Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Welcome back, everyone. It is still 01/14/2026, and this is Committee on General and Housing. We are, this afternoon, going to introduce a number of bills, and the first of them is going to be introduced by our partner in crime, representative Michael Marcotte, who is the care of the House Committee on Economic Development. Michael?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: Asking. So for the record on my recollection the problem sheet, I was talking with the Department of Labor, know the different things that they were looking at to come forward. That was decent level leaders lined up here take care of the labor of UI, but I

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: was

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: when I saw the language, was really surprised that we didn't have language and a statute that made sure that people that were elected, that UI wasn't available to them, but apparently it's not in there. So I'd say that all of us as elected officials, we don't have the availability of unemployment insurance. Everybody that's elected that chooses to, in this realm, UI is not available to a 100 and a talent clerk. So that's what the bill was to do in discussing. You know, CT, I think there's language that needs to be tweaked in there, but that's basically what what it Well,

[Speaker 0]: when when and if and when, I would say probably more likely, when we pull this off the wall, we'll ask for testimony from them and deal with it. Okay, any questions? I have a question. Please

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: proceed. This might be a silly question. If, a town clerk is appointed? Is it specifically the election mechanism?

[Speaker 0]: So an appointed time clerk? At

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: that point you become your lawyer. There's that employer employee dynamic for UI, but you know when you're you don't have that dynamic when you're Every two years you're going to be up, so if your constituents decides that they want somebody else in the position, then should you be afforded UI? Think so.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And for those of the committee who don't know what UI is, could you really quickly explain that?

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: Sure, so unemployment insurance. It's a program to sure that people that lose their job through no fault of their own have back up to partial wage replacement until they can find another bill. Municipalities are generally reimbursable employers, which means that they don't pay into the system, but if they have employees that lose their job again through no fault of their own and they're given unemployment, they pay dollar for dollar. They just pay, they pay into the system. Right, it's generally a quarter behind.

[Speaker 0]: So, when you

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: say it's a quarter behind, meaning you would have to wait

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: So, it'll be paid one quarter, the next quarter you're going get the bill for that.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, any other questions?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: You can

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: stay and hang out if you want.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: For one year we were in, my committee was in here, my second year I was here. One year. No, not. No, it had to do with the chair had an operation and it didn't go well. It's not crunching. It's easier for it's much bigger.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Now you have all that beautiful natural lighting.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: This is true, we also have a lot of heat that comes in the tunnel, and it's not just from people coming in.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Okay, thank you. We're going to now hear from representative Connor Casey, who has three bills to present.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: So far, might have a few more coming to my

[Speaker 0]: hands. All

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: right, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. It's good to be back. I'm Connor Casey, I represent Montpelier here. I'm one of the co chairs of the Working Remoders Conference. Your ranking member, of course, would be another one, and Troy Hendrick from Burlington. So often, think, as Warren said explainer, a lot of the labor unions, other worker groups, will come to us at the beginning of the session if there's an issue and ask us to introduce bills on their behalf. So these would be three such. Would you like me to just go into it there, chair? Take it away. And I hope you have as few questions as you did during We're our just applying just

[Speaker 0]: in numerical order five forty eight, five fifty one, and five seventy.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Okay, let me begin by asking, do folks generally know what a mediator does in terms of collective bargaining? That's not something we need to refresh on. Okay, great. So H-five 48 would create a state labor mediator, which would be housed in this version of it, at the Vermont Labor Relations Board. And what this role would do is offer free neutral mediation when labor negotiations hit an impasse, right? This would apply to public and private sector labor disputes and small unions, small employers, large unions, employers as well there. So Vermont, until pretty recently had a federal mediator. This was a service that was provided. But with some of the cuts on the federal level that we've seen, this service has disappeared. And that puts us in a pretty bad quandary in Vermont here. Because when negotiations stall, parties are often left with litigation, strikes, lockouts, or very expensive stalemates. We've had a few over the last few years that you've heard about right in this committee here. But a mediator is usually gonna be the one who's condescending, but like the adult in the room, who would come in at the last five or 10% of the negotiation process before impasse or even after impasse, Meet with parties individually, right? Bring them together, do certain proposals, and just try to get this thing done, right? And this benefits both labor and I think if you take testimony on it, you'll hear employers come in and say, this was a valuable service for them. Because mediation is cheaper than lawsuits. And right now, if you wanna use the service of a mediator, you can have very small towns needing to foot the bill with the unions. And this can be thousands of dollars a day if you hire a private mediator. So that alone could take a toll on some of our local budgets or small employers. And I think it's something that we could really address here and do it the Vermont way. To avoid things like strikes, which are bad for workers, they're bad for the public. So, neutral third party helps cool both parties down, solve some of the problems there. It doesn't force agreements. It doesn't weaken collective bargaining. And it doesn't take sides. It's a completely neutral position. So, what this bill does would say basically at the state level, we're dealing with this now. And I'll try to get some data for you if you're interested. It's not like a ton of cases. It could be between ten and twenty a year. But think about nurses on strikes, school districts on strikes. This is way more costly than it would be to actually address this at the state level. Now, is the labor board the best place for it? They're already so fit. You know, I didn't know where else to put it, to be honest. But one thing I would not wanna do with this bill is take resources away from the

