I’ve been camped out in the House Judiciary for the last two
days following discussions on S. 119, amending perpetual conservation easements
and H. 88, the PR&R bill I wrote about last week. The committee took some
preliminary testimony from Darby Bradley on 119 with the chair commenting on
the length of the bill and searching for the reason why it is necessary. Darby
told the committee there are rules on amending easements in current law and
there exists some uncertainty with the IRS re: donated or charitable deduction
parcels. He is hoping to create a system people can have confidence in,
comprehensive enough to satisfy IRS concerns that Vermont’s system protects
state and federal interests. This bill has a long way to go on the house side
even though it already passed the senate last year. There are fees and
appropriations in the bill that require review by at least two other house
committee before it can hit the floor.
Yesterday afternoon and this morning the committee focused
on H. 88. As I reported last week there remain substantial questions about the
bill although the committee seems to be coming together on a final product. All
I can give you now is the lsit of questions that are still being asked. I
expect the next draft will contain a statement of purpose saying that the bill
is meant to protect a victim from continued contact and or harassment from her
abuser. The issue of whether the bill should apply to statutory rape is still
an open one but, given the discretion of the court, I expect it will read
“sexual assault” and not be limited to violent acts. The same logic would then
apply to the gender issue which sits just below the surface. There is still an
issue of how w hearing is to be conducted. We do know that it will be held in
the family division but today there was a suggestion that, upon conviction in
the criminal division, a victim could move that court to issue the order. I’m
not sure where the judiciary would be on both these options.
Yesterday I notified the Property Law Section of two bills
that would create a de minimus exemption to the licensed lender law
requirements. Those bills are H. 594 and H. 639. Some of you may have an interest
in H. 642 which would eliminate jury trials on traffic ticket appeals.
Check out H. 586 here: http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/bills/Intro/H-586.pdf
From the summary of the Bill
Beginning January 1, 2015, the Secretary of
Natural Resources would be required to permit discharges of regulated
stormwater runoff from the development redevelopment, or expansion of
impervious surface equal to or greater than one-half acre.
That is going to significantly expand the
jurisdiction as well as the permit issues. There are a lot of residential
lots that are ½ acre. Looks like it is going to be by rule, see Page
22-23 of the as proposed bill.
This is the best part though – a statewide fee:
§ 1293. WATER RESOURCES
PRESERVATION FEE
(a)(1) The Secretary shall establish by rule a
fee, known as the Water
Resources Preservation fee, on all developed
property in the State for the
support of the Water Resources Preservation
Program and its purposes as set
forth under section 1292
of this title. Property exempt from taxation under
32 V.S.A. § 3802, 32
V.S.A. chapter 135, or by municipal vote shall not be exempt from assessment of
the fee under this section. The fee on developed property shall be assessed in
proportion to the property’s area of impervious surface, provided that the
Secretary may establish a default fee for residential developed property based on
the average estimated 1 horizontal impervious surface area for a single-family
residential unit in Vermont. The default fee for residential developed property
shall not exceed $50.00 per year per parcel of property.
I’m heading back up to
committee shortly where I expect the judiciary will be asking to make the
temporary surcharge on filing fees permanent. That surcharge, as you may recall,
was added after restructuring in 2010, effective (I believe February 1, 2011). That
fee is set to sunset on June 30th unless re-enacted. More on this
after today.
Thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment