the signing of H.190 with little fanfare, but the nonprofit advocacy group Patient Choices Vermont has been preparing for this moment for months, according to president Betsy Walkerman.
— Kristen Fountain
PROGRAMMING NOTE
The Senate Pro Tem’s office informs us that Senate floor times will be moved to 10 a.m. beginning May 4 now, (no longer May 5). The last day for morning committees is now May 3.
— Lola Duffort
WHAT WE’RE READING
Celebrating Vermont’s most famous river at the Battenkill Fly Fishing Festival (VTDigger)
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont to affiliate with Michigan counterpart (VTDigger)
A PCB ‘Fix’ at Wilmington School Actually Drives Levels Higher (Seven Days)
Department of Corrections keeps identity of lone bidder for out-of-state prison contract secret (VTDigger)
