Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Ashley Bartley]: Great. We are switching gears again. We've had a lot of schedule changes today, so we'll be kind of going back and forth. There'll be some testimony and then a bill introduction a little bit later. So again, just thank you to the committee for being flexible. We now have Kaya Morris, who's with the Land, Access and Opportunity Board, and she will be testifying on H-seven 72, an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program. Thank you so much. I don't believe you've come to our committee before, so we'll really quickly go around and introduce ourselves and then give you the floor. Thank you. Dodge. I wanna start. Sorry.

[Leonora Dodge]: Hi. Leonora Dodge. We've met before. Essex Town, city of Essex Jackson. Hope you're doing well.

[Joseph Parsons]: Joseph Parsons, Newbury Thompson, Frotten. I, Tom Charlton, Athens, Chester, Drafton, then Windham.

[Leonora Dodge]: Debbie Dolgin, St. Johnsbury, Concord and Kirby.

[Ashley Bartley]: Gayle Pezzo, Chittenden 20, Colchester.

[Mary E. Howard]: Mary Howard, Rutland City, District 6. Saudia LaMont,

[Ashley Bartley]: Lamoille, Washington District, welcome. Ashley Bartley, Fairfax, Georgia, and we have our lovely Brent Burrows on Zoom.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Good morning, Kaya. I am at home in Windsor One, Heartland West Windsor in Windsor.

[Kaya Morris]: Great, thank you all. Hi everyone. For the record, my name is Kaya Morris. I am the Secure Housing Coach for the Land Access and Opportunity Board. As a private citizen, I am a resident of Colchester, Vermont. So I was asked today to come and speak to the overarching themes of what's happening in July, which I see as kind of a growth that's come out of previous legislation. I believe that Representative Lamoille and several others signed on to one, it was four forty. So there's kind of like a comparison and contrast to, I think, trying to address some different issues that are coming up with regards to landlord tenant relations. Now, I know it is slightly unconventional in its own way, and it's sort of novel to have both myself speaking as I am representing, I'm recognizing all the hats that I wear within this building and within the communities, but also typically we have Ornella Mata Figueroa and Jean Hamilton, who are the co directors, who are typically our advocates in this space. However, I was asked to come speak today as I have direct personal experience with navigating some of the issues that these bills are both trying to address. So it is of great importance for the Land Access and Opportunity Board, as you all are familiar with them as an entity and familiar with the work that we do, that we are really trying to increase the ability for communities that have been left out of opportunities to both have access to land and to housing to do so in a meaningful, dignified way that increases our economic viability and creates opportunities for lasting relationships and people being able to feel that the place that they live, work and play is of their own. What we've seen happen within the housing market, as you all are very aware as well with these bills, is that we've seen a lot of artificial pressures that have created a powder keg of experiences that people have had that have made it seem in some ways untenable to live here in Vermont, unless you are a property owner. So as we are looking at expanding our housing opportunities, as we're looking at building new properties, these types of authority questions are very, very important and the LEOB definitely has an invested stake in seeing how these develop. So I'll speak to you now from my personal experience as it relates to these bills and some of the things that are being proposed, if I may be given permission to do that.

[Ashley Bartley]: Absolutely.

[Kaya Morris]: Thank you. So I've been living in Vermont since 2008, so we're coming close to my twentieth anniversary of being in this great state. And in the year 2020 was a time of great displacement for my family. And we moved up into the Chittenden County region, as this was an area that we wanted to move to and try to start a new life up in this part of the state coming from Southern Vermont, where we had been for several years prior. What I want you to understand about why that is important is that we came into an opportunity to rent a beautiful space. It was brand new construction. We were literally the first tenants. And this was a property that was owned by a property owner who has several pieces of property across Vermont, but does not actually reside here. They reside in the, I believe, near the Baltimore area. So all the same, they own a nice swath of properties in the Mallets Bay community over in Colchester, Vermont. What happened was we all came in and many of us, some people have been living there for various points of time, but there came a point in the housing market when you started to see all of these no cause evictions taking place, as you're well aware. You saw this sort of explosion of sudden landlords saying, We want to sell our properties, we want to raise our rents, we want to find ways to use the mechanisms that are there to make our business interests work out for the best in a way that was really divorcing the fact that there were human beings and people that had human and civil rights and experiences in that whole process. It was a frenzy. Was literally a frenzy. And I came back from work and found my neighbors surrounding my car, knowing that I'd done much work in political advocacy and asking, Oh my gosh, are we all being evicted? Because everyone had received a vacate, I noticed a vacate. There were over a dozen homes in that one area, and this is actually something that's happened a few times with this family in the past, that have owned these properties of sort of like upheaving the whole community and then putting new folks in there again. So, this was not terribly unfamiliar, to housing advocates at the time. But everyone received this sort of janky notice to vacate that didn't really have anything. There was no certifications on it at all, no notarized at all. Just told, We're not renewing your lease because we're selling the property. This left all of these people in this one little tight knit community to have to then scramble to try to find housing in an untenable market. So my family was part of that group. We were given an option for first right of refusal to purchase, but really saying, Can you now purchase this $800,000 valued home after renting it for a year without notice in a way that gives you the ability to start building the type of capital that can enable you stay in the place that you were calling home? Absolutely impossible. So people scrambled, they purchased properties under duress, they were not the ones, they didn't get to buy their dream homes, they bought what was available, because this is what we saw happen. Then just a few years later in another rental property, once again, trying to find a place that we can call home. And I understand as well that I have a child who is a youth, who is autistic, and had been through severe PTSD through many different things that had happened in his young life. And so having a sense of place and a home was really truly important. And it is a value that you hear from the disability community that is really crucial for feeling stability within one's life experience. We were once again faced with a situation where this landlord have their own personal reasons as to why they wanted to do this, but gave a quick notice to vacate. You're going to need to leave. We cannot renew your lease. Again, once again, which seems reasonable in a reasonable market, in a reasonable rental marketplace, in a reasonable housing purchase opportunity space, those things were not actually available. We know they have not been. Those pressures have been too great. So once again, scrambling to try to find a place, recognizing that the child might have to be removed from the school where they had been receiving direct supports through their IEP, recognize all of that upheaval that was gonna happen again, and then finding another place. Then once again, again, paying substantial rents for a space in Burlington, and within less than a year, once again, be giving another notice to vacate because we're going to sell the properties. Now, what kept happening with this over and over again is not just the psychic and somatic things were happening. There's actual physical loss. There's a financial cost. Each time moving, costing between 5 to $7,000 money that is never recouped, money that is not supported through zero financial incentives or any kind of ways, nothing given other than to say, I'm making this financial investment while you have put in sometimes up to $40,000 a year into my investment. I am actually having no obligations to do anything for you or your family for this business decision that I'm making that I solely receive the benefits of. The tenant receives no benefits other than to have a place to stay, which is actually a human right. Right? So, it creates this just really difficult scenario. And so, even the place that I'm speaking to you from today, I received this rental within two hours. It went from listing, to applying, to being invited to sign a lease within two hours. I'm looking for where that is providing a reasonable mechanism for someone who throughout no fault of their own is going to be thrust into a marketplace that is not ready to absorb them. Right? So we need to come up with better options that are here. Going back and looking between the two bills, I'm not going to get deep into policy analysis because we do utilize a process within the Land Access and Opportunity Board that provides for our board members to give input on multiple proposals that we have. We have not had a chance to get into this. However, there are names that are associated with these bills within representatives that are there as well within your body that have been a part of these processes throughout the last several years. When I'm looking at these bills, I'm looking at

[Ashley Bartley]: Oh, you're muted.

[Leonora Dodge]: Thank you for that. Not sure, sorry.

[Kaya Morris]: No, no, I appreciate you stopping me and finding that space. So if we were to look into July, for example, there are some components that it looked like they were trying to make a move towards finding ways to mitigate some of the harm that happens within no cause evictions. Again, recognizing these are folks that are perfectly fine. They're not doing anything that would cause for, would have a finding for an eviction in a court of law, but are being, again, it's just displaced into an artificial market. So there were some things that I think were helpful, but some of it could actually feel a bit more restrictive in a way that will be untenable. So there were some changes, some shortening of the dates of notification that are definitely problematic. What I also want you to recognize, when I had that first story of being in Colchester and having my neighbors come to me, again, these were not notifications delivered by certified mail. They did not have anything legal. Actually, they were not even signed. The notices to vacates were not even They didn't even have a signature. However, the panic, the rush, the concern, the financial scrambles were very real for all of the folks that were impacted by it. And everyone treated it as though it was actually law because most tenants do not know their rights. And even if we had, the tenant rights are actually not robust enough to really have protected them in any way in this particular scenario. So, looking at some of the notification dates and the shrinking of those, there was originally, I think there was some language that folks were moving towards of saying, depending on the length of the lease you've had, it could be helpful to give people more time. Again, once again, if somebody has been settled into a space, they did not come into this space with the expectation, in a year, I will have to leave. I don't know very many people who do that unless that is a part of their life's journey. Perhaps they're moving, perhaps they're going to school, different things like that. But most folks, most families do not move into a space with the intention of coming back out at the end of a short term lease or a one year lease. So recognizing that folks that have been here and have invested in that landlord, that property owner's property, paying down their mortgage and paying into their taxes without receiving any kind of supports is kind of problematic. So I'd love to have the committee on a personal level go back to look at the language that was in April that was introduced last year, as it did speak to some really specific and I think helpful ways of building a better relationship between landlords and tenants so that this tension is not there and solutions can be creatively found. But in this sort of restrictive kind of components of what we have with M-seven 72, I'm still concerned that we will not only continue to have that gulf between the property owners and the people who are investing in their property as tenants, to only widen that gap and keep us away from finding creative solutions. Through the work that I do with the Land Access and Opportunity Board, we are trying to find new mechanisms of looking at shared equity, looking at ways that if a person has a sense of place, it can be a place they can call home. And so that also helps to remove some of the burden and it also helps to remove some of the pressure that some of these owners may be experiencing that is causing them to utilize a system that most folks would not have found to be terribly ethical prior to the pandemic if it had not become a regular practice, right? That is why it was not used. So, I say that to say there's much more that can be done. And I do feel I like personally, and I'm not speaking for the LAOB, this is Kaya Morris, resident of Colchester, speaking and saying, as someone who has had this lived experience, four forty touches on some really promising things that I think could really shift the conversation between it being so adversarial between landlords and tenants and the relationship, the financial relationship that they are building with one another. Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley]: Can I ask a question? Please, please. So, definitely, again, I think one of the ways that we're trying to move forward with this conversation is kind of looking at all of the landlord tenant bills. So we've kind of gone back and forth to looking at all

[Elizabeth Burrows]: the

[Ashley Bartley]: bills. I wanna get your take on July where we're trying to look at no cause a little bit differently, change that. And I believe the language that we have in there currently is if a landlord is making a decision and it's of no fault to the tenant, that the landlord needs to give ninety days. Do you feel that that's a reasonable notice period? Do you think it should be longer? Would love to get your take on that.

[Kaya Morris]: I think it could be reasonable, but it has to be paired with something else because there's still, we still need to recognize. So if I get a ninety day notice, let's say I find a space that might work for me tomorrow, I need to be able to have that money upfront to be able to put down for all of those new costs. So it doesn't, the length of time, what it does is it buys the individual a possible opportunity to potentially save up what's going to be required for them to be able to vacate per the landlord's desires. What I liked that I saw on four forty, I believe there was language that spoke specifically to when we're getting to that crossroads, is there a mechanism for how the landlords could work cooperatively with that tenant on some of that financial burden. Because again, they're assuming a financial they're receiving nothing. They're getting nothing back. The tenant receives zero benefits in this relationship other than having a place to stay during that duration. Past that point, there's nothing that goes to help them. So, that could be helpful, I think, as an additional piece, because even at that, that then tells me that I have to completely shift my whole life and find money that I may not have had or had to expect that I would have to have in place. Length of time is important, but there's also things that need to happen during that period of activity in order to make it possible for that person to move to the next place. There was something I saw that came. It was not in this Was it in this? This was a long bill. This is a long bill, so I will not pretend that I have gone through line by line. I think that there's also Let me stop there. I'm gonna stop there. I apologize. I hope that answered your question. It did. Thank you. Go ahead. All right.

[Leonora Dodge]: So I guess this is a question for Just floating this idea. What really resonated was the reality you highlighted of the even in the best of scenarios, even a yearly move is very tough, especially on families with kids. I completely recognize that. I know that in a lot of scenarios, people will do, like you can't outright buy a property or buy land, but you get these very long leases. I'm not suggesting we do a Hong Kong ninety nine year lease, but something longer than one year with the added notice. I don't know whether that's to kind of cement a little bit the acknowledgement, like this is the kind of lease that we are looking to give and that I am looking to sign on to as a tenant. So just of have eyes a little bit more wide open. It's just something that we I know we haven't come up We haven't proposed this before, and it's not something that I've specifically heard from tenant advocates or regular folks. And I don't know how landlords would feel about it, but I think that to some way it just provides a little bit of that stability that trying to achieve.

[Kaya Morris]: I appreciate you asking that, representative. I think, yeah, looking at a length of a lease could be a really helpful mechanism. And I think that perhaps if there are certain conditions around why a landlord might not want to pursue that, that those again can be articulated. I think, having a sense of place is one of the most important things that we can do and recognizing the mental health impacts of what happens when one is displaced from their home is significant. It's nothing to be not considered. It's been documented very well how very detrimental to both one's mental health and as well as their performance within the workplace, within their employment. All that instability creates a number of pressures, a number of pressures that can really place an individual in a precarious situation. And so effectively, having a longer lease, I think, would be a really wonderful opportunity. But I do understand the pressures on some levels of what landlords feel, where they're just like, but I don't want to be bound into a person for two years. Again, you have existing landlord tenant laws and existing eviction processes, which have always been there and will remain there for many, many years, then without much change or modification that would still, you don't lose that ability to say, If I'm looking into this seven months in and this is just not going to work out, there's just too much that's happening, too many violations of the lease, so on and so forth, you still have a legal mechanism to do that. But considering that could be helpful. So I appreciate you naming that.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Elizabeth,

[Kaya Morris]: and then we'll get to you.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Thanks. Can you hear me okay?

[Kaya Morris]: I can, thank you.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Excellent. I have a couple of questions for you. First, as a person with lived experience, when you moved into that first apartment in Colchester, or that first, I don't know if it was an apartment or a house, when you moved into that first property, did you have to provide, what kind of a deposit did you have to provide?

[Kaya Morris]: Yes. So we, it was first month's rent and then last month, equivalent of one month's rent for deposit.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: So first and last, but not first, last and deposit?

[Kaya Morris]: No, no. Okay. I believe that had already, now that was in Burlington only, sorry, Burlington Charter.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: No, that's okay. I wondered whether when you were given notice to move out, were you able to access the deposit?

[Kaya Morris]: No, not until we moved out. It was some three weeks after we moved. So that's wonderful.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Of my concerns is now, my next question really applies to your professional role. One of my concerns is the first, last and deposit problem. People are given, especially people who are behind on their rent, but in any circumstance, coming up with first, last and deposit while you're straddling residences, I think is really hard. And I wondered whether professionally, you know of any landlords who terminate a lease and also give their tenants access to their deposit so that they can roll it forward into a new unit?