[Speaker 0]: labor board. Does it have an appropriation attached?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: It doesn't. No. It doesn't. I assume you'd be if you like it, you'd be sending it downstairs. Can

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I piggyback off of that?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Please.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What do you envision the FTE would be for this position?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Would that be pay sale? Yeah,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I mean, if it's Probably

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: a full time FTE.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: With 20 cases a year?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Yeah, it could be seven, could be 40, right? Yeah, it just depends. And of course, some of these linger, right, as we know?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Just out of curiosity, have you considered having a sort of a fund to contract out as cases may arise?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: There could be something to talk about. I'll be honest with you, I'm just bringing the issue because it's something we need to address, and I think we need to solve something.

[Speaker 0]: When did we lose the the federal media? JP Ismail, my AFL CIO executive director. That was part of the initial cuts that the Trump admin administration made. It wasn't was it Trump won?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: No. This No. This Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So we just lost the federal

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: We we just lost it. Yeah. I'm not sure what month or anything. But Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So I I yeah. Really welcome the conversation and I I'd be happy to to be somebody who starts brainstorming this because, again, I wanna I wanna emphasize this is for labor and management. Yeah. I sides would agree.

[Speaker 0]: You know? Is is the VLRB have you talked to them about it? No. Okay. They they they have yet. Alright. So we would if we took it off the wall, we'd take testimony. Great.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I believe there is a senate companion bill as well for this. Yeah. By senator Ramhansea, I believe. And my thoughts were similar to Rev Dodge about perhaps a contract mediator. And your bill and presentation just spurred something that I would like to flag for the committee that we haven't heard. We've heard a lot about the federal impacts on housing, but I'd like to also hear at some point some of the federal impacts on labor. And so perhaps JP or others, but I don't even

[Speaker 0]: know. That's an interesting

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't even know them. And so I know there are. So I would like to at least hear that sometime.

[Speaker 0]: We should bring that up on my view.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So, this is different, is it not? For example, a number of our processes involve a special master who has to be retained. That's not the same. This is a mediator who's an in house mediator, is available to the parties on a voluntary basis, right?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: You're exactly

[Speaker 0]: right. Okay. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions before he proceeds to 05:51?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Alright. I'll be quicker. Chair Emilie will have my hide number.

[Speaker 0]: Would like to hang out here because it's safer. No comment. It's a

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: hard one. Yeah. Love it. Okay. Yeah. Age five fifty one, overtime pay for firefighters. Let's say, I'll give you a snapshot of how that works now. Firefighters are exempt from normal overtime rules, because under federal law, they can work up to fifty three hours a week and get zero overtime. That's legal. 50 how many? 53. It's legal, but it's outdated. So what this bill would do is overtime would start at forty two hours. And once you hit that trigger, it's time and a half. And what that does is it recognizes that firefighters don't work like normal schedules here. So it narrows the exemption, but it doesn't eliminate it. And why forty two hours? ESPN, vice chair.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think it's ESP. Is.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Baby girl. Okay. Matter of fact, just don't work nine to five jobs there, so forty two hours reflects more their real world schedules, and that varies a little bit from firehouse to firehouse. I'm sure you'll hear that. But it avoids triggering over time.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, go on.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: It avoids triggering that over time every week. So it prevents municipalities from pushing people into the fifty three free hours there, in the one week there. So it's a middle ground, but I don't think it's extreme. So why would this matter? Obviously, human toll of this, the long hours that firefighters work and the real burnout that we're seeing there. Was talking to Chris, who's here from the firefighters union. I've done the overnights at the firehouse there. I've spoken to some of the folks in town and it's tough when you're asleep at night and you're just waiting. You can't have a pint after work sometimes, right? You might be called in. It's just like the everyday life is, we push people to extremes. So it helps experienced firefighters stay on the job. And it's really gonna help because I think you're seeing it in all your communities. We're definitely seeing it here. Firefighters are struggling with recruitment and retention. It's a tough gig. So, what does this bill not do? It doesn't affect volunteers, doesn't mandate forty hour overtime, does not override any union contracts. And that's important. So, right now, again, just to sum up firefighters can work up to forty three hours with no overtime. This bill says Vermont overtime should start at forty two before the exhaustion sets in.

[Speaker 0]: Current loss, fifty three hours.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Fifty three. Yep. Sorry.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: a question?

[Speaker 0]: Please do.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm curious. Well, first off, I would do anything for the firefighters. They are truly our greatest heroes. And so I would support this bill. I'm curious, are there other professions, like I think about nursing and others who work similar type Do you know of any other similarities to this bill that

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Do have any exemptions at the federal level that get you up to that?

[Speaker 0]: I think there are, right?

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: So Chris Newby, professional firefighters, Just to answer, personally I don't know that. Firefighters have been specifically exempted. The nurses most of them work three twelve hour shifts or whatever. They get overtime over 40, police get overtime over 40, but if you fail they understand they specifically carved out firefighters. I'm not going to have you research that,

[Speaker 0]: why they were carved out. Right,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: interesting. Yeah, well it sounds like we would like to fix that.

[Speaker 0]: I agree, Rebecca. Yes, if you can. Go ahead, please.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Are all, I think I asked

[Unidentified Committee Member]: this before, but I don't recall. Are all firefighters in Vermont employees or are there still volunteer firefighters?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Still volunteers, actually quite a few.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So, would, where does, is there a number of how many firefighters are paid versus volunteer? Is there data anywhere about that?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: I thought it was about 13 full time,

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: roughly. Right around, because I represent 13 IFS, there's one or two that are on IFS, I think about 300 full time employees for firefighters, for firefighting. Around the numbers, they don't have an accurate number on the volunteer side, in the range of 3,000 give

[Speaker 0]: or take. I mean, that's such a fluid group

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: to get the exact numbers,

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: but they're guessing approximately 500 guests is approximately 3,000.

[Speaker 0]: 3,000 volunteers and 300 full time.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Full time, correct.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: The volunteers a stipend?

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: It varies from municipalities and especially some get paid per call, some get paid minimal per hour, some are truly 100% volunteer.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, Ashley.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, was just going say, so Fairfax, for example, has one or two full time paid firefighters and then supplements the rest with volunteers. And that could be, you know, they come from Cambridge, Jericho, St. Albans, Georgia, and a lot of other municipalities are very much like that as well.

[Speaker 0]: Any further questions on 5 '51? Yes.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: How's this going to be affected by your next bill you're going to talk to us? So

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: you're saying you want to pass them off?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think we'll need to talk

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Well, great evening to my next bill, age five seventy. This is a daily overtime pay. And this is a conversation starter, right? And several unions. And I've spoken about the need just to have this conversation and we'll talk about how it works now. Overtime is based almost entirely on weekly schedules, so like forty hours a week, right? But if someone can work a twelve to fourteen hour day. I'd say many of us at the table have had jobs where we worked double shifts, like people in that, and get no extra pay if they stay under the forty hours a week. So, you're working a couple of twelve hour days in a row, that's pretty rough. Overtime, what this bill does is, overtime sets in after eight hours a day, a time and a half, and then it would trigger double time once you hit the twelve hours in a day. So it still keeps the weekly rules in place there, but it focuses on the long days, not just the weeks. And that's kind of the genesis of this bill. We need to talk about those long days, right? That people are working. And I think they're doing it more than ever. Why does it matter? It's fatigue, it's injuries, it's burnout. And it discourages employers from relying on extreme shifts. It encourages smarter scheduling and safer workplaces. If you look at where the statute refers you after the bill, but it's not in the bill itself, there's a million exemptions in this. So that's really why it's a conversation starter. Because if you're blocking out retail workers, if you're blocking out some of the I bet these guys are in it as well, of course, right? You're talking a pretty limited group. But I think the conversation to be had in the committee process is who it should apply to, right? Because I think, like, hopefully we can all agree that it's not ideal to have somebody working fourteen hours a day. I'm useless after, to be honest.

[Speaker 0]: Are you saying that there's existing statute to the section this bill would amend. There are many exceptions.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: My bill doesn't tell the whole story, there's a ton of exemptions, yeah.

[Speaker 0]: But it needs to be a conversation about exemptions, yes.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Currently, current law is that an employer can choose to pay overtime after eight hours, correct?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Sure, and obviously some unions would have contracts that would specify what the overtime is.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What about the employees who say want to work for ten hour days because they want three days on the weekend? I mean, I can tell you, as someone who's my entire career has been in HR, I've had many employees come to me saying, I want longer weekends.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: It can be a great arrangement. I agree with you. I'd actually prefer it most of the time myself, but I think that can be something that you specify in the bill. Certainly, I've had a couple employees since I introduced the bill say, I love my four to ten hours a day there. And we don't wanna take that away from people, especially if it's negotiated with the employer there. But I would hope it would be a voluntary thing rather than mandating that.

[Speaker 0]: Is sorry. Go ahead.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I just have one last question. How did you come up with double after twelve?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Looking at that, California was the one that just spearheaded this. So that that was the legislation, I believe

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Has it been passed in

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: any way? California.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Just California?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: I think just California at the moment though.

[Speaker 0]: What's the relationship between the bill's idea and contracts? People's input, what they've negotiated.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Yeah, wouldn't say it's super ceding a contract, like, employees

[Speaker 0]: Or labor contract.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: Employees routinely trade away benefits in this, this would set the floor for it as you go into negotiations.

[Speaker 0]: Right, and then they could have a contract that provides otherwise. Questions?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: All right. All right.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: It's always a pure pleasure.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, wait. You are That's it, right.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Montpelier)]: I think that's right, I'll just hand the hall, give it back anytime, folks. I'll pass it on.

[Speaker 0]: We have one more. Are you gonna let Teresa know? What are gonna do? No, it's Krasnow. She's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: x-ray fixed.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, mine's out of mine. 575

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, 607. It wasn't freaking Don't look at that. It's seven, which is the private equity housing. But she just stepped out.

[Speaker 0]: As members of the public, we're taking a little break while we wait for the sponsor of the bill, who also happens to be a member of the ranking member of the committee to appear.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: In case anybody is wondering,

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I am.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: There is exactly one month until pictures and catchers. Sharon. Let's take another look.

[Speaker 0]: Is she? Why don't we yeah, let's go offline until we find her.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Think they do it from this. I believe budget Oh. Is

[Speaker 0]: We'll come back when Okay. We have Are we off? No. It's the green one, you think? No.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: She's coming? Yeah, that's the question. Oh, okay, great.

[Speaker 0]: You got to sit in the chair. I'm getting my notes. Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Hello?

[Speaker 0]: Hello? Representative Krasnow, H607. Hello,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: committee. I think Miriam was going to look for me, but hello. Yes, rep Emilie Krasnow. And I'm here today to introduce H-six zero seven, a bill grounded in a simple but urgent principle. Home should first and foremost be homes, not financial instruments. Across Vermont, families are doing everything right. They are working, saving, and trying to put down roots in the communities they love. We do not want folks being outbid, not by neighbors, but by large, well capitalized institutional investors who can move faster, pay more, and absorb losses in ways no individual household can. We have a housing market that feels increasingly out of reach and increasingly detached from the people who live and work here. H-six zero seven is a targeted balance tool to add to the work we are doing around housing. This bill does not ban institutional investment. It does not interfere with nonprofit housing providers, community land trusts, or public housing efforts. And it does not penalize small landlords or Vermonters who own a few rental properties. Instead, it draws a clear and responsible line around large institutional real estate investors, entities with substantial assets pooled investor capital and ownership of multiple single and two family homes. First, the bill establishes a ninety day waiting period before these large institutional actors may purchase single or two family homes. This ensures that ordinary buyers, first time homeowners, working families, and local residents have a genuine opportunity to compete in the marketplace before large scale investors step in. Importantly, this applies only after a home has been listed publicly, preserving transparency and fairness in the process. Second, H-six zero seven addresses

[Speaker 0]: Wait minute, I gotta ask you a question.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Of course, Chair.

[Speaker 0]: Because So, I've read the bill, I've forgotten this. So an institutional investor has to wait ninety days from public offering for sale. Right. So, other words, they can't just make a deal without a sale with the individual's property owner.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Cameron is not here to answer, so I want to make sure that I have an accurate

[Speaker 0]: But that would be probably your attention, right? That they have to in other words, if you're going to presume transparency, the idea would be you have to wait ninety days from a public offering.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right, because the intent is to let people, not corporations, have the first stop at the listing.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: Okay, so does this preclude a landowner selling directly to an event? Yeah. Because they have, I mean, they advertise all over the place, all over buying

[Speaker 0]: homes. So

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: does this require that the property be listed publicly? Because the quick workaround is we just, you know, we'll advertise on every diner placemat in the state and they'll call us, we'll buy it,

[Chris Newby (Professional Firefighters of Vermont)]: and they'll never be on the market.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sure, and there are a few other, as we continue to discuss this bill, there are a few other loopholes that I have since thought about that are flagged in my eyes and there are not guardrails for. So, if we decided to take up this bill, I have some things that I would like to discuss, and it sounds like others would like to discuss as well as flags for that. Yes, I believe vice chair had a question.

[Speaker 0]: Did you have a question?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Was. Got it. Perfectly. Yes. Okay. So we are on, okay. Second, age six zero seven addresses a quieter but equally consequential issue, tax policy. Under current law, institutional investors often receive generous depreciation and interest deductions for homes that are functionally removed from the owner occupied market. These tax advantages can make it more profitable to hold homes as long term rental assets than to sell them to families who want to live in them. This bill corrects that imbalance by eliminating depreciation and interest deductions for covered properties owned by institutional investors, while still preserving exemptions when homes are sold to owner occupants or nonprofit affordable housing organizations. In other words, we are aligning our tax codes with our housing values. Vermont is not alone in grappling this challenge. Across the country, states alike, our legislators are recognizing that unchecked institutional consolidation of single family housing undermines affordability, community stability, and long term economic resilience. States and cities are exploring waiting periods, rights of first refusal policies, tax reforms, and enhanced reporting requirements to ensure housing markets serve people first. H. Six zero seven places Vermont squarely within this growing national effort while tailoring the solution to our state's scale, values, and legal framework. At its core, this bill is about fairness. It's about ensuring that Vermont's housing supply is not quietly drained away by financial strategies that were never designed with communities in mind. I look forward to working with the committee to examine the impacts of institutional ownership in our housing market and to refine this proposal with shared goal of keeping Vermont's communities livable, stable, and accessible for the people who call them home. And I also, one question I may receive that I will preemptly, we are not the first state to do this and I did not reinvent the wheel. This legislation is completely modeled after New York's law that is a law, it passed. It has not been in effect, for many years, but it is not a new concept. There's also multiple legislation that has been introduced in Congress around this topic and has a very broad coalition of support from President Donald Trump to Senator Bernie Sanders. A very broad coalition of people who want to put people over profit in this

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: arena. Yes. I think it's fascinating, and I appreciate you bringing this to the committee because we've been sitting in this committee, and I don't think we've really had the opportunity to talk about private equity and how it affects our housing market. That said, do we have any data on what that looks like? And maybe I've just missed it in testimony or

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Excellent question. And that was my, when I first, two years ago when I actually have had this bill in the works for a couple years, but pulled it last year because we were busy. We still are busy, but it seemed like if I'm gonna do it, I'm just gonna roll with it. So I went with it this year. But that was my first question as I started digging into it. I know that we have lots of national data, and I'm happy to present that. But no, it hasn't come up in committee. And I think a lot of us have those questions. So after I started to meet with data analysts from Vermont to talk about it, and unfortunately, like many housing things that we have here, we don't have the refined data of how many of the entities that are defined under this bill that we have in Vermont. But like many of the bills I introduced, they are preemptive so that we don't become. And as we continue to build housing, which I personally would want to do, I would love a lot more housing that we need. I wanna make sure that Vermont doesn't become a target for this kind of investment that we've seen across the country. So, while other states may have more refined data of these types of entities, Vermont doesn't have. However, I will, if we take up the bill, I will be able, it won't be me, but I have people who work for data organizations in Vermont who can present data that isn't as finely tuned for this exact entity, but they can kind of suss out some of it. And then I also have some folks who can testify from different towns or cities and municipalities who have done some of their own research and data on this. So we may be able to kind of put together some things from that, but we won't be able to have a refined data on this exact amount. But it is something that's important because I believe in data driven policy. So that was one of the first things that I've wanted to see. So anecdotes are fine and we'll have plenty if we take testimony, but we're gonna have to work together to really figure that out. But it's also about prevention. And similar to other bills that are introduced like the animal cruelty one across the hall, it's also about preventing this from being a target.

[Speaker 0]: I have heard anecdotal evidence that in certain places in Vermont, this is a real problem. People come up to me and say, God in our town, we have all these vacant homes that are owned by some company that's just letting them stand vacant for the moment. But one of the things just for the committee, we have had conversations with Chair Marc Cott of the House Economic Development Committee about whether we should hold joint hearing on this. It's a bill that cuts across a number of issues including taxation, as Emilie mentioned. Emilie, who was ledge counsel on this?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, we have two. Who? Cameron.

[Speaker 0]: And John?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Nope, it's Cameron and Kirby. And, yeah, so Cameron did the portions of the waiting period and the overall policy pieces, and then Kirby did the taxation. And again, I do not like to reinvent the wheel with bills I introduced, so it's very much exactly modeled after another state. And multiple states, as we speak, are also considering similar legislation. So if we take up the bill, we can look at different approaches and refine it to people's liking, if that's to their choosing. But I really wanted to just introduce this conversation. And as Rob Bartley mentioned, the conversations about private equity haven't really been talked about a lot in the building and they're across a lot of different sectors, whether in our all member grouping, we've heard about healthcare, my veterinarian is recently purchased by a private equity company. So I really wanted to start the conversation in the building about private equity and what that means for Lamont So that was another reason I introduced the bill, and because housing is where I reside and where I had heard the most from constituents or other people about issues that they're encountering. Another place that I wanted to flag that is happening in is in manufactured housing and mobile home communities. That was flagged for some folks that I met with at the folks from the Housing Finance Agency, as well as across the country. There's a lot of articles and videos about how they're being targeted and bought up their whole communities by these private investors. Then they're jacking up the rents and becoming a monopoly so that people can't own them.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Go ahead, Gayle. So because there is a statute that when the park is going up for sale, that the homeowners have the right, what is it called? Right of first refusal. Right, however when they're too small is when the problem is. When there's not somebody who will finance and then they don't get to the table, then it's the developers, the speculative that

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: scoop it up.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, so that's a problem that has been happening now across the country with the Great Rise. So again, if we decide to take up this bill, I have people who can show the data and statistics as best we have in most cases.

[Speaker 0]: Any further questions from members of the committee? I think this is an interesting area myself. And the fact that we don't have data. When I look at short term rentals, for example, there's a lot of concern about short term rentals. But the fact is we're kind of several years too late in the sense that most of to the extent we wanted to do more than we've done, the explosive growth in short term rentals is pretty much over and the markets, if anything, softening a little. And so, it's kind of leveled off, but so the fact that, I don't know how big a problem this is in Vermont and if we take testimony, I guess we're going to find out a little more, but I'd hate to wait until it is a big problem when it's too late and determined that we wanted to do something.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's my concern, is I'd rather be proactive in protecting for Vermonters and making sure that Wall Street isn't targeting us like they are in other states and that we remain open to folks having the first shot at housing and building the equity in their lives and not corporations.

[Speaker 0]: So we will continue discussions with If we decide to take this off the wall, we will continue discussions with the Commerce Committee on this Krasnow Trump bill.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Can I just make a comment?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Please.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I think this happened in St. Johnsbury. It was an apartment building like 55 and up. Somebody bought it and they kept it for, like, maybe a year and a half, and then they sold it for a million dollars more than what it was worth. And the new homeowners made it for everybody. It wasn't 55 and up any longer. And I know someone who lives there, and and the landlords do not take care of the building. She had to make I told her, make an appoint make a complaint to the health inspector. You know, half of her apartment had electricity, the other half did not. And then they had laundry in the basement and they our our citizens that like doing drugs would break into the basement and hang out there. So you go down to do your laundry. You have no idea how many needles you're gonna come across because it's like the landlord just didn't care. So, you know, she she had a fight for stuff. She got stuff done, but it's not how it should be. That's my comment.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks, Debbie. Thank you, Debbie.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. There are gonna be, like, definitions of, what that means and who I'm just thinking about when we're talking about private This is all new to me, this language. And when we're talking about corporations, or I don't even know I've always used the language of developers.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right? Yeah, so I'm like, is there gonna be some language

[Unidentified Committee Member]: around what are corporations, how do you determine what size, are we talking about Vermont based companies and things like that? Just because I know just locally in Chittenden and other counties of, you know, some folks who do own quite a bit of property. And so how do you determine what is considered a corporation and how much, and how do you quantify that? Is that in

[Speaker 0]: there already or will that

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: be something that we discussed? We're not having to walk through, but that was another one of my I represent South Burlington. So we think about the folks that the LLC landlords, the big companies. And again, I do wanna make clear, this isn't for developers. So they can go nuts. This is for single family. This is for like house, housing. Okay. And it is very tightly defined and it is very large. We're keeping

[Speaker 0]: If anything, perhaps, because it was modeled on New York.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's so cheap. Well, you know, I said this earlier when I introduced a bill across the hall and they were like, oh, we want this. So, folks, I introduced a bill, I feel like it belongs to the committee. And so, what you folks, I am also on the committee. So I'm not completely removed from this.

[Speaker 0]: That's what do you mean you?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But I said across the hall, if you like things better, I think committees often, sometimes, make bills better.

[Speaker 0]: We always make.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We always do, of course. But some, you know, anyways, so as we continue to discuss bills, we will pick apart, we can tailor, we can increase, we can decrease, we can do whatever, you know, is our pleasure after after testimony and other things. But yes, it is a bit Cameron, if we take up the bill at some point, that is the section that is critically important to this bill because it is absolutely not the, folks here that are having the, even big companies here, it's not them. It's very tightly defined, modeled after New And like our chair said, I believe that it is an appropriate comparison, but some might want to see it stricter. I don't know. So we'll kind of discuss that. But this is really a starting point, you know, but yes, and there's a whole section on definitions and it's very robust. It's really for those huge corporations, that come in and buy up, from out of state, like Wall Street versus Main Street.

[Speaker 0]: The ones that lost four percent of their stock value right after Trump announced that he thought it was a good idea. And

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I also, if you look at the time stamps of when bills are introduced, mine was before that.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: That's actually correct. Not consistent. Sure,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: that works better.

[Speaker 0]: But yes, you have to

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: put in bills. Actually put this in two years ago because I modeled it after Congress bills.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Will, one of the things, just again, to tell the committee in conversations I've had, I talked to the chair and the vice chair of Commerce, and Emilie is working with the Vice Chair of Commerce to think about when we could hold joint hearings. Part of the problem is there's a lot of people who are going to be interested in this bill Developers, the finance community, banks, the chamber, certainly, but probably the I don't know that VLCT won't have anything to say. I could record a report, I don't even know. Anyway, seriously, I think the Lake Champlain Chamber, so there's going to be the Department of Financial Regulation, administration, we're going to have to I mean, is not if we decide to take this up, we have to be willing to devote some substantial period of time to it. It's not an easy little targeted bill.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I just really appreciate the discussion and presenting it to all of you, and regardless of what happens, I think it's something that I hear about from constituents and other legislators have come and talked about it, like hearing from constituents those concerns. It's not like a pie in the sky situation.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Okay, any further questions?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Back to my Thank

[Speaker 0]: you Emilie. Oh, thank you, Gayle. At this point, we are finished with our direct testimony for the day. Floor is not until three. Our agenda just shows committee discussion. The only thing I want to say is a couple of things. One is about tomorrow. We kind of are resuming briefly our general discussion, and what we decided to do was to bring in Mike Derochers, who's the Director of Fire Safety, to talk about how they address safety building permit issues in Vermont. I mean, what their relevance is, how that applies here. Vermont is a little unusual in that it has no statewide building permit that applies to single family homes. There is no statewide enforcement of energy codes, which you've heard testimony about. There is statewide enforcement of multifamily residential and commercial, which Mike does, and so this will be a chance for us to get to hear from him about that, and we have someone from the League of Cities who we know well, who has been with us before to join him. Then, remember we brought up the issue, the problem that I mentioned to you having to do with Section eight housing. This is not part of our initial set of bills. This is kind of an urgent situation that has developed, and it is the slow, not so slow, but relatively slow continuous decline in the number of section eight vouchers that we have. These vouchers are the ones that make up the difference between what an individual can afford and what the market is, and we've been in this slow decline, it's this sort of downward spiral, and what we have is a proposal which is going before the Appropriations Committee to have a one time appropriation through the Budget Adjustment Act, and there's extra money we could use to do that, and the purpose of the appropriation is not to sort of just throw at this program, it's a one time appropriation designed to make sure that next, this is always done by calendar year, that next calendar year when HUD sits down to decide what is Vermont's share of the pie going to be, whatever the size of the pie, it increases our share. It's a one time technical injection of cash to make sure that our share of future appropriations is as big as it can be. There were a number of questions that were asked by you guys when we brought this up. Joe asked questions about what would happen if the money wasn't used or would it be used, and so, and at the request, because of that and at the request of the Appropriations Committee, we are going to take testimony on the subject, and the first witness will be Kathleen Burke again, who can test it. Kathleen knows this whole program inside and out, but also we're going to have two members of municipal housing authorities. We're going to have Joe Troiano, who's the executive director of the Montpelier Housing Authority, and Kevin Loso, who's the executive director of the Rutland Housing Authority, come and testify this briefly. I've urged them to be briefed, just address this specific issue. What I will do is I will bring to the committee a letter to the appropriations committee. Remember, we do a letter on the budget. This will just be on the BAA, which says, as I will draft it, that we support this, and then the committee can debate and decide whether it wants me to send that letter or not. So that's that's what's happening tomorrow. Our first hearing is at 9AM sharp. Please, everyone, try to be here. We had trouble today getting quorum and we need the quorum. And in fact, it's better if everybody's here. The other thing I just want to repeat is that the three of us are getting together and going over every bill that's on the wall in an attempt to produce for you a recommendation as to what we're going to take off the wall and what we're going to hear and sort of in order. Some of the bills on the wall, like for example, my bill, the one I introduced, which had to do with correcting just a technical correction of labor law, probably I don't think we would take testimony, we'd probably just, well, we'll take testimony, but it would be our counsel, it's easy. Others of them, like Emilie Krasnow, for example, are very consuming and we'll just have to, so we're going to produce a preliminary recommendation. It has to be preliminary because there's still bills coming in and we can't, you know, there's any number of bills coming in, but it's sort of, we need enough so that we can start having hearings. You know, we don't have to plot out our entire next three months or whatever, but we do need to sort of have enough to get started. So that's all I have to say. Is there any discussion or any other member who wants to chat? Yes. So what's your time frame

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: for that and when are you having the discussion?

[Speaker 0]: It's probably Wednesday. We're meeting Tuesday. A week from today? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're meeting Tuesday. We didn't want to do it right away because we still have bills coming in, and in fact, a number of the bills, what might be larger bills aren't in yet, so we have to We also are going to hear, as many of you may know, the administration has put in a bill, that is a bill on, it's a combination of land use through FACT two fifty and housing. It's very much like, it's not like, but it's a much shorter version, but do you remember last year?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: There's really nothing new in the administration's bill, there should be no shocks.

[Speaker 0]: Yes, there's no shocks, but last year, do you remember the administration developed an 80 some page thing, and it wasn't referred to this committee, it was referred to the environment committee. So it wasn't on our wall. But nonetheless, none of it had to do with housing, but we asked them to come in and talk about it. And we're going to do that with this as well. We'll have the author, if she wants to come in and present it, and we'll ask Alex Farrell to come in and talk about it. It's not on our wall, we're not hearing it, but I figured we should at least know what's in it. I agree. And so, next week, after we meet, we'll be back to you with an idea of what do we start with, what are the first things, and everybody can react.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I was going say too, since there's a slow trickle, as usual, if there are bills that folks in the committee have coming that folks might not know about, they could give a heads up. Right? Like, I don't know what the timeline is for the trickle, but, like, you know, if there's things that you might wanna, like, be like, oh, this is coming, and maybe I can introduce it and talk to the committee, you know?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, definitely. Like, I'll give you an example in my case. I've been working on a landlord, a kind of large landlord tenant bill, which I believe today will finally be in quasi bill form, but it hasn't been introduced yet, and it might not be introduced until next week or the week after, but I know it's there and I'll put it down. If you guys, any of you has a bill that you think this is clearly coming to housing, tell us about it and we'll put it on the list for next week. Even if it hasn't been introduced yet, at least we'll know it's kind of out there.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's what I was saying,

[Speaker 0]: because

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: it's a trickle.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I mean, we have Tom and I, and I guess you guys are on a rural finance bill, which is, you know, rural housing finance, that hasn't been introduced. It will be soon, but it hasn't been. Those are big bills, and similarly, anything you've got, we need to know.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Marc?

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I I sent you

[Speaker 0]: You have a bill.

[Rep. Michael Marcotte (Chair, House Commerce & Economic Development)]: Have two

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I have two one has to do with swatting

[Speaker 0]: Yes.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Mainly because somebody asked for it. So I said sure. And and also looking at the eviction process for nonpayment of rent and lease violation.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Now the non pay or is either of those bills has either of those bills been introduced or are they still in drafting?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: They're not in drafting. They've been brought to the next level. Waiting to be assigned, I guess, is

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So, yeah, any day any day now.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I've seen the text of your bills. I just haven't seen a printed version yet. We know about those.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: So just let us know, we're meeting Tuesday afternoon and we'll go through everything and then come back to you guys probably on Wednesday. Anything else that people would like to bring up? This is our time. You do.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, guess I did already, but I'm going bring it up again. I would like an update if we have time at some point to hear from someone on some of the federal impacts on labor.

[Speaker 0]: Labor. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: At least I I can find someone in the way but I'm curious. Right? Right. I don't know. Great.

[Speaker 0]: Anything else, guys? Great. Hearing no one, let's adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine a.