2026-10-06 - Housing Committee

00:13Okay, we have enough people. So, I'm

00:14calling the meeting to order because

00:15it's time.

00:17>> Okay, I'm going to um resume recording.

00:20>> Yes. And would you put on

00:21>> recording in progress?

00:23>> Recording too, Matt, please.

00:25>> Yep.

00:26>> Okay.

00:28um calling the meeting to order.

00:31Welcome. Thank you for being here. I

00:35really appreciate you all coming in at

00:36the last minute. Dan and I were sitting

00:38here. We were like, h maybe this will be

00:41the first time we have to cancel because

00:42we know enough people, which would be so

00:44sad. Come on.

00:45>> Can you just make all the decisions?

00:46>> I could, but nothing would happen. Yeah.

00:50Okay. So, um you in your inbox have

00:54meetings from the September 1st and

00:56September 14th. if you would like

00:58printed copies, there's also packets by

00:59the door if that's your preference. Um,

01:02but did anyone have any comments or

01:06suggested changes to the minutes?

01:12Okay. Can I request a motion to approve

01:18the packet then of two?

01:21>> A move.

01:22>> Okay. Second, Tim. Yeah. All in favor?

01:25I. Any opposed abstensions? All right,

01:30we'll move on to public comment.

01:35We're so happy to have you. Would you

01:36like to say anything?

01:38>> Yeah. Okay. Um All right. Having no

01:41public comment, we will move on to the

01:44committee updates.

01:47Welcome, Dan.

01:49>> Um so the first one is about the

01:52planning commission meetings. I just

01:54wanted to alert you that uh the

01:57subcommittee of Tim and Sandy working on

02:00the development rags and Lauren and I

02:03have been meeting with the planning

02:04commission routine like a subcommittee

02:06of the planning commission routinely to

02:08just share information about what's

02:10going on in both of the committees so

02:12that we um you know can collaborate and

02:16give input. So we are aiming to meet you

02:19know every other month to every month

02:22depending on what is going on. And a

02:25couple things that came out of our last

02:27meeting I wanted to share with you. One

02:28is that they are going to be working

02:30with the city to pull together a

02:31timeline to apply for the tier 1A status

02:36and that will be the planning commission

02:38will be working to put together that

02:40timeline with Mike Miller and will be

02:42shared. The second update is that the

02:46city agreed to update the Montpillar

02:48land use area map to conform with the

02:51regional map in the new year because the

02:53regional map had been updated. They uh

02:57have need to basically come in line with

03:00that over time. So that's going to

03:02happen in the new year. Uh so moving on

03:05to Lauren for the develop for

03:07development piece.

03:11>> Yeah. So um on the committee's behalf

03:14coming out of our meeting uh last month

03:16uh I had presented with Sheamus the

03:19proposal that we had to do a development

03:22fee holiday. I don't know if folks

03:24watched it or or saw the report out um

03:26but the basic summary is that uh council

03:29was inclined to move forward with the

03:32proposal that Mike Miller made to kind

03:35of update the suite of fees. He was

03:37really emphasizing in the meeting how

03:39for especially small-cale developers it

03:42could actually result in a decrease in

03:44fees um and that was very compelling to

03:47council and they were interested in us

03:50coming back with more refined thinking

03:52around um a fee holiday. There were

03:56questions that we anticipated around

03:58revenue impacts and how we'd pay for it

04:00and um you know how we might address

04:04projects at different scales and the

04:06kinds of issues that we had flagged that

04:08we thought that they would um probably

04:09be interested in getting more details

04:12on. Um so I got some followup. So

04:15basically they voted um to give us they

04:17gave us direction to continue working on

04:20it because they basically you know were

04:22viewing it as the kind of ongoing fee

04:25structure was updated but they could

04:27still implement a holiday and still move

04:29forward and they they kind of understood

04:32the potential value of um as part of a

04:35package as we've talked about that there

04:37could be you know a a strong you know

04:42basically invitation to developers that

04:44we are trying to put forward both policy

04:46and um fee changes to make to spur

04:49development in you know over the next

04:51few years. So there was interest. So

04:53basically I think it's on us to um

04:55figure out a plan to like how do we want

04:58to move forward on developing a refined

05:01proposal. Mike Miller did send some

05:03specific thoughts after the meeting

05:04which um just realizing I can I'll just

05:07send that around to everybody so

05:09everyone can look at it and think about

05:10it and I'm happy to do some um some work

05:14in the interim before the next meeting

05:15if that's helpful to folks to try to

05:17think about how would we move that

05:19conversation forward. It basically

05:20sounded like they want this to be part

05:22of the budget conversation since it's

05:24going to have revenue implications. So,

05:26I think we've got a little time, but

05:27that will be coming up pretty soon that

05:29they'll be figuring out, you know, how

05:31would this fit into if they were going

05:32to do a fee holiday. I think they would

05:34tie it to the next fiscal year budget,

05:36which makes sense. Um, so we've got a

05:38little time to figure it out, but um, if

05:40we want to put a proposal forward, we

05:42should have this pretty dialed in by

05:44like the next month or so, I think, to

05:46get it to them.

05:47So I'm thinking Lauren that I know we

05:50want to put it together as a package of

05:52to like marketing package and the whole

05:55marketing package might not be ready on

05:57that timeline. So given that uh would

06:01you mind reaching out to Sheamus to see

06:03because he emailed me after and said I'm

06:06ready to help and I said contact Lauren

06:08which I don't know if happened or not

06:10but I want to just make sure that he's

06:12connected with you and then does anyone

06:14else want to work on this with Sheamus

06:16and Lauren?

06:18>> I mean I was the one who originally sort

06:20of floated the idea. Um,

06:22>> yeah.

06:23>> So, I don't mind stepping back in a bit,

06:27but I'm not sure.

06:29>> Well,

06:30>> that would be great.

06:31>> I think I don't think it would be that

06:33But much.

06:33>> Yeah.

06:34>> I think definitely some issues to figure

06:35out or bring some proposals, some like

06:37options back, I think the committee to

06:39think through. I

06:41>> mean, I think the key is the word you

06:42said. is marketing, you know, and it's

06:44getting people to understand that M

06:46Clear does want to create housing and

06:47the doors are open here and that it's

06:49not slam shut and it's creating that

06:52perception out there because it really

06:53that's not the perception I think and

06:56it's we need to break it. So I think if

06:59you can get a good package that will

07:00entice people to want to work with us.

07:03>> I think there's also two cheers that

07:05there's people who are already here who

07:07might split halfacre lots

07:10>> for example. Um I mean one just happened

07:12last week of minor subdivision approval.

07:15We don't see those anymore at the DRB

07:17but so there could be a way of sort of

07:20bringing in let's call it grassroots

07:22infill

07:24>> um and getting buy in. Well, it sounds

07:28like we have some energy around this.

07:30So, rather than, you know, get into it

07:32here, why don't I leave you all to move

07:35forward on the subcommittee? Sheamus,

07:36did you have I see you're here and with

07:38your hand up. Did you have a thing um to

07:40share before we move on?

07:42>> Oh, yeah. If we're not having the

07:43discussion now, I'll defer and chat with

07:46others about it, but um

07:47>> do you want to be on the committee?

07:50>> Yeah, I'd be eager to stay involved in

07:52this work.

07:52>> Okay, great. Thank you. Uh, so it sounds

07:55like uh Sheamus, Lauren, and Alex will

07:58um engage on a proposal for before next

08:01time. That's great. Uh, I wanted to turn

08:04it over to you, Ben, for your

08:06announcement.

08:09>> Oh, do you have your mouth full? Do you

08:10want to move on to the next thing?

08:11>> Sorry. No, no, I'm good.

08:12>> Okay.

08:13>> Um, I This is my last meeting as a

08:16member of the housing committee. I do

08:19not have the time to stay involved. Um,

08:24it has been really nice working with

08:26everybody, but it is not possible to do

08:31this on top of the rest of my

08:32responsibilities. And so,

08:36>> thank you for joining us for as long as

08:38you have. And we appreciate you coming

08:40and saying that in person. And I

08:42>> uh already have the email from you. Uh,

08:45so we will we will have a spot that's

08:47opened up and I would encourage um

08:50anyone who's interested to apply for

08:53that spot and Matt, would you explain

08:57the process to apply?

08:59>> Yes. So, as I understand it, um, the

09:02city will post the opening for the

09:05committee on the committee page website.

09:08there's a place where you can apply to

09:09be on a committee and those those

09:12applications then have to be approved by

09:13city council. Um if there's only one

09:16seat, we only have one application.

09:17That's easy. Usually people um will

09:20withdraw and let somebody else do it if

09:22we have more than one application for

09:24one seat. So it should be pretty

09:27straightforward. I've already sent I

09:28just sent uh Evelyn Prim and uh Nick

09:33Gatier in our office um request to open

09:37the applications up on the city website.

09:40>> Uh great. Thank you. And uh Carrie.

09:44>> Yeah. Um sometimes those get posted on

09:47front porch forum and sometimes Evelyn

09:48does that which is great. It doesn't

09:50have to be Evelyn. Uh, Alyssa, you could

09:52definitely do that or somebody else on

09:54the committee could just say, "This is a

09:57great experience I'm having on this

09:58committee and we have an opening." I

10:00think that might help our applicants.

10:02>> Yeah.

10:03>> Okay. And um I think Sheamus, I would

10:06encourage you to consider applying for

10:08that spot given you've been volunteering

10:10so much on the committee. Um, of course,

10:13we'll put it out publicly for anyone

10:14else interested, but I know you've been

10:15routinely present at these meetings.

10:19Yeah, I'm definitely interested, but I

10:21did just put in an application for the

10:23planning commission spot. Um, if I have,

10:27you know, bandwidth for multiple things,

10:30but I appreciate it. I'm definitely

10:32interested and I'm going to stay

10:33involved either way.

10:35>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that.

10:36Well, so we'll um next steps here are to

10:40uh uh Matt uh you'll you have reached

10:43out to Evelyn to post it and would you

10:46also ask her to post it to front porch

10:48forum?

10:49>> Yes.

10:50>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. and we will give

10:55it like a c like a week or two and if we

10:58don't have any applications would you

10:59just let let me know and I'll start like

11:01I'll think about people and reach out

11:03anyway but I'll get more aggressive

11:04about it if we don't

11:06>> I think I can find Sheamus's address so

11:08it'll be taken care of

11:10>> yeah yeah well I think right he yeah

11:12there you go um though we may lose him

11:16to the planning commission but yes thank

11:17you okay so moving on then to the city

11:20and thank you Ben.

11:22Uh, moving on to the city committee

11:24functions. I I don't I didn't have this

11:27on the agenda, but I want to share with

11:29you some something that came up over the

11:31weekend that I reviewed. Uh, so the city

11:34manager sent an email out to all the

11:37committee chairs asking for input on a

11:40proposal for structure for committees.

11:43Uh, and I weighed in and gave input on

11:46that. I just wanted to let you know

11:47about some of the things that were in

11:49that proposal. uh having two-year terms

11:53um and then folks can reapply. So, you

11:55can't stay on the committee longer, but

11:57every two years you would reapply for a

11:59spot. Um that each committee would be

12:02expected to have goals, have a set of

12:04work plans, and do updates to council on

12:07a routine basis. And so, that's what

12:11that's basically the gist of what was

12:13proposed. My feedback was that that

12:17sounded fine to me, but that uh I'm also

12:19very accustomed to operating that way.

12:21And so for folks on committees who maybe

12:24ha don't operate that way

12:26professionally, there might be they

12:28might benefit from different templates

12:30like sample goals, sample presentations

12:32just to make it a lot easier for the

12:34people who are running the committee. So

12:36I just wanted to let you know and if you

12:38have any other feedback on that, I'm

12:40happy to w you know pass that on. But

12:43that was my feedback on it.

12:46Okay. Uh moving over to city updates.

12:49Matt,

12:51>> um unlike last time, I didn't write out

12:53a long diagram, but I do have several

12:56updates. Um yesterday the state's uh VEM

13:01um emergency management office let us

13:05know that FEMA approved and is uh going

13:09to give the city $1.5 million roughly to

13:13preserve uh one of down street's housing

13:17projects on Elm Street which um has been

13:21a multi-month project. Uh, and it's nice

13:24that it got finally approved and that

13:27the money is in a bank account someplace

13:29waiting for us um for Down Street to use

13:33to renovate the building. 89 Elm Street.

13:37Um, I was approached by a private

13:41developer. Uh sorry Tim, but they are

13:44thrilled with the opportunity to build

13:47be building housing as a private

13:48developer in Montpillar. Uh despite our

13:51costs and they are looking to build

13:54somewhere between 18 and 24 new units on

13:56a privately owned site. They would be

13:58looking for chip um infrastructure

14:01support. Um but we haven't gotten to

14:03that stage yet. Um I think it's going to

14:06happen and I don't know what the

14:07timeline is.

14:09a major corporation in Vermont, one of

14:12the state's leading employers, is

14:15looking to relocate their headquarters.

14:16And I've been working with their chief

14:18of staff to try to find out how

14:21Montpielar could be their new home. And

14:24that in would include a potential

14:26proposal to develop a private uh site

14:29that would include somewhere like 50 or

14:3160 units of housing. CHIP funding would

14:34then provide the infrastructure

14:35necessary for them to build a new

14:37headquarters. Um this is an ongoing

14:40discussion. Um

14:43there's no real details that I can

14:44share. Uh and

14:49the continuing conversations about um

14:53the low end of housing affordability in

14:57Montpillar in the state are continuing.

15:00Vermont the housing and homelessness

15:05uh V va

15:08uh housing advocacy

15:10um it's a it's an NGO in this in the

15:12state um really great people they had a

15:16workshop a couple of weeks ago and it

15:19was all about um housing affordability

15:21Ben Doyle was on a panel and really

15:24talking about how there are no real good

15:28options at the lowest end of

15:30affordability. And that led to a flurry

15:33of articles being shared. Um I shared

15:35some with you Alyssa about um the

15:39demise, historic demise of single room

15:42occupancy dwellings uh in the country

15:46starting basically with the Reagan

15:48administration and how that filled this

15:50enormous and now missing gap for housing

15:53affordability that we should revisit.

15:56And there is nothing in

15:59Milario or Berry that would limit the

16:01construction of SRO's. And so in

16:04thinking about that, I visited another

16:06building that is for sale. We can't

16:09afford it, but it would be an

16:10interesting model where we could have

16:12single room occupancy residences as well

16:15as a permanent uh location for shelters

16:19and wraparound service offices for

16:21wraparound services. The building is

16:23perfect. Um, if anybody has a couple

16:25million bucks I can have, uh, we can

16:27make it happen. I'm exploring all the

16:29options.

16:30>> Where is it, Matt?

16:33>> 79 River Street. It's now a printing

16:36office. And then the other offices above

16:38that are leased. Most of them are empty.

16:41The family that owns the printing

16:43company wants to retire and they want to

16:44sell their building. The building is for

16:46sale for, I think, $1.3 million, but it

16:49would need some work.

16:51>> Has an elevator, no sprinklers.

16:54elevator. That's great. It's a great

16:56spell.

16:57>> Uh Carrie,

17:01>> yeah, thank you, Matt. you you shared

17:03the an article I assume it's the same

17:05article you're talking about with the

17:06homelessness committee last night and um

17:10I read it was really fascinated by it

17:12and the the concept of

17:15not necessarily um I mean I think it's

17:18really important for us to provide

17:19housing for people who are homeless but

17:23the if we could encourage housing for

17:26people who simply just can't afford the

17:28housing that we have in Montelia right

17:30now they may not need wraparound

17:32services. They may not need access to

17:34all the resources. They may just need to

17:35be able to pay the rent. And I wonder if

17:39that I think we should do all of the

17:41above, but I wonder if there might be

17:43ways to encourage that. And maybe that's

17:44something the developers would be

17:47interested in or something we could do

17:49to encourage that to just not think of

17:50it in terms of we have to get all these

17:53homeless people off the street, you

17:55know, but think of it in terms of the

17:57whole variety of levels of affordability

18:00of housing.

18:02Yes, I could not agree more. And I and I

18:04think it's it's really why I keep

18:06bringing up in the housing committee is

18:08because it's a spectrum. It's not just

18:09that.

18:11So, for example, in Los Angeles, when

18:13the numbers of homeless people were

18:15exploding in Los Angeles, 90% of the

18:18people who were homeless in Los Angeles

18:20were homeless because they could no

18:21longer afford rent. It wasn't that they

18:24were not working. It wasn't that they

18:26were drug addicts. It wasn't anything

18:27other than they could not afford to live

18:29where they wanted where they had been

18:31living. And so being able to have

18:34affordability

18:35understood is not just 70 80% AMI but 0%

18:40AMI and above is a model that I wish the

18:44city would take on um with great

18:47ferocity. I think this is something that

18:49we have opportunity to

18:53create a model.

18:55>> Thank you.

18:58um before and those are some exciting

19:00updates in there too. I hope some of

19:02them move forward and please keep us

19:04posted on if there are ways we could

19:07>> support

19:09>> uh the process uh outside of things that

19:12we're already thinking about. Um I'm

19:14moving on to committee prioritization. I

19:17did do public updates and comm but

19:20Stephen I see you here and you would you

19:22like to speak? Uh I got a brief comment

19:26about the regional plan.

19:28>> Would you mind coming to the mic to say

19:29that?

19:31>> Yeah. The uh the statute requires that

19:34the regional plan include assessment of

19:37need and proposed solutions for all

19:40housing sectors. And I've I'm preparing

19:45comments

19:46that uh for that forum after adoption.

19:51But

19:53when if we have a tool, a statute, and a

19:57wellunded regional staff,

20:00uh, and Aaron from the planning

20:03commission is the city's rep on the

20:05regional planning commission. Mhm.

20:08>> We're uniquely positioned to utilize

20:11that leverage to

20:13address the region to find locations

20:17where the what I call soft housing needs

20:21to be. We're not going to have housing

20:23soon enough to get people out of the

20:24weather. and there and the soft housing

20:29concept that's been shared with some of

20:31you and uh the church leaders is

20:35eligible for HUD funding. So, I I've sat

20:39through two more useless homeless

20:42committee and I'm going to continue to

20:44argue to disband that committee and sat

20:46saddle y'all with the broader

20:48responsibility for housing all the way

20:50down to the what Matt's talking about 0%

20:53AMI because y'all know how to get things

20:56done and get proposals written and get

20:58them framed for decisions and that

21:00committee doesn't you know. So, I'm

21:04going to We also need to look at the

21:06risk of the regional plan not being

21:08approved and what that's going to do

21:11possibly to our growth center

21:13disappearing permanently and whether the

21:16Sabin's Crest Crestview uh

21:20>> yeah Chris

21:21>> J is going to succeed or sustain beyond

21:26that because it was premised on the

21:28growth center. Um

21:32but I I don't see anybody paying

21:33attention. I just came from a regional

21:35plan meeting and they don't want to hear

21:38it, you know.

21:39>> Um well, thank you. We are going to talk

21:42some about committee prioritization in

21:44just a moment and you may be excited to

21:47see that um transitional housing is on

21:50that um conversation is you know on the

21:53agenda. Yeah, Matt, I would love it if

21:55you could share your screen, please,

21:57with the prioritization framework

22:01and we'll

22:02>> Yeah, Alex, sorry I missed you.

22:04>> No, I just raised my hand, but I um

22:08could we see some of the stuff that Matt

22:10Matt, could we see some of the stuff

22:11you've been circulating?

22:12>> Yeah, Matt, would you mind sending the

22:14full committee the articles that you

22:15were referencing?

22:17>> I can I can do that.

22:19>> Thanks. I need to I would love to have

22:22them all in one place if you wouldn't

22:23mind and then I can share them with you,

22:26but I don't have them right now. Yeah.

22:29Okay. So, we're moving on to committee

22:31prioritization

22:33and the way that we did this a year ago,

22:36you might remember we all got together

22:38and said, "What do you want to do?" And

22:40then people gave their ideas and we

22:42formed subcommittees and then went off

22:45and did things and then brought the

22:46things back. Then we voted on them. And

22:49we did have some victories uh since

22:53then. Um we were able to pass uh I'm

22:57just pulling up the prioritization

22:59document myself so I have it in front of

23:00me while you're doing that. There. Um

23:04here we go. Okay. So, we were able to

23:06pass, you know, the housing trust fund,

23:08add $100,000 to the housing trust fund,

23:11add a second round of funding if there

23:13were leftover money. Um, unfortunately,

23:16we should update you that there hasn't

23:18been any applications to the trust fund,

23:21uh, either the first round or the second

23:23round. And so that's something that we

23:27should consider uh if we want, you know,

23:29and Matt, maybe we can talk about that

23:31separately and and come back to this

23:34committee because maybe we want to

23:35reopen it for another round and do a lot

23:36more advertising for that or maybe we

23:39want to let it grow interest, but it

23:41seems like we should talk about that,

23:43you know, to figure that out. So that

23:44was one um thing that was a positive. We

23:46brought Montpielar sprinkler ordinance

23:48in line with the state, added some

23:49incentives there, updated the tax

23:51stabilization policy to reflect a more

23:53generous state policy and held um

23:56developer feedback meeting. So as we

23:59look at the next uh round of proposed

24:02order uh and let's scroll down to

24:06proposed order and timing and

24:08priorities. Thank you. you all um got in

24:11touch well you sent me your feedback and

24:14I compiled it into this order uh so you

24:17can see the first the first uh item is

24:21the marketing there was the most enthus

24:23enthusiasm around the marketing doing

24:25like an we're open for housing pitch

24:28that includes like a fee reduction

24:30streamline regulation through the

24:32development review uh process and the

24:35board development review board or

24:37development regulations and development

24:38review board als also um you know

24:41looking into formbbased housing or is

24:44there 802 style homes that we could be

24:47getting in here and then chip using the

24:48chip case study. So that was like the mo

24:50most enthusiasm around that package. Uh

24:54then transitional housing and focusing

24:57on on house and helping people stay in

24:59their homes and getting people into

25:00homes. The appeals process statewide had

25:03some support development regulations and

25:05then you can see it kind of goes down

25:07from there. vacancy ordinance, capital

25:09complex. You can keep going down. So,

25:13that is the order and really the

25:16conversation is now just like what do

25:18you want to do and um and let's talk

25:21about reforming those those

25:23subcommittees. So, I'm really just

25:25interested in hearing from everyone but

25:27Ben, though you're willing to talk, you

25:29can talk as much as you want. You don't

25:30need to sign up for anything. Um uh

25:34because you won't be here to do it,

25:35unfortunately. But for for others, what

25:38what is of interest to you to work on

25:42over the next, you know, six months

25:44here? And we can do many things at the

25:46same time and just do them in parallel,

25:48but I'm just want to get your input.

25:49Maybe we can go around. Dan, do you want

25:52to start?

25:53>> Oh gosh. Um,

25:55>> or do you not want to start?

25:57>> I have a comment if you want to collect

25:58your thoughts.

25:59>> Sure. Yeah.

26:00>> It has to do with you too. I mean I was

26:02looking back over the resources that you

26:05have posted on the committee's web page.

26:07>> Yeah.

26:07>> And it's one thing that Dan was a slide

26:10deck that Dan had prepared on sources of

26:12funding. Do you remember that?

26:14>> Yeah.

26:14>> Um and it's one of the things another

26:16thing was the thing that Dan Wheeler

26:18suggested about Barry's commissioning a

26:21study for was it city-owned land and

26:24other parcels suitable for development.

26:26And those are two things that have come

26:29up in the committee's work in the last

26:31however long that have sort of dropped

26:34out of sight. And I think they're

26:37important. I mean, not because they're

26:39necessarily actionoriented that might

26:41be, but because they provide a framework

26:44for thinking about how we could move

26:45forward um and put specific actions

26:48within them, particularly Dan's

26:50suggestion, but both um but I think we

26:53lost track.

26:54>> Yeah.

26:54>> If you will. So is your suggestion,

26:57Alex, that we kind of dust those off and

26:59relook at them from for

27:02ourselves they're

27:02>> there. And a lot of the stuff we've been

27:04doing is sort of very focused local, you

27:07know, we'll get this ordinance or we'll

27:09do that registry or whatever. But but

27:12the bigger picture stuff, both of those

27:14ideas were about bigger picture things.

27:16Um and we haven't been looking at any

27:18bigger picture things

27:22>> apart from the development regulations,

27:24right? which that's the easy target.

27:27>> Yeah, it is. And so what is the is the

27:29request to bring back up the overall

27:31funding and financing framework and what

27:34was the other one?

27:35>> The other one was the do you remember

27:37what it was called, Dan?

27:38>> I don't CDRC put it together infill.

27:43>> Infill, right?

27:44>> I mean, it was basically looking at, you

27:46know, GIS overlays at what's

27:48appropriate,

27:49you know, where the loss,

27:51>> right? where where there are

27:52opportunities for what kind of

27:54development in Pyard

27:56>> which I think could be bulleted into a

27:57marketing package where it's like oh

27:59look what

27:59>> it would be useful to have it would also

28:01be useful to have in terms of finding

28:04locations for transitional housing I

28:06mean there's lots of

28:08>> ways in which

28:10>> it might be useful both both kinds of

28:13information

28:14>> Alissa may

28:16>> I can't figure out how to raise my hand

28:17I'm sorry

28:18>> that's okay I can hear you there

28:21Um

28:23Nick in our office uh in the planning

28:26office is going to be transitioning into

28:29a new role where he will be focusing on

28:33looking for technology solutions and GIS

28:37platforms

28:38uh on behalf of the city and I think he

28:41would be able to

28:43like work with somebody from the

28:45committee or help help with that uh more

28:47explicitly more directly.

28:50the idea of mapping potential sites and

28:52we have a a map of city owned property

28:55and and you know frankly there just

28:57isn't any place the city can build. we

28:59don't have that much. Um, but

29:04>> figuring out a layer on a GIS map that

29:07shows

29:09sites that might have room for um, ADUs

29:13or or

29:14>> other maybe that would be good to have

29:17um, Nick come and share that

29:21>> Yeah.

29:21>> overlay too because I think Tim Tim's

29:25feeling is that maybe we could find some

29:27gems in there. Yeah, I I completely

29:30agree.

29:31>> Okay. Um

29:32>> it's for private land owners and I think

29:34just having Yeah.

29:35>> Yeah. Private and public

29:36>> useful not just

29:37>> so it's looking at like city parcels

29:40>> or or I mean I think it's useful

29:42>> parcels. I mean parcels parcels because

29:44I think there are people who don't

29:46really know that you can subdivide

29:49>> um or that it's you can build on much

29:51smaller parcels than you used to be able

29:53to and

29:54>> right

29:55>> um things like that. So that um Okay. Um

30:00thank you, Matt. You did get your hand

30:02up successfully. Now you'll just have to

30:04look.

30:04>> Now I can't figure out how to put it

30:05down. So

30:07>> uh and I'm just going to ignore that

30:08it's up until such time as you can get

30:11it to go down. Okay. Uh Dan, what are

30:15you thinking?

30:16>> Uh yeah, the the infill conversation um

30:19is is one that we've abortedly tried a

30:22few times. Um and it would be um an

30:26interesting project to pursue that in a

30:28more um dedicated way and particularly

30:30if there's a uh um

30:34a student intern

30:37with um if if uh if that's um

30:43still uh if they're still working with

30:47Matt. Uh the I mean the the the the

30:50white whale for me has always been um a

30:52public development. Um figuring out how

30:55to how to move in the case of of um

31:00a state like Rhode Island is is

31:03establishing a public developer and and

31:05figuring out um what we would what how

31:11uh how we can bring um that sort of

31:14experiment here as well. Um although

31:16that that is a that is a statewide

31:19effort. Um and uh realistically the city

31:23of Montpelier um would not be able to

31:26support that on its own. But um those

31:28are those are two um two directions that

31:32>> it's a public developer. Uh it is a uh

31:37public de so Montpelier has the

31:39Montpelier housing authority which is a

31:41a public uh housing um

31:45they are um they can only develop units

31:49that are affordability or affordable and

31:51that have a have a subsidy. A public

31:53developer would devel develop units

31:57operate in the same way but develop

31:58units that are small a affordable in

32:01that they are price set based on local

32:04market conditions but not um not

32:08subsidized and do not have a um uh have

32:11have less of a um of a means testing

32:15component to it. And how would that be

32:17different that some kind of community

32:20land trust

32:22>> your specific?

32:23>> Well, there there are ways that um that

32:28CLTs or um can can operate in that way.

32:33Um and um and indeed do already. Um, but

32:40>> can I would add I'm sorry. I would add

32:42that the

32:43>> that the chip process incentivizes

32:47affordable housing units, but you need

32:49to have a balance.

32:51>> Um, because if the tax increment is too

32:53small because it's all affordable, small

32:54a affordable, then you can't afford to

32:56pay for the infrastructure. But it is

32:59there is an incentive built into CHIP

33:00that you would build small a affordable

33:03housing.

33:05>> Yeah. It's a tricky needle to thread,

33:07but

33:07>> yeah.

33:08>> Dan,

33:10what do you think about doing the

33:12short-term rental registry? Because you

33:15I think I literally feel like you've

33:16gone over it with us a couple times.

33:18>> Yeah.

33:19>> And all we need to do is just bring it

33:20to a vote or else

33:23>> I mean, I don't there's really nothing

33:24to vote on even.

33:25>> There's nothing. It's it's established.

33:27It just needs to be stood up. Like the

33:29the city council has already put it it's

33:32a it's a it's a ghost. um administration

33:36at this or like a ghost um requirement

33:39at this point because the city does

33:41require that short-term rental owners

33:43register, but there's no way to do that.

33:45>> Matt, um you're sharing your screen

33:47right now on your email. You know that?

33:49>> Yes. It's a it's an email to Dan and I

33:52about short-term rentals.

33:53>> Yes. Yeah. It's from it's from the same

33:56the Okay.

33:57>> So, that that would be

33:58>> Oh, that's the company that does it.

34:00Well, it it's the it's the service

34:02provider for that the city currently

34:04uses that offers a module that would

34:06>> help with that. So,

34:08>> um

34:09>> I don't know how much role we have in

34:11>> Yeah. Okay.

34:12>> convincing the city to

34:14>> advance. Yeah.

34:15>> Matt, would you be willing to give an

34:17update on the progress toward the

34:19short-term rental registry at our next

34:21meeting?

34:24>> Okay.

34:25>> Thank you.

34:27We look forward to hearing your plan to

34:30administer the interests of the city

34:32council and the timeline that you're

34:34thinking about for that. And there's no

34:36need to discuss it now because I think

34:38we're going to have a lot to cover, but

34:39we'll be very excited to talk to you

34:41about it next time.

34:42>> Absolutely.

34:43>> Okay. Thank you. Uh okay, Alex.

34:47>> Oh, um

34:49>> what are you thinking? What are you

34:50interested in? And you know, Dan went a

34:52little off-roading there. is not even on

34:53the list of the priorities, but you

34:55know,

34:56>> I'm interested in um

34:58>> Sorry.

34:59>> That's all right.

35:01>> I'm interested in the

35:04what Dan called the what you call it the

35:06public development.

35:08>> Yeah.

35:08>> And in

35:09>> this is what organizing looks like

35:10people

35:11>> in cooperative forms of ownership.

35:14>> Yeah. that are specific and

35:18>> potentially not dependent on HUD

35:21funding.

35:22>> Okay.

35:23>> Sort of figuring out if there's ways in

35:25which we can capitalize what we need

35:29locally. Um and that would go I mean a

35:33land bank would be part of that but

35:35that's a statewide thing like a public

35:38um developer. Um but just models of

35:42long-term secure tenency that are not

35:46necessarily fee symbol

35:50um single household ownership but would

35:53provide that kind of security. And

35:56there's lots of co-op models. I mean

35:58London is all 99ear leases. New York you

36:01can transfer your leases to family

36:04members and and other people on the

36:06lease. So they're inheritable. I mean,

36:08there's there's lots of ways of doing

36:10that, but we haven't had any

36:12conversation about it. Um, and I would

36:14be interested in that conversation.

36:16>> Okay.

36:17>> It's a counterpart to the let's get

36:20developers in.

36:21>> Yeah. Okay. And you you had added that

36:24to the list.

36:25>> Yeah. And the thing that you put on the

36:26end promote co-op housing. I mean,

36:28that's how I don't care about housing

36:30co-op. I mean, that's one of the forms.

36:33And I remember

36:33>> D what should I change that to to

36:36accurately what you I mean, you have

36:38it's fine with

36:41um

36:44where was it?

36:45>> Well, you can also think about it. It's

36:46the very last thing on the

36:47>> Yeah. list.

36:49>> Um but

36:50>> if you want I mean Dan mentioned earlier

36:52that the Lake Champlain

36:56the Champlain Community Trust people

36:57came to an earlier iteration of the

36:59committee and talked about their forms.

37:01I mean they're similar to downstream but

37:03different I think.

37:04>> Okay. and our local co-op. I mean, in

37:08terms of I mean, don't get me started on

37:11it, but they've managed to accumulate

37:13enough money to buy the Arcade Miles

37:15site. Um,

37:17>> yeah.

37:17>> And that's an example of local capital.

37:20>> Right. Right. Okay. Um, Tim,

37:25>> yes. For me, the two things would be I

37:27I'm still feeling that the our zoning

37:32regulations are still a major impetus or

37:35reason we're not seeing new housing

37:37created here. They're they're they're

37:40deep. They're cumbersome. As we've

37:41started these conversations,

37:43I'm realizing there's not a lot of

37:45appetite to change it the level that I

37:47would like, which would be a pretty

37:49significant rewrite. It feels like the

37:52staff focus and Sandy get pulled into it

37:56working on it too is is people start

37:58just rewriting sections

38:00>> and kind of rearranging small parts of

38:03it. But I I still feel the cumulative

38:05effect of it is it's it's stifling

38:08housing and good things happening here

38:10and um and it's a tough one because but

38:13but people have to have a real the

38:14community has to have an appetite to

38:15change it at that level and I'm just not

38:18seeing that especially with the layers

38:20that any change has to go through that

38:21we've experienced already just with us.

38:24>> There is an opportunity though as the

38:26section I understand what you're saying

38:27and I agree that you're correct. Um that

38:31said, I do think there's an opportunity

38:33se like chapter by chapter as the

38:35planning commission goes through it to

38:37weigh in on like the have the housing

38:40committee weigh in. And I should have

38:42said that when I was talking earlier

38:43about the planning commission because

38:45the way that they've asked us to operate

38:47is that we bring matters to this full

38:50committee. We vote on the matter and

38:53then we bring it over to them. And so

38:55that then they would bring it up as a

38:58matter for the planning commission. and

38:59we're going to do that tonight. Uh uh

39:01it's the next agenda item and so

39:03there'll be two pieces that came out of

39:05your work with Sandy that are going to

39:07be voted on and moved to the planning

39:08commission. So there might be

39:09opportunities for some more of that. I

39:11>> hope so.

39:12>> Yeah.

39:12>> And and the other piece for me is the

39:13infill piece that Dan has been

39:15mentioned. I think that's if we're

39:17looking for another great kind of easier

39:19victory we can get up on the top of our

39:20list. I think the infill from the last

39:22time we started it, well more than 20,

39:25could be over 30 infill lots that we

39:28could locate around town really easily

39:30and then figure ways to tailor our

39:32zoning code and our staff efforts to to

39:35help those people realize that it's an

39:37asset the community would like to see or

39:39give them the opportunity to develop if

39:41they wish to.

39:42>> Okay.

39:42>> But but those are easy and they're out

39:44there. And the other piece is there is

39:46also a fair amount of public land. There

39:48will always be someone to say, "Oh, you

39:49can't you can't do this. can't do that.

39:51But the city owns some pretty good

39:53property, some of which could be used to

39:54create housing.

39:56>> Okay, great. Um, thank you, Lauren.

40:04>> Uh, so I would definitely be happy to

40:07help with the first bullet, like the

40:10marketing. There's definitely other

40:13people on the committee with the

40:14expertise, but if I can be helpful

40:16trying to put things in layman's terms

40:18and packaging up and things like that,

40:20I'd be happy to help. Um, I mean, one

40:23thing that I think I had sent over some

40:25clunky wording to Alyssa that made it on

40:28here about learning from current

40:30projects. Like one thing I'm thinking

40:32about is when Sheamus and I were

40:35presenting the development fees, the

40:37city manager rattled off what sounded

40:40like hundreds of units that are

40:41basically in the pipeline right now. And

40:44I'm curious, what is the status of

40:46those? Are there things that we could be

40:48doing as a committee to make sure that

40:50if those projects are all being talked

40:51about that we have the structures in

40:53place to actually support them and move

40:54them forward? Are there things are there

40:56barriers they are going to run up

40:57against which is what you know we've had

40:59lots of ideas and conversations for many

41:01of these same properties over the years.

41:02So you know is there is there a role we

41:04have in kind of looking at what's in the

41:07pipeline and can we help make sure they

41:10actually move forward? Are there

41:11barriers that we could be actively

41:13trying to get out of their way and

41:14supporting them? So that was what I

41:15meant by that which I think could fit

41:17into this like marketing analysis or

41:20some of these other bullets but it could

41:23be interesting just to get that more

41:24detailed state of what's what's in the

41:27works like where is there actual

41:28interest from de developers to move

41:29projects and then are there things that

41:31we could be doing that actively go after

41:33like clearing the clearing the lane for

41:36them. So that might fit under one of

41:39these but that's kind of interest to me.

41:41Um,

41:43and then like the appeals process in my

41:46day job, I'm going to be kind of

41:48tracking. So, if I could um, you know,

41:52be providing the Mont Peeler housing

41:55committee input or alerting people to

41:56when there's opportunities to weigh in

41:58and things like that, I'm happy to do

42:00that. Um

42:03similarly the capital complex one um

42:07that I feel like the um Montpillar

42:11Foundation um might be tracking some of

42:14that work. So I mean Tim and I are both

42:17on that board. So we might be able to

42:18just keep people updated and maybe like

42:19if an opportunity arises where it feels

42:21like this committee could be helpful, we

42:22could just kind of keep an eye on that.

42:25Um, so I don't think it needs to be a

42:27this committee priority, but it could be

42:29something where we see an opportunity to

42:30be helpful. Um, and then lastly,

42:35if there was other people interested in

42:37the transitional housing, I would

42:39definitely am interested in it and feel

42:41like it's a big task. So feel like I

42:44could only help work on it if there was

42:45other people with energy and enthusiasm.

42:49>> Great. Um, here, why don't I go to you

42:52and I'll go last.

42:55Um I also well whether it's transitional

42:57housing or just housing in general soft

42:59>> would you mind pulling the mic down?

43:01Thanks.

43:02>> I'm also interested in you know

43:04transitional housing soft housing you

43:06know all all of the above. I think it's

43:08something that we need we've kind of

43:10left left alone for a while and I think

43:13we need to it's almost like starting

43:14from scratch I think for this committee.

43:16Um so I am interested in working on

43:19that. I'm also interested in working on

43:20the infill. reminded me that that was

43:22something I used to be interested in um

43:26and still am. But I think it that all

43:29can tie together. Um and I think I wrote

43:32as you know I wrote down a priority as

43:34far as like the state advocacy

43:36particularly for the appeals etc. I'm

43:38not actually that interested in working

43:39on that but I think it's uh it should be

43:42a priority.

43:43>> You are interested in working on the DRB

43:44though.

43:45>> Sure. Yeah. I can continue to Yep. look

43:47at the DRB. Yep.

43:49>> Yeah. Okay. Uh, well, I just thought

43:53that because of back and forth.

43:55>> Yeah.

43:56>> In the past? Yeah.

43:57>> Yeah.

43:57>> Okay. Um, Ben, you sure you don't want

43:59to get in on this?

44:01>> Okay. Uh so I think for me I am

44:08interested in the transitional housing

44:12and I have been doing a lot of work

44:15around prepping things like I'm managing

44:18the relationship with the planning

44:19commission which is taking some time um

44:22also. Uh, so I'll continue to do that,

44:26like preparing stuff here, getting it up

44:28through the vote and moving over. Uh,

44:30and I would like to support the

44:33marketing work as well. I don't think I

44:35can do anything more than that at this

44:37time, but those are the kinds of things

44:38that I will um would be interested in.

44:41I'll ask others what they're interested

44:43in as well, but let's talk about the

44:46phasing of this then. So, we just all

44:48laid out our interests. What are we

44:50going to put on the agenda next month?

44:53Um, and of everything, you know, I'm

44:57thinking what is there anything that's

44:58time-sensitive that needs to move? I

45:01guess the fees actually the development

45:03fees probably need to be put on in a

45:05month uh into next month's agenda

45:07because of the budget connection. Uh,

45:09and that is Lauren, Alex, Sheamus.

45:13Anything else that is really would

45:16either be found would be foundational or

45:18timesensitive.

45:21I think moving on transitional housing

45:25is really important.

45:26>> Yeah, that's going to take I think some

45:28research um and a lot of coordination.

45:30So maybe it's more of an update than a

45:32proposal. Uh but that we could put on a

45:35transitional um transitional housing

45:39update. I I belong to Christ Episcopal

45:43Church in Montpielar and um you know

45:47have been engaged in the issue through

45:49the church and trying to get you know we

45:52but mostly it's like we're collecting

45:53money and then we're helping people pay

45:55their rent or the utility bills or

45:57different things each month so people

45:58can stay in homes and then doing you

46:01know feeding ministries on like Sunday

46:04nights sometimes Saturday mornings uh

46:07there's a a set of services, but

46:10obviously like those that is not ideal.

46:13That is not what we want to be doing.

46:15You know, that's not supportive to the

46:17degree that it could be. And I know a

46:19lot of churches have been filling the

46:21void because we don't have what we need

46:24uh in the community. So, uh the in terms

46:27of the development fees work, um Lauren,

46:30um Alex and uh Sheamus can if you could

46:35be ready to present something next

46:37month. And in terms of transitional

46:38housing, me Dan,

46:44do you want to be pass take a pass on

46:46that because you're on the fees? Me and

46:48Dan will put together some ideas.

46:51>> We'll invite you. Maybe Lauren will

46:52come. Okay. Uh but I think that did

46:56anyone else have that on their list? I

46:57don't think that. Yeah.

46:58>> Thank

47:00regulation. Do we need to be focusing on

47:04supporting getting tier 1A status? We

47:06do. We got to vote on something actually

47:08coming up,

47:09>> but there's this time-sensitive piece

47:10that would fit into that.

47:12>> Yeah, I think we have to give it over to

47:14the planning commission to do their work

47:15on it. We're going to vote today and

47:17then we have to hand it over. So, if you

47:19see something cuz they won't probably

47:20won't take it up

47:22>> before our next meeting, I would guess.

47:25>> Maybe they will actually they might and

47:27they might go to city council. They were

47:28saying to share their and there might be

47:30a timeline. So, if there will you just

47:32watchdog it?

47:33>> Yeah. And then if there's something that

47:35we need to do, bring it back here

47:37because they might the planning

47:38commission and the city might put

47:40together a timeline for tier 1A and

47:41maybe you and Sandy look at it and say

47:42this isn't aggressive enough or

47:43something. Then we could talk about

47:44that. But yeah, that's a good um good

47:48flag. Uh Lauren,

47:51>> um the other things that seem

47:53potentially timely, but I think it's a

47:56little bit to be determined depending on

47:58where the appeals process is, um if

48:02they're trying to prep legislation for

48:04January, then like we might want to have

48:06a conversation about it in November to

48:09if sorry, the appeals uh piece.

48:11Similarly, if we get some indication

48:14that there's any hope of capital complex

48:17land coming and that would be a

48:18legislative push like we we I'm

48:23>> any legislative matter

48:24>> any legislative matters those are the

48:25two that seem like most obvious and then

48:29>> well the land bank is something that

48:31came up there was a report to the

48:32legislature and I talked to Kate McCann

48:35when she was which it's not her stick um

48:38but she was interested and wanted to get

48:40back in

48:41So flagging it,

48:43>> which is another statewide legislative

48:45thing,

48:46>> flagging it as something of importance.

48:49>> Do you want to do that?

48:51>> I can get in touch with her, but I'm not

48:54>> I'm not a political operative, so I

48:56don't know beyond that.

48:58>> Might just be more like asking her if

49:00she could let you know what's going on

49:03with it as your rep. And um I'll just

49:06put it down as an update, Alex, for you.

49:08Yeah.

49:09>> Yeah. And process-wise,

49:11I don't know if they're continuing to do

49:13it, but city council used to do an

49:15annual legislative platform. So, if they

49:17are, that's where I think probably next

49:18meeting, if there's anything we would

49:20want to be encouraging them to put on

49:21their platform, they would be fit

49:22finishing that in December, I think. So,

49:24we would have to do that next month.

49:27>> Um, I think your point on both the

49:28capital complex and the appeals, do you

49:31want to bring those forward if there's

49:32anything we should be voting on?

49:33>> Yeah, I'm happy to

49:34>> because you're doing it anyway. You're

49:36those so I can just see if there's

49:39any ripeness there the way Alex will

49:41just kind of kick around if there's

49:43opportunity around state land bank. I

49:45mean the other thing and I don't know

49:46that there is anything but like the

49:48budget process really for the city

49:50really gets underway. So you know

49:52obviously we should be making sure

49:54there's more money going into the trust

49:56fund but then I don't know if there's

49:57any other budget. Well, and I and that I

50:00think that should be a conversation

50:01because there's no money that's been

50:04taken out this year

50:05>> so far.

50:06>> So, it like used to grow and could be

50:09used even for a bigger project, but now

50:12>> Sure. I mean, there's no reason not to

50:13ask for that because it could be used.

50:15It's just that we we might need to do

50:18more to market the use of that if we

50:20want it used, too. So, I think that was

50:22a lesson learned here.

50:23>> Yeah.

50:24>> Yeah. Uh that's a lot of topics for next

50:27meeting. I think that's like nine. Um,

50:30I'm just noting that I'm going to go

50:33down the list here. Development fees,

50:35we'll probably need to vote on

50:37something. Um, the transitional housing

50:41is going to be an update because I don't

50:43think we'll have something to vote on

50:44probably by next meeting. Uh, tier 1A

50:48status is likely going to be an update.

50:50Um, the appeals processes are probably

50:53going to be an update, but maybe if you

50:54had something that we could vote on, we

50:56could get it into the ledge agenda. So

50:57that's maybe a vote. Um,

51:00all right. We could do this. And then

51:02land bank is an update.

51:06All right. So the big discussion topics

51:08for the next meeting are going to be

51:09transitional housing.

51:12Well, they're really going to be like

51:13the development fees and legislative

51:15pieces and then everything else is going

51:16to be updates. Okay, great. Thank you

51:18very much. That is really helpful. That

51:20sounds like a plan. I'm gonna do I'm

51:22gonna move on to and we'll just keep

51:23we'll just keep revisiting this list

51:26because as we move things forward some

51:28things are going to get stuck. We're

51:29going to need to add more things. You

51:31know, we're gonna So, we'll we'll keep

51:33building upon this. Thank you for that

51:34process. Uh quick update on the

51:37development um regulations that were

51:40revised. Uh Tim, do you want me Sandy

51:44had to step out for a personal reason.

51:46Do you want to She wasn't able to be

51:48here for personal matter. Do you want me

51:50to cover it because you would have

51:51missed the last meeting or do you want

51:52to cover it? This is basically um

51:57the last meeting you might remember you

51:59and Sandy put forward four proposals to

52:02be voted on and then um we met with the

52:05planning commission. We got updates on

52:07that from them. We removed two of those

52:09items. So now we're going to put forward

52:11two for a vote.

52:13Do you want me to walk people through

52:14that? You want to walk people through

52:15that?

52:16>> Do you want to do the update? I can I

52:18did talk with Sandy this afternoon too

52:20and

52:20>> Oh, great. Well, I I already did the

52:22update earlier, so I think we can just

52:24move straight into the topic at hand for

52:26you.

52:27>> Seems so from my conversation with her,

52:29it feels like the key initial piece for

52:33my development regs that we would like

52:35to see adjusted is anything that the

52:38state regulates

52:40not also be permitted and regulated by

52:43the city. Covers some key areas. um

52:47wetlands, um storm water accessibility

52:52and steep slopes

52:54>> are the big areas that seem to be the

52:56areas with friction where there's

52:58definitely overlap. um listening to Mike

53:01Miller when we talked about it didn't

53:03quite I think the the place he missed in

53:06our conversation was if there are steep

53:08slopes on a property that's being worked

53:10on you're automatically into storm water

53:14you know and erosion control issues that

53:17have to be reviewed. So if if if the

53:20property meets criteria that would make

53:22it have to go through state review, then

53:24we'd like to suggest that ML zoning code

53:27have provision to step back that there's

53:29no reason a developer or any person

53:31should have to go through this double

53:33gauntlet on the same issues. Um so I

53:37guess really that was it is to simplify

53:38our zoning at least initially to get

53:40those layers where there's clear

53:41duplication um removed from our code.

53:45Um Matt, would you put up the um housing

53:48committee memo map regs September 2026

53:52version two? So Tim has given us an

53:55overview. We're now Can you move up to

53:57the top one? We're going to vote on two

54:00two matters. Those matters will then

54:03should we approve them go before the

54:05planning commission for consideration.

54:08The first one is that the city we're

54:11recommending that the city amend

54:13regulations to satisfy tier 1A

54:16application requirements. That that

54:19language um needs to be added uh in to

54:24the development regulations now to make

54:26it easier to attain tier 1A language

54:29later. And so um we request that the

54:33request is that that we we ask that they

54:35city work with the planning commission

54:37and the lurb to develop and include

54:39baseline temporary tier 1A language into

54:42a minimally uh amended unified

54:46development regulations to be submitted

54:48to the city council for adoption as soon

54:50as feasible and we provided some sample

54:52language. This should make the this

54:55should leave more options on the table

54:56for us as we move through the tier 1A uh

55:00process. Are there any questions on this

55:03before we bring this to a vote? Which

55:05simply just means that we're sending our

55:07recommendations to planning commission

55:09for consideration.

55:13Okay. All in favor?

55:15>> We're just voting on number one, right?

55:17>> Just voting on number one.

55:18>> Okay.

55:19>> I

55:21>> Okay. uh seeing unanimous support I

55:24won't go through the rest let's move to

55:25the second one so for the second one as

55:28Tim was just basically saying the in the

55:30impetus behind this is to avoid

55:33duplication

55:34so it's asking that when the planning

55:38commission that the planning commission

55:41work with the city to eliminate

55:44duplication and the review and approval

55:48of permitting you know the in the

55:50permitting process And then there are

55:54things to consider underneath like steep

55:58slopes, water, wetlands, changes to

56:00roads, accessibility. But the thing

56:02we're sending over is the sentiment that

56:06we would ask them to go through and you

56:10know eliminate duplication in the

56:12process as they do their review.

56:16Questions? Yeah,

56:17>> I have a question. Um I have actually a

56:19couple of questions. One is Tim, you and

56:22Sandy were going to meet with Mike about

56:24your

56:25recommendations, right? Um,

56:29what did he say about this duplication

56:32business?

56:32>> I mean, our meeting didn't feel like it

56:34went that well. Um,

56:35>> I can imagine

56:36>> to be honest with you and and he didn't

56:39feel that he thought there weren't

56:41overlaps. He felt like the areas the

56:43city was looking at were different than

56:46the areas the state was focusing on.

56:48So that I'm a little bit at least that

56:51was my interpretation.

56:53>> I'm thinking about the possibility of

56:55friction here and a sort of

56:57counterproductive friction. Um and I

57:00agree with avoiding duplication but I

57:02think there's a lot of

57:04um nuance if you will. So for example in

57:08water and wastewater there are two

57:10separate permit processes but the state

57:13is very clear that a municipality can

57:16say we'll take care of it and cut the

57:19state out if the state it's called

57:21delegation.

57:22>> Um so that's an eitheror not a bothand.

57:26Um

57:27>> but

57:27>> and that's just an example of something

57:29that's nuanced in a way that this isn't.

57:33But it doesn't statement. That's what it

57:36said when I looked it up.

57:37>> But it's not with my experience at all.

57:39I mean, whenever you do anything even to

57:41hook a house on player water and sewer

57:43that's in the city, you have to get a

57:45wastewater permit from the state. The

57:47city does not take care of that.

57:48>> The city, well, from what I read, and I

57:51could be wrong about this,

57:52>> but what I read was that the city can

57:55ask to be the granter of record. It's

57:58called delegation. and then the state

58:00delegates to the municipality that

58:03power. So my only point I'm not saying

58:06my pill should do it. I'm just saying

58:08it's not an either or. It's not a both

58:12and. It's an eitheror.

58:14>> Um Dan and then Lauren and then me.

58:18>> Yeah. I guess also I mean I agree we

58:20should you know eliminate duplication

58:22where we can but it sounds like there's

58:23also

58:25as far as a tier 1A status goes there's

58:28there's some prioritization as far as

58:30municipalities taking on some of their

58:32own regulation and I don't understand it

58:34well enough to know

58:35>> I don't know if they figured it out yet.

58:37>> Yeah they probably don't. So we're just

58:38guessing but obviously we don't want to

58:41recommend something that then will

58:44>> compromise you know that potential. So

58:46again, I don't really understand it

58:48enough. I've just

58:49>> something that was mentioned to me by

58:50Meredith Randle. So

58:53>> Lauren,

58:54>> um, yeah, I was in the meeting with Mike

58:57Miller as well. I mean, I had the same

58:59impression as Tim. The one area he named

59:02where he did think there's work to do is

59:04wetlands. So I think and he he kind of

59:08agreed with this sentiment and said

59:10basically that they are striving to do

59:11that and he just doesn't think that it

59:13happens a lot. And so I think there

59:15could be some where maybe the city's

59:17goal and regulations are slightly

59:19different from the states and it's

59:20accomplishing something different. And

59:21so I think that could be like a ripe

59:23conversation for the planning commission

59:24to be like do we do we want this other

59:27screening and thing? Is it accomplishing

59:28something valuable or does the state

59:31process do enough? Um so I I feel like

59:34we could pass something in this vein. I

59:36mean, maybe we add something like to the

59:38extent possible or what, like some

59:41wiggle words or something if we feel

59:42like we just want to make sure we're not

59:45putting some like a, you know, hot

59:47potato in the lap of the plane snake

59:49commission. But I think it seemed like

59:50everybody agreed with a sentiment and it

59:52was just a disagreement of how much it

59:53actually happened. Um, I think if we're

59:56sending both over,

59:59hopefully it could be conveyed that, you

1:00:01know, we wanted we want to be doing

1:00:02both, getting the getting the pieces

1:00:04that we need for tier 1A status and

1:00:07avoiding duplication and we should be

1:00:09able to be doing both simultaneously.

1:00:11But yeah, don't pick something out here

1:00:12that all of a sudden creates a new. So,

1:00:14kind of looking at them both

1:00:15simultaneously will be important.

1:00:17>> Tim, I'll add you to the queue. Um, but

1:00:20I'm gonna go first because I'm in the

1:00:21queue before you, which is, uh, so it

1:00:26when we were talking to the planning

1:00:27commission subcommittee a couple weeks

1:00:29ago, or maybe it was last week, time

1:00:31flies. Uh,

1:00:33they agreed with the sentiment um that

1:00:39the uh that the state can if the state

1:00:43is doing the permitting that you don't

1:00:45need to get the local permitting. that

1:00:48sometimes that's confusing and not clear

1:00:50and that they can make it clear clearer

1:00:53in the regulations as they go through it

1:00:56and that sometimes they and also there's

1:01:00sometimes a little bit of overlap and so

1:01:02they wanted to they thought that was an

1:01:04important theme they agreed with the

1:01:07theme and they were fine with this being

1:01:09sent over to them basically but what I

1:01:11mean by this is like the top paragraph

1:01:14of like the concept of please as a theme

1:01:20look for duplication and eliminate

1:01:22duplication. And then under that it was

1:01:25basically like here are all the things

1:01:27you could look for. Um not here is what

1:01:33we know to be true. So I think I'm

1:01:37comfortable if you know maybe we might

1:01:39want to word smmith this a little bit

1:01:40but I'm comfortable with the concept

1:01:43like with the concept of please look for

1:01:46duplication and avoid it in your um in

1:01:49your review of the development

1:01:51regulations. And so I think that's what

1:01:54I would I would just encourage us to

1:01:56focus on here in the vote. Tim

1:02:00>> I I think that's fine. I I think because

1:02:02we don't make any decisions here and

1:02:04we're just encouraging planning

1:02:06commission to move in that direction

1:02:07which a

1:02:07>> lot of power

1:02:08>> which they are but they already are.

1:02:10>> We don't we're policy

1:02:12>> come down to interpretation that we're

1:02:14going to have to kind of participate in

1:02:15their process and move up if we really

1:02:17want to follow these issues but wetlands

1:02:19is a great example of you know I just

1:02:21don't feel the city has any role in

1:02:23regulating those. The state has

1:02:24professionals on staff that do it. They

1:02:26regulate them. We should just step aside

1:02:29and let them do their job. Right.

1:02:31>> Unless there's a gap that Lauren was

1:02:33saying there's something where we go

1:02:35further or we do less or something that

1:02:37there's like a filler, but 90% of this

1:02:39is not that, right? Like it's not that's

1:02:41not the issue. And we're not

1:02:43>> control issues. That's our issue.

1:02:44>> Yeah. We're just we're not even getting

1:02:46into that degree of specificity.

1:02:47>> We're really

1:02:49>> Yeah, we are special. Uh every one of

1:02:52us. Um okay, so are folks comfortable

1:02:56with the way this is worded? And what I

1:02:58mean by this is number two. Here's here

1:03:00it is. We request that the planning

1:03:02commission and city strive to eliminate

1:03:05review/approval

1:03:07permitting of subjects that are already

1:03:10permitted by other authorities in

1:03:12Vermont. This will avoid duplication.

1:03:14The DRB can require the state permits as

1:03:17a condition for local approval. That's

1:03:20what we would be voting on. Are people

1:03:22comfortable with that?

1:03:24>> Yep.

1:03:25>> Also says strive, not eliminate. Like

1:03:29that's that's

1:03:30>> strive to eliminate.

1:03:31>> Strive to eliminate.

1:03:32>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:03:32>> But that doesn't mean you succeed,

1:03:34>> right? So this is

1:03:36>> this is this is this is like non

1:03:38>> this is like the lowest bar we could

1:03:40have. Right. Okay. All right. All in

1:03:42favor.

1:03:44Great. All right. We will pass this on.

1:03:48I will pass this on to the planning

1:03:50commission as a vote from the housing

1:03:53committee. And now we are moving into

1:03:55the vacancy ordinance. Rebecca Copans is

1:03:58here to join us to talk about this. She

1:04:00has been working on this since the last

1:04:01time we talked about it and um thank you

1:04:04so much. And then uh Matt, would you

1:04:07please pull up do you want to start with

1:04:08the fact sheet and do like the top lines

1:04:10of the fact sheet and then we can So

1:04:12Matt, would you pull up the fact sheet

1:04:13please and then we'll move into the uh

1:04:16language. Thank you for being here.

1:04:18>> Thank you for having me. Um just as a

1:04:21reminder of a level setting of why I

1:04:23believe deeply in this ordinance

1:04:25proposal. Um there has been a a numerous

1:04:29numerous articles um recently about

1:04:31vacancy um vacant properties across the

1:04:34country. Vermont is the second has the

1:04:36second highest vacancy rate in um in any

1:04:39state just behind Maine is the first um

1:04:44most

1:04:46um well

1:04:46>> that per capita I bet it's must be

1:04:50>> it

1:04:51highest it's not per capita it's the

1:04:53highest state. Okay.

1:04:54>> Yeah. Maine is the first, second,

1:04:56Vermont second.

1:04:57>> Um 75.8% of vacant property properties

1:05:02here are due to seasonal occasional

1:05:04recreational use. So not um

1:05:08you know I would say occasional

1:05:10recreational use like

1:05:12I won't I'm not going to editorialize

1:05:14but that's just um we know that a

1:05:18shortage of properties um contribute to

1:05:21higher median housing costs. Um, I will

1:05:24say that Bennington just passed since we

1:05:27last took this up passed their vacant

1:05:29property property ordinance and it's

1:05:31pretty uh significant. Um,

1:05:36Matt, if you stroll just scroll down a

1:05:38little bit. I think I put it in, but

1:05:40maybe I didn't save it. Um, a little bit

1:05:43a little bit more to the

1:05:44>> It's in the chart.

1:05:45>> The Bennington. Okay.

1:05:49I um I was just updating it and it

1:05:51didn't save but um Bennington has an

1:05:54escalating um fee that they just put in.

1:05:57So it starts um a little bit lower and

1:05:59then it goes up to $16,000 annually um

1:06:02after year five. So I everyone that sees

1:06:06this generally say says, "Well,

1:06:07Bennington, that's a draft. They would

1:06:08never pass this." but they just did

1:06:10because they see that this is a concern

1:06:13and they um they believe in um putting

1:06:16housing before um before vacant

1:06:19properties. So um there are 12 cities in

1:06:25in Vermont that have a vacant property

1:06:27ordinance. Um Planefield is actively

1:06:28considering it as well. Um and

1:06:34um the fees really are widely different

1:06:38depending on the town. Um some are by

1:06:41the day. Um so for example, Essex

1:06:44Junction is $150 plus $10 a day whereas

1:06:48uh Swanton is $100 a day. So that really

1:06:51adds up pretty quickly. Um and it's

1:06:53really everywhere in between. um with

1:06:56Bennington I think being the the most u

1:06:58with Bradboro coming a close second to

1:07:01their to their fees. So we are right in

1:07:02the middle. We're not this proposal is

1:07:05not the most ownorous um as far as as uh

1:07:09as proposed fees. Um the goal of vacancy

1:07:12ordinance in Milar is to um really build

1:07:16better community. Like when we have

1:07:18empty homes we can't have new families

1:07:20move into the neighborhood. Um I counted

1:07:23my very small street. Um we have I I

1:07:27think I counted correctly. We have 19

1:07:29properties. There are nine vacant units

1:07:33of those in this very short street. Um

1:07:37some of them are multif family and one

1:07:39of them is a single family home. These

1:07:41be wonderful wonderful homes for a lot

1:07:44of people. Um and so that's my

1:07:46motivation for for chasing this. I think

1:07:49um we can do better as a city uh to

1:07:51encourage people to either um rent their

1:07:55rent their properties, sell them or pay

1:07:58into the housing trust fund. Um the city

1:08:01would know a property is vacant for in a

1:08:04couple of ways. Um if it's a commercial

1:08:05building, um the city would submit a

1:08:08vacancy declaration annually. Um if it's

1:08:11a residential building,

1:08:13um everyone who lives in Millar gets a a

1:08:16water and sewer bill. Um, and this would

1:08:19be uh this the city would be able to see

1:08:21what is vacant based on low use of of

1:08:24water and sewer. Um, and then a third

1:08:27way that we would know um that a

1:08:29property is vacant is taking

1:08:31Burlington's model where um someone can

1:08:34report a vacant property to um the city

1:08:36manager of their or their design um and

1:08:39then they can take reasonable steps to

1:08:41um decide or verify that the the place

1:08:44is vacant.

1:08:46um because the city already has um

1:08:51paperwork in place for water water and

1:08:53sewer bills. Um and because a delinquent

1:08:56water and sewer bill could lead to a tax

1:08:58sale. So there's more teeth behind it.

1:09:00Um it's proposed that this would be

1:09:02assessed this vacant vacant property fee

1:09:05would be assessed on the water and sewer

1:09:06bill. There are a number of exemptions.

1:09:09Um we looked at exemptions across the

1:09:13country. Um, and these were really the

1:09:16reasonable ones. Um, and we started with

1:09:19a a very wide funnel and then narrowed

1:09:22it down based on, you know, what's

1:09:24reasonable for for Montpillar. But, um,

1:09:27if it's under So, let me say that all of

1:09:29this is um is the city manager or their

1:09:33design has a has a wide um has a lot of

1:09:36uh lenency,

1:09:38what's the word? authority in this in

1:09:40this ordinance. Um to use a human

1:09:44understanding of you know if someone if

1:09:46someone is having a challenge they can

1:09:48talk to a regular person and and you

1:09:51know say why this shouldn't apply to

1:09:52them or why they should be exempt.

1:09:54um if it's under active extension act

1:09:57active extensive renovation um while

1:10:00permitted by the city um if it is listed

1:10:04in good faith um for sale um that was a

1:10:07question that city man that a city

1:10:09councelor brought up you know what if

1:10:10we're trying to sell it and it just is

1:10:11not selling if it's a if it's a at a

1:10:14marketable rate and you're not asking

1:10:16you know an egregious amount that would

1:10:19be an exemption um if it's vacant as a

1:10:22result of a natural disaster I We all

1:10:24have seen the impacts of flooding. Um

1:10:27state of emergency, riot, war or

1:10:29pandemic. That's pretty standard

1:10:31definition. Um if it's suitable only for

1:10:34seasonable use, which is the t the

1:10:36tendency um you know the way the state

1:10:38kind of tends to look at uh vac you know

1:10:41seasonal use is it's a a reasonable use

1:10:44a reasonable vacancy

1:10:45>> like a camp.

1:10:46>> Exactly. like that's not insulated or

1:10:49there's no heat, not weatherized

1:10:51>> or there's no water that you know, you

1:10:53can't have water in the winter. Um, if

1:10:56it's a primary residence of someone who

1:10:58is um temporarily residing in a in a in

1:11:01a care or medical facility, if it's the

1:11:04primary residence of a person serving an

1:11:06active duty military,

1:11:08um, or any additional exclusions

1:11:11established by ordinance or resolution

1:11:12by the city council consistent with the

1:11:14intent of this ordinance. So, the city

1:11:16council can use their judgment to say,

1:11:17"We forgot this. Let's add this." Um, as

1:11:20we were talking to um, city councilors,

1:11:22another recommendation was to include

1:11:25um, properties that are um, owned by a

1:11:28local development corp. As we um, Millar

1:11:31faces dealing with the federal

1:11:33government with the post office um, and

1:11:36that property goes back to bid. we

1:11:38should think about the future of that

1:11:40building as as the local development

1:11:42corp um decides how to bring that

1:11:46building into h you know um bring

1:11:48housing into that property. Um, so

1:11:51something that I hear from city staff

1:11:54every single time we have brought them

1:11:57anything is, "Well, we don't know and so

1:11:59we can't do it." You know, if we if we

1:12:02don't know definitively how many vacant

1:12:03properties there are, or in our last

1:12:06conversation, how many short-term

1:12:07rentals there are, we can't just

1:12:10willy-nilly do it do an ordinance if we

1:12:12don't know what um how many they're

1:12:14affecting. I reject that. I think we

1:12:18need definitive data to show what the

1:12:21problem is and we can't just like throw

1:12:23up our hands to say if we don't know we

1:12:25can't do anything. Um so

1:12:29um I was speaking with city staff and

1:12:31they said well we're going to someday

1:12:33get you know an intern um from UVM

1:12:36they're going to go around and count all

1:12:37the buildings. Um I think a a lot more

1:12:39reasonable um approach is to have the

1:12:44data, you know, show what what the

1:12:48actual problem is. Um I will say, can I

1:12:50just run through um the conversations

1:12:52that I had or the summary of the of the

1:12:54conversations I had with council?

1:12:56>> Mhm. Please.

1:12:57>> Um so directionally they were all

1:13:00supportive. Um they thought it was

1:13:03directionally positive. They want to

1:13:04hear what this committee has to say. Um,

1:13:07one one member said, "We need it and we

1:13:09need it path. We need it fast." Um,

1:13:12another member liked a slower

1:13:15implementation, so give the city a

1:13:17really um time to figure out the

1:13:19paperwork. So, um, in this in the newest

1:13:23proposal that I'm bringing to you today,

1:13:25um, we would take the first year, which

1:13:29I I'm not sure if it's in this draft

1:13:31that you guys have.

1:13:32>> It isn't because we can't use Google

1:13:33Docs. Yeah, we had to download and any

1:13:36updates that were made after that are

1:13:38not in the proposal.

1:13:39>> Um but take a slower implementation. So

1:13:42you take the first year to establish the

1:13:44reporting and the billing structure um

1:13:46the billing mechanisms but and then

1:13:48delay the the fees until um like 18

1:13:52months. So you'd have a full year of

1:13:54figuring out how the system works and

1:13:56then essentially then the day one would

1:13:59start on the fees. And so then it would

1:14:01be another six months later until the

1:14:03fees would start you know being uh like

1:14:08counted. So then on basically 18 month

1:14:12um day one of 18 month the 18th month it

1:14:15would um be begin the beginning of six

1:14:17the first six months in the structure.

1:14:19Does that make sense? Mhm. Mhm.

1:14:21>> Um

1:14:22there was a question about whether um

1:14:2633% is the right threshold. Um as you

1:14:30have discussed in this committee um the

1:14:32down town core is precious. I mean it's

1:14:34a big it's a big question of like how do

1:14:36we ensure that um that our our first

1:14:40floor is per is you know we have

1:14:43businesses on the first floor and the

1:14:45the challenges around developing floors

1:14:48for residential use on the upper floors

1:14:51when you have to deal with the fire

1:14:52suppression um it's a it's a complicated

1:14:55question and so I think it's question to

1:14:57you is 33% the right threshold um for

1:15:01for starting this you kicking this

1:15:04>> it would be triggered vacancy would be

1:15:06triggered after 33%.

1:15:08>> Yeah. And so the question is is that the

1:15:10right

1:15:11>> threshold for you. Um

1:15:13>> so it's an arbitrary number you chose.

1:15:16>> Well it's not arbitrary if you look at

1:15:18um generally

1:15:19>> yeah it is

1:15:20>> okay. You can call it arbitrary

1:15:22>> it was more community context that you

1:15:25picked it based on the downtown.

1:15:28Correct. If you look at the floors of

1:15:31the downtown, it's generally three

1:15:33floors. Um, so a third a third would be

1:15:38um, you know, one floor of of occupancy.

1:15:42>> The point being you didn't want to

1:15:44penalize the downtown businesses for not

1:15:47developing the upper floors because of

1:15:49the requirements with around that

1:15:52development are just like exorbitant

1:15:55costs, right, associated with that.

1:15:56That's very different than a abandoned

1:15:59home in my neighborhood that someone

1:16:01walked away from that just is sitting

1:16:04there.

1:16:04>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

1:16:05>> Okay.

1:16:06>> Um other Do you have anything else to

1:16:08review and then I'll open up for

1:16:09questions.

1:16:10>> Um

1:16:12there another person wanted an attorney

1:16:13to review. The city should hire an

1:16:15attorney to look at it just like they

1:16:16did with the short-term rentals. Um, and

1:16:21um, I just want to

1:16:24pull in what Tim just said about the

1:16:26last conversation that I really didn't

1:16:29feel that the conversation went well

1:16:30with city staff. That is like the common

1:16:32theme with most of this um, what this

1:16:35committee brings forward to city staff.

1:16:37So, um I would just encourage you to be

1:16:40your own have your own mind um and not

1:16:43be held to city staff when they say this

1:16:48is impossible or this would be too much

1:16:50work. And I think in this case the um

1:16:54the city staff we've worked with have

1:16:57supported the concept. Uh it's just like

1:17:01some details on in terms around

1:17:03implementation. Uh but maybe that's not

1:17:06true. Matt, do we have a does the city

1:17:07have a position on the vacancy um

1:17:10ordinance?

1:17:11>> Well, Rebecca's talking about me. So,

1:17:13>> do you have a position on the vacancy

1:17:15ordinance?

1:17:16>> Well, I have an intern now working with

1:17:18me. We're trying to get actual data and

1:17:21I think that, you know, I'm more than

1:17:25happy to step aside. Um I think that

1:17:29there is a practical concern of who's

1:17:31going to actually do all the paperwork.

1:17:34>> Uhhuh. And this would raise funds in

1:17:37order to support that.

1:17:40>> Then that would be up to the city

1:17:41council to determine if the funds that

1:17:43were coming in would be

1:17:45>> utilized that way.

1:17:46>> Pay be able to pay for a staff member.

1:17:49>> That's a council decision.

1:17:50>> And it might be not it might be there's

1:17:52startup costs. So maybe you need more

1:17:55staff time at the beginning, less as you

1:17:57go on. You know, there's I guess

1:17:59considerations around that. Um the the

1:18:02questions a question council question or

1:18:04the um committee questions for Rebecca.

1:18:08>> Yeah, Ben.

1:18:09>> Well, I guess I don't know if this is a

1:18:11question for Rebecca or for Matt, but

1:18:14it's it looks like there are other

1:18:15cities that have this sort of ordinance

1:18:17and the building inspector is who

1:18:19administers that.

1:18:20>> Yeah. So, Barry, for example, gave us um

1:18:22I asked them how long it takes them to

1:18:24administer their vacant property tax,

1:18:26right? Um he devotes a week and a half a

1:18:30year

1:18:31um and does all of the paperwork, all

1:18:33the inspections, and then it's,

1:18:36>> you know, then it's set up for the next

1:18:37year.

1:18:38>> Have you had a chance to actually talk

1:18:39to Michelle

1:18:41Savory about whether she'd be

1:18:43>> I don't know, Michelle.

1:18:44>> Okay. She's the building inspector.

1:18:46>> No.

1:18:46>> Um I wonder I wonder if she has the

1:18:50bandwidth to do that, but she cuz if

1:18:53this was on her plate, I think it would

1:18:54happen.

1:18:56>> She's

1:18:56>> Good to hear.

1:18:57>> Yeah, she doesn't mess around.

1:18:58>> That's great. Um, I did talk to the

1:19:00building inspector in South Burlington

1:19:02about theirs and she was like, "I can't

1:19:06believe you don't have one of these."

1:19:08Like, "What are you talking about? My

1:19:09pillar doesn't have a vacancy

1:19:10ordinance." And I was like, "No." She

1:19:12was like, "How many towns and cities

1:19:13have a vacancy ordinance?" And I was

1:19:15like, "You know, a lot. We know." And I

1:19:17just said, "Well, how is it for you to

1:19:19do this program?" And and and she and

1:19:22she's just like she couldn't get past

1:19:24that we didn't have one. But then she

1:19:26was telling me how easy it is to

1:19:28administer and how much revenue it

1:19:30brings in and that it should be fine.

1:19:32You know, if you did just around the

1:19:34numbers to cover the costs of doing the

1:19:36the work. Um, and she was like, I'm

1:19:39happy to talk to your council or like

1:19:41I'm happy to engage in this because if

1:19:44if you need additional help. So that was

1:19:46just the reaction from the South

1:19:48Burlington inspector when I when I spoke

1:19:50with her. Other other questions for

1:19:52Rebecca on the substance of what's

1:19:53before us here?

1:19:57Yeah, Lauren and then Tim.

1:19:59>> Um, I mean I I think this is to me

1:20:02looking really good. I think a lot of

1:20:04the issues that we have talked about

1:20:05repeatedly have been addressed. I mean,

1:20:07one question just on this issue we've

1:20:09just been talking about if we delay fees

1:20:12for 18 months, but then we have like the

1:20:14biggest cost might be the startup. So, I

1:20:16guess just that would be just a city

1:20:18council conversation of like it's a

1:20:19short-term investment and figuring out

1:20:22the staffing if it's the building

1:20:24inspector, whoever is building the

1:20:26program, just knowing, but then long

1:20:28term it should be bringing in hopefully

1:20:30more than enough to be covering um and

1:20:33should be like a net positive for the

1:20:35city. So, it's just being willing to do

1:20:36that upfront cost if we do the delayed

1:20:38>> um fee structure, which you know for the

1:20:41community I think makes some sense. But

1:20:44um Tim and then Alex and then me.

1:20:46>> Okay. I think I mean I think the concept

1:20:49is important and good. So I'm not

1:20:51against it. Um I I think the at least

1:20:54the reality of my life in Montillar and

1:20:56my experience here over half a century

1:20:58is um things move slower here. I mean in

1:21:03the commercial sector

1:21:06is much slower than Chitten County and

1:21:08in other places it happens but it works

1:21:10at its own pace. So, I'm feeling like

1:21:12some of the timelines are may not seem

1:21:15aggressive because I know people want

1:21:17things when they want them, but it takes

1:21:19time to turn over properties here to

1:21:20find the next user that's the

1:21:22appropriate user for that space. Um, and

1:21:25even a three-year window,

1:21:28it it isn't that crazy to experience

1:21:30that here. I mean, look at some of the

1:21:32properties that you've seen on Main

1:21:34Street over time. Um,

1:21:36>> but you mean not being for sale for 3

1:21:38years?

1:21:38>> No, just being vacant. I mean, maybe for

1:21:41sale, maybe not, but just sitting there

1:21:42vacant. How long does it take?

1:21:44>> Well, so there be an exemption. If they

1:21:45were for sale, they would receive an

1:21:47exemption. So, I was just thinking about

1:21:49what what you meant by the three-year

1:21:50turnover.

1:21:51>> Yeah. I mean, just looking at things

1:21:52like what we've got coming through, you

1:21:54know, it's been over three years since

1:21:55the flood now, but even city hall just

1:21:58got an elevator and still hasn't done a

1:22:00lot of its renovations. So, technically,

1:22:02it's got space that's vacant.

1:22:04>> Um, maybe close to a third of its

1:22:06formula. Um, you know, if you just look

1:22:09at taking into account the fact that

1:22:12after the pandemic, the whole office

1:22:14market totally changed, not just here,

1:22:16but it took longer to get here than it

1:22:19did some other places. And we're now

1:22:20seeing the impacts of more people

1:22:22working from home and less need for

1:22:24office space. And so, yeah, there are

1:22:26vacancies around town more than there

1:22:28have been in the past. And I think it's

1:22:29a matter of how do we incentivize and

1:22:32help people to convert those that can be

1:22:34converted to residential or other uses.

1:22:37But it just all takes time and I guess I

1:22:40would say the concept is good. I'd like

1:22:42to see a little gentler timeline and the

1:22:46percentage 33 I don't know 33% 50%

1:22:51because our properties are also smaller.

1:22:54It's not like South Burlington where I'm

1:22:55sure they have a really fair number of

1:22:5840,000 square foot plus warehouse

1:23:00buildings and when those come up and

1:23:02just sit there, I'm sure they generate

1:23:03some good revenue for a while till they

1:23:05fill them.

1:23:06>> But um

1:23:08>> we don't have many of those here.

1:23:10>> It's a just a different we

1:23:12>> So your request is maybe raise the

1:23:15threshold of the trigger and extend the

1:23:18timelines.

1:23:18>> Yes,

1:23:19>> Alex. Um, I like Tim, I don't have any

1:23:24sort of in principle objection. Um, but

1:23:27I keep on thinking about the Jay

1:23:29Newberry building in Barry. I mean,

1:23:31they've had, you know, and that is super

1:23:33scandal. Um, and I'm wondering, I mean,

1:23:37I can't see

1:23:39a lot of money coming in. I mean, we

1:23:42don't have that many vacant properties

1:23:44and I don't think we have

1:23:48those particular owners active anymore.

1:23:52Um, but that was sort of a brazen

1:23:56I don't even know what you call it. Um,

1:23:58but it it sat empty for 15 years, right?

1:24:02Um, and there wasn't enough to convince

1:24:06them to do something about it. So,

1:24:10I'd be in favor of, you know, a longer

1:24:12term to accommodate the local conditions

1:24:15and then stiffer fines

1:24:18>> um so that that kind of thing doesn't

1:24:20happen.

1:24:22>> Okay. Um so, it sounds first off, thank

1:24:27you for your work. This has been a lot

1:24:29of iterations and a lot of work over

1:24:31like a year truly like we're giving you

1:24:34feedback. you're going out, you're

1:24:35calling every council member numerous

1:24:37times, getting feedback from them. The

1:24:38council had said they were interested.

1:24:40The council is interested in seeing

1:24:41this. They have indicated that multiple

1:24:43times now. So, we need to move something

1:24:47to them. Uh Lauren, did you have a

1:24:52>> Okay. So, we need to move something to

1:24:54them. The question is just do we move

1:24:56this as a concept, have a conversation

1:24:59with them, get their early feedback. Uh,

1:25:02and I think that's where I'm at. Instead

1:25:04of just like word smithing or you know

1:25:08going back around this again and again

1:25:10and again. I think I would just bring

1:25:12the proposal to them and say this is

1:25:16what it is, but you could go up on this

1:25:18threshold. You could extend the

1:25:20timeline. You could go increase the

1:25:22fees. Like there are different levers to

1:25:24consider and just get their directional

1:25:25feedback and then go back and based on

1:25:28their directional feedback get another

1:25:30thing for us to vote on. Lauren,

1:25:34>> yeah, I was going to recommend the same

1:25:36thing. I mean, they're going to have

1:25:38their own issues and they're the ones

1:25:40who ultimately decide, so us going back

1:25:42and forth doesn't seem like a good use

1:25:44of time. Um, but I think we could

1:25:46present it like you said and raise the

1:25:48issues that have been raised here and

1:25:50say, you know, we assume you'll want to

1:25:51talk through and think through these.

1:25:52Here are some things that, you know,

1:25:53came out in in the housing committee um

1:25:56and offer to be a resource to help think

1:25:58through if that's helpful to them or

1:26:00they might just hash it out themselves.

1:26:01>> Like it doesn't necessarily need to come

1:26:03back to us. It should just be like they

1:26:05should just figure it out because they

1:26:06have to decide. But if they're we can we

1:26:07can be a resource if that's helpful but

1:26:09we don't necessarily want to like say we

1:26:12need to see it again. I think it's more

1:26:14like if we can be helpful with a

1:26:16specific issue or something, but

1:26:17otherwise it might be better just leave

1:26:19it to them to

1:26:20>> Yeah. Like some decisions.

1:26:21>> We've done what they asked us to do.

1:26:23>> Yeah. It's

1:26:25>> Yeah, it's good. Um Ben, I

1:26:27>> think especially if if the city's

1:26:29worried about raising funds with a fee

1:26:31holiday.

1:26:32>> Yeah, this is going to fill the gap

1:26:34>> more than

1:26:35>> more than

1:26:35>> I would think. I don't know that. I

1:26:37mean, I don't

1:26:38>> I suspect you're right. I haven't done

1:26:39the numbers on that one, but like a lot

1:26:41of those I mean, you know, losing like

1:26:46unless unless there's some truly major

1:26:48commercial real estate stuff that

1:26:50happens that would generate a tremendous

1:26:54amount of um you know, development fees.

1:26:58I think other than that, I feel like

1:27:00this is probably going to raise more in

1:27:01a shorter term than than a fee holiday

1:27:05would lose. I suspect you're right, but

1:27:07we would we could we could look at that.

1:27:09Um, I would like to just bring it I

1:27:12would like to get a vote of this

1:27:13committee that we are comfortable moving

1:27:16forward the concept to the council that

1:27:18like we feel like we've done enough due

1:27:20diligence here that we can give them a

1:27:21proposal and then they so that they can

1:27:23decide on it. The vote does not mean you

1:27:26support the details all the details of

1:27:29this but you feel like the concept is

1:27:32baked enough to go to them. So, can we

1:27:36just do um

1:27:38>> could we do a straw proposal? A straw

1:27:40poll on the proposal as

1:27:43>> Why don't I do the concept and then I'll

1:27:44do the straw proposal on the actual

1:27:45substance? Okay. So, are people

1:27:47comfortable with the concept going to

1:27:48council? Can you show me I Okay. So,

1:27:51everyone's in favor of it going to

1:27:53council. Um can we do a straw proposal

1:27:55on the substance? So, you want to do a

1:27:58vote on the substance that's Yeah. Just

1:28:00just kind of a tentative vote on it.

1:28:02>> Yeah. Okay. All in favor?

1:28:04Yeah.

1:28:08Okay. So, we have a majority of that. I

1:28:10mean, I I might fiddle with it a little

1:28:13in different ways, but this is really

1:28:14thoughtful and we're clearly behind in

1:28:17this concept. This has been a thing

1:28:19that's been discussed in the

1:28:20gubernatorial debates um pretty

1:28:23extensively about a solution to our

1:28:25statewide housing issues that were

1:28:28feeling um immensely. And now that I'm

1:28:31hearing we're like the second worst in

1:28:33the nation, uh, this would be part of

1:28:36the solution there. I walked from my

1:28:38house all the way down, which is up on

1:28:40the back side of Berlin Hill, down to

1:28:42the high school the other day, and I

1:28:45counted six empty homes that I knew had

1:28:47been empty for over a year, uh, on my

1:28:50way down. Half of which were like

1:28:53falling apart, and the other half were I

1:28:55just knew were vacant. And I was

1:28:56thinking about this as I was I was on

1:28:58that walk. would love to see those um

1:29:01with people in them. Um thank you so

1:29:03much. We'll bring this to council. I'll

1:29:05talk to you about how we can do that.

1:29:06And can I have a motion to adjurnn? I

1:29:08think we're good. I'm going to follow up

1:29:10on email and then we'll we have the list

1:29:12of everything that we're going to do at

1:29:14the next meeting which is extensive.

1:29:15I'll follow up. We'll have our

1:29:17assignments. Um can I get a motion to

1:29:19journ?

1:29:22He's taking us out. Thanks, Ben. All

1:29:24right. And we're done. Thanks, everyone.

1:29:29Thank you, Ben.

1:29:30>> Yeah, thank you.