[Kaya Morris]: I will say that I'm not, but that is something that I have on a personal level, it makes a lot of sense to me. Think because if we're understanding correctly, those deposits are supposed to be held in an account. They're not supposed to be spent down. So they are supposed to be held in an account, which may be potentially also accruing interest. And so the tenant also gets none of that interest off of that as well. I think that could be a way to think about that in the same way you might hold your taxes and escrow on a mortgage. Right? So it's there for you to be able to use it when you need it. There's nothing built in for tenants for that type of a disruption. There's no you know what I mean? Even if there was something, some portion of the rent or something like that that was able to come back and be able to be available to them when it is time for them to go, I think, again, it could once again change those relationships and make it to be one that's not just as transactional. But we're kind of we're straddling this investment together, and I'm trying to have you land on your feet, and I want to be in good shape at the end of all of this as well as an owner. So I think that could be a potential solution. I don't have those specifics, though, about examples. I think legal aid might have that.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley]: Yeah. I'm curious about if the Lamoille goes to sell, is there a timeframe with first right of refusal?

[Kaya Morris]: I understand it, first right of refusal is not actually a legally bound thing. It's almost a gentleman's handshake, quote unquote. As I understand it from other property owners and people who are in reality, It's something you can offer. It's not something that is required. And it means that you also need to be able to meet the highest bid for whatever the sale is. So as the tenant, I need to be able to meet, at least meet or exceed whatever the highest bid is for that property. But recognizing again that because you've entered into a contract to sell it, I may have already vacated that property. I may have to vacate that property before the closing of the sale happens. So there's still a gap that doesn't really sustain for an ability for somebody to actually have a secure place. I do know of a mom that has been trying to purchase for almost two years now and has not been able to find suitable property. And so, she ended up in a really sticky situation as well, where she was facing a no cause eviction, trying to buy into the marketplace as we're all supposed to want to do, but was not able to find the right home for her family. Yeah, I appreciate you asking that. And I think that that's definitely a place to try to find a solution around.

[Ashley Bartley]: Thank you. Two quick points. I can't remember which bills that we've talked about that does have that language, think is either $3.99 or $4.40. If I am remembering correctly, I think the time period is eighty days. Please do not quote me, but I believe in the language that we've had in front of us, it's eighty days. And I just wanna make a point that currently in landlord tenant law, a landlord has fourteen days after move out to return your security deposit either in full, and if you are not getting your full security deposit back, it has to be itemized. If you do not receive it within the fourteen days, you are entitled to get your entire security deposit back regardless of what the landlord had wanted to charge you or kind of withhold. Due to damage or anything that Yeah. And that's regardless. If- How many days? Fourteen. Fourteen. So if by day 15, don't have anything, you get the whole thing back.

[Kaya Morris]: Which is still helpful, but also after when the person will have had to a vacation.

[Ashley Bartley]: I don't think that's come up in our committee discussions before. So I think it was a good Thank you, Elizabeth, for bringing it up and a good part of our conversation to have. We do have five minutes before Rev Chinna does an introduction of his bill. Are there any other questions, comments? Yeah, go ahead, Todd.

[Joseph Parsons]: Just as you think about it, going forward, one of the things that we are trying to address are the number of small landholders who are apprehensive about making the one unit they have available, and that's largely because of Fed's one in 20 or 30 Mhmm. Possible bad tenant that in their case could result in them losing their home if they're renting because they need the income. What we're looking for is a way to give those landlords enough confidence to bring some of those units back out of short term rental and into long term rental.

[Leonora Dodge]: Mhmm.

[Joseph Parsons]: So that there are more options available for people who need a rental problem. So if you think of ways that is very, very hard to isolate the problem from the healthy tenants, and I were really trying to find a way to give that some definition. So we're not causing problems to good tenants, which is most of them. And giving enough confidence that there's protections against a problematic tenant that a small landholder can absorb and kind of navigate. So if you have recommendations along those lines,

[Kaya Morris]: we are Well, I think, if I may represent, I think what can be really helpful there as well is we're thinking about adding a value to whether or not someone is a good tenant. That can be really, really challenging because someone can pay well, they can take care of the property and there's still kind of arbitrary things that determine whether or not you're a good tenant. Recognizing how many people may have troubling credit. It may not be perfect credit. It may be troubling credit for a variety of reasons, but that doesn't mean that they necessarily won't pay their rent. That doesn't mean they won't be great tenants. That doesn't mean that they would not do a wonderful job protecting your investment. There also becomes an additional added pressure that happens for folks that are not, you know, if everybody had perfect credit and all the money in the world, why would we rent? We would go ahead and purchase property, right? So, there's a whole lot of people that are trying to build themselves up financially in the ways that we're encouraged to do that can't do it because they're pushed out of that market. So just recognizing as you're kind of trying to define that small minority of folks that are hot spotters, just like we have in crime and different places like that, when we look at statistics that way, we recognize that most of them are not. And even those who are not the perfect tenant on paper are probably just fine. So recognizing as well, there's a nice cluster of folks who can't get property for a variety of reasons, and they also deserve a place to live.

[Joseph Parsons]: It does go on the screen ahead of time. It's usually after the fact that

[Kaya Morris]: But you find out.

[Joseph Parsons]: Begin to emerge, and that's the point at which we're trying to

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Yeah.

[Joseph Parsons]: The one landowner doesn't owe it to anybody to rent their unit. And right now, they're not.

[Leonora Dodge]: No. No.

[Joseph Parsons]: Because it pays more and it's less hassle. So it it's another way of bringing short terms.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes.

[Joseph Parsons]: Because I'm looking trying to bring more of these units online. We need Yes. A lot of them.

[Kaya Morris]: We do. We do. And we need tenants that are able to pay, and we need tenants that are great. And we also need to recognize that the tenant is investing in your property. They are making an investment. That's a huge chunk of their salary, typically, that they are placing in your care for your property. So it a reciprocal relationship. We're trying to do a better job, I think, of it, rather than it being so transactional, recognizing that, yeah, if I could invest $40,000 in a company every year, I definitely wouldn't need to rent. But I'm not. So I'm instead giving that money, I'm putting that money in trust with you. We can find a way to build a better relationship, I

[Ashley Bartley]: think, so that it Thank feels less you so much. Elizabeth, do you want to kind of conclude this portion of our morning?

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Thank you. I just have one quick question. To your knowledge, is there any way to discern a bad landlord?

[Kaya Morris]: Oh yeah, but we don't have a rental registry that keeps getting voted down to have a rental registry in the state where folks, thank you for that, Burrows. I know that there have been efforts to create a rental registry so that people can keep track because that is also the question too, is right? Is the tenant okay? But also there are many tenants that also get into that relationship, find out three, four months later, this is going to be a challenge for me as well. So understanding those folks, it's other than word-of-mouth, other than a Facebook page is like, are you renting this person From this person, we don't have a way in the state of seeing what happens or paying attention to the trends. Is this something that that particular property owner does for multiples of their property? Are they constantly pushing people through? We might want to know that data.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: So thank you. Thank you.

[Kaya Morris]: Thank you very much, committee.

[Ashley Bartley]: Thank you. Thank you so much. We now will be again going to a introduction of H826 and activating to land access and opportunity sponsored by Raptina.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: Hello. Does that mean it's my turn?

[Ashley Bartley]: It is your turn, my friend.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: Okay. So forgive me, because I'm bouncing between we were in house health care, and I'm on Zoom there. And so I'm just adjusting to being on Zoom here. So hold on.

[Ashley Bartley]: Thank you for being on Zoom here. We appreciate it.

[Elizabeth Burrows]: Okay.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: So I'm going to pull up just to keep me what do I have, like five minutes, ten minutes, an hour? Just

[Ashley Bartley]: kidding. I would say

[Joseph Parsons]: We're halfway done.

[Ashley Bartley]: I'd say ten, fifteen minutes.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: Yeah, think ten minutes is sufficient. I was teasing about the hour.

[Ashley Bartley]: Trust me, we could probably talk for an hour.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: I think we could talk about the topic for an hour. If I talk about this bill for an hour, that's not cool. So let me just pull up the I think if I did a walk through for an hour is what I'm saying, that would not be cool, because it would just be boring. I think a discussion on this issue is far more interesting. But I'm pulling it up on the website. I'm assuming that folks there can see this on their computers themselves, and you don't need me to share the screen. And so I'm trying to just adjust the window here so I can see both you and the bill. Here we go. I'm almost there. I'm a little out of practice with the Zoom, like this Zoom juggling. We used to be really We had gotten really skilled at this at one point. You could put what you're reading right in front of your camera, and then it looks like you're looking at the people, but you're reading. So H826 is an act relating to land access and opportunity. And I'm not going to give you a full walkthrough, because Ledge Council could do that if you choose to. I would hope that maybe you'd give fifteen minutes for Ledge Council to do that at some point, just to give it a formal walk through, because I think there's pieces of this bill that if you choose not to act on this bill, there's pieces that may fit into other work that you're doing. That would be my minimum ask, that the committee consider hearing my presentation and hearing from the Land Access and Opportunity Board and considering if this bill as its own vessel doesn't move, could some of the contents of this vessel be included in another? So I will read the intent of the bill because I think that's important to read to you now. It's the intent of the Vermont General Assembly to support the human right to housing and to promote public health and community safety by preserving affordable housing and creating new social and economic opportunities for the development and maintenance of sustainable, resilient and affordable housing infrastructure. It is the intent of this act to focus state, municipal and private resources on ensuring that Vermonters have an adequate supply of safe, secure housing, including more opportunities for access to and ownership of land and community resources. The findings section I'm not going to spend time on in detail because it's detailed, and I think that's more of a Leg Council walkthrough, and also actually I would encourage you to hear from the staff of the Land Access and Opportunity Board. I didn't say this at the beginning. I'm here as lead sponsor, and the two lead sponsors of the bill, myself and Representative Karas Duncan, are actually appointed to the board, to the Land Access and Opportunity Board. I'm appointed by the National Association of Social Workers Vermont Chapter, and Representative Karas Duncan is appointed by Everytown, Vermont. So I just wanted to put that out there that I think you should know my connection to the board is more than just writing the bill. I'm on the policy committee. And also that our staff at the board, so when I say our staff, then it'll make more sense why I'm saying our staff because I feel responsible for caring for our staff, that they could speak more to these findings than I could because these findings were written by the staff based on their work. Because as you see in the findings, it refers to a variety of documents, it refers to the Vermont State Health Improvement Plan. It refers to the Cannabis Control Board report. It refers to The Road Home, a plan for creating permanent affordable and service supported housing for Vermonters who participate in developmental disability services. So that's a document that was created by another committee that existed, the State Housing and Residential Services Planning Committee, that's what they actually called. And then it refers in the findings to the Food Security in Vermont Roadmap to 2035. And so these various documents represent work that the body has enacted to explore the issue of housing in context of being a social determinant or driver of health, you can see here that from different angles that various bodies have recommended investment and policy changes that align with the work of the land access and opportunity board. In some cases, specifically referring to the board. In others referring to the work or the intent of the board. And so what the staff did here is they drew from some of the partnerships they've built to show evidence of how there is there have been from many sources a call to action for increasing access to land and opportunity in ways that we attempted in this bill. And so I think that's my brief way of trying to at least honor the findings without getting into the details. Because I think if I read them in detail, it's going to open this can of worms that we don't have time for right now and that would be better managed by our staff. Because they could then speak to why they included this, and it would give them a chance to articulate their work in greater depth. So I will move on to the actual meat of the bill, what it does. So you heard the intent findings. So the section three, it adds to existing statute language that would create a land access and opportunity fund. The original bill that led to the creation of the land access and opportunity board included a fund attached to the board. And the point was that there would be a fund that would be replenished through various mechanisms, public and private, that could be used for the work of the land access and opportunity board. And now that the board has existed for a few years, we feel that it's time to have a fund. So that there's a there's a place where money can go and be managed from and where people where private money can flow to as well as the community catches on to our work. There's a lot of interest in supporting it. So, it also, I'm just going to scroll through then in it adds the fund into existing statute, then it adds a component of like a new section, I believe this is here, I could be wrong. This is where you need Legge Council to just clarify how it fits in. But this land access and opportunity fund report section, it talks about the purpose, the use of the fund. And that's really what I would like to speak to now. So we say that this fund could be used for the following activities: the purchase of buildings and land by current tenants to expand access to owner occupied housing. That piece fits into some of your work this year so far when you're looking at the experience of tenants. How you can figure out, but I know it fits in based on what I've seen you working on so far. The next section, the renovation of owner occupied multi unit housing to expand access to housing. Third, the development of housing infrastructure for land owned through a residential cooperative or other form of collective ownership and for the development of transitional housing. It also asks that the board prioritize funding for the following kinds of projects: create self sufficient neighborhoods and communities that use intersectional and circular designs, such as localized waste management, regenerative agricultural practices, and independent energy generation. Develop sustainable social and physical infrastructure that expands access to community resources, such as tool banks, labor pools, workforce training programs, disaster relief and other resilience strategies. And third, a reminder that we're to prioritize members from historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities. And we give language here that goes further than our originating statute. We clarify that people who are experiencing homelessness, substance use disorder, or mental and physical disabilities, individuals with a history of incarceration or involvement in the justice system, youth with a history of interaction with DCF, the Department of Children and Families, the elderly and the agricultural workforce also we need to pay attention to here, in addition to groups that were already named in our statute. We list a variety of partners that we shall work with. I can say the staff could speak more to this, but we do work with these partners. This is just saying that the legislature is asking us all to work together more to identify and propose projects to be awarded funding, and here's some more examples of the work we'd like to do or are starting to do. Identify public land and buildings in areas designated for the development of housing to integrate housing for members from historically marginalized or disadvantaged communities into neighborhoods and communities, support cooperative management or ownership, integrate community resources, co locate health resources, workforce development opportunities or food access, provide for circular waste management and energy production and storage within the project or neighborhood, and propose additional incentives for public private partnerships, and coordinated development of the neighborhood surrounding this infrastructure. So really, we're talking about assisting in a new wave of development in Vermont that we're currently partaking or embarking on, but taking it to a new level, really thinking creatively about how we integrate people and resources into our neighborhoods and communities during this wave of development and how we build in a way that creates infrastructure that is both physical and social that lasts a very long time, that is sustainable, that is affordable, that's resilient. And the way I think of it is we would be, we we to take resources and invest them in a way so that people can become more self sufficient from that initial investment. That one time money can yield can seed a community so that that garden can grow and then people can harvest the seeds of that garden and plant it further locally. And that's really the kind of vision that we have been talking about doing. So the next section four is a preservation of affordable housing tax report. This committee has seen this idea before from me, which is asking the Department of Taxes in collaboration with the Joint Fiscal Office to give a report to the legislature by next year, by 07/01/2027. And this report would look at tax incentives and penalties that might preserve affordable housing in Vermont. So these could be, we would ask that the report consider various definitions and measurements of affordability, including the basic needs budget. And I say affordability meaning for tenants. That we consider variables that impact the price of rent for property owners, including the cost and benefits of rent pricing. So we're looking at what is actually affordable, what is driving the price of rent right now, what are the variables that are causing rent to rise and to be set the way it is, projecting how incentives for affordable rent might amplify existing tax benefits. So it's already a tax benefit for a land owner if they keep their rent low, because less income means less taxes usually, you know, and then also expenses, like certain expenses can be a benefit and some are not so much a benefit. So like, those factors are already playing in to the pricing of rent. So we would want to study here how incentives might amplify existing benefits first. Then we would want to look at how penalties on rent might deter an owner from charging excessive rent. How tax incentives for property owners giving the tenants the right of first refusal might increase homeownership for tenants. So maybe we give a tax break if you sell your property to your tenant in that process. Maybe that's a way to promote it versus forcing people to give their tenants the right of first refusal, which I would support personally. But if that's controversial, maybe we just create a choice that that a landlord can make. Do they sell it to their tenant and get a tax break? And and maybe we sweeten the deal. So, it's actually worth it to them to make that choice. And then, last but not least, there's two more. Recommend options and opportunities to give advantageous tax treatment to properties owned