February 8, 2012

As I wrote last time I was away last week attending the ABA Mid Year Meeting. While I was gone the House passed the foreclosure rewrite, H. 403, and sent it on to the Senate. The House also passed the Uniform Principal and Income Act and that advanced to the Senate. After crossover I expect the Senate will begin working on both. The child support bill (S. 203) and the probate bill (S. 116) still need a bit of work in Senate Judiciary before heading to the floor. That should be done this week.
Yesterday the House Commerce Committee unanimously advanced H. 565, the licensed lender bill that we’ve been waiting for. I’m certain it will pass with no opposition and will do what I can to get it some attention in the Senate as soon as possible.
Also yesterday afternoon afternoon the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H. 600, the foreclosure mediation bill. The proponents, Vermont Legal Aid and the AG’s Office, are asking that mediation be extended to all foreclosures, although that is no longer part of the bill. I think the concept will go nowhere this year. We’re talking about a summer/fall ad hoc committee to see if the proponents and the lenders can come up with an agreement. The Vermont Bankers’ Association has committed to taking the lead on organizing that group.
I spent a good part of the morning in the Senate Natural Resources Committee yet again as they continued to work on the report from the NRB, specifically the recommendations to replace the E Court with a “professional board” and “modified” on the record appeals. Frank Kochman testified to his opposition to both changes, speaking mostly on behalf of the intervening landowner. He was followed by Environmental Law Section Chair Gerry Tarrant who sent out this summary of his testimony to Section members:
Well, we learned today that the Senate Bill (S.28) is apparently no longer viable. According to the Chair of the Committee the Senate is now focusing on adopting House Bill #513. I’ll need to get up to speed on it but two of the features are “on-the-record” review and a PSB model administrative panel instead of the court.
Today I was asked to speak on the PSB model. I outlined my knowledge of the Board, indicated the costs and procedures associated with it and explained that the reason that system works well is because the regulated companies financially support it with an annual tax. I explained that it probably works better for the utility rate case/service end of regulation and not so well for the environmental regulation because the PSB panel is geared to economic and accounting issues, not environmental sensitivities. The PSB model works well because the regulated companies are monopolies, agree to fund regulation and don’t often complain. That is not the case with neighbors, environmental groups, Chambers of Commerce and applicants. Further the PSB can essentially bring in the Department of Public Service and ANR for testimony so it can address many if not most of the issues without public intervention (though there is public intervention on the larger wind and generation/transmission projects.) I asked the committee members to take a look at the annual costs associated with the PSB before they became very serious about adopting it. There weren’t too many questions but I sense (and have heard) the Committee is split down the middle on both issues. I again heard the Governor is pushing the Chair to pass on-the-record review.
I sense this will play out more in the coming weeks. The Chair indicated people will be invited back. Legislation is very slow and repetitive but these two issues seem to have stuck with at least some members of the two Natural Resource committees and on-the-record seems to be more important with the Governor.Frank Kochman testified this morning. Ed Stanak testified. Both testified against on-the-record review.
Gerry
This morning I’ll be headed up to House Ways and Means as they continue to discuss two issues of importance to those of you who do real estate. There is an ongoing discussion of the tax department’s collection of the education tax and all the issues that may raise when trying to check tax status of property. They will also look at the HS-122 exemption and how far disclosure would apply. More on that after the hearing.
The energy disclosure bill is still showing some signs of life, this time in the Senate, again in Natural Resources. That is scheduled for discussion tomorrow.
Thanks for reading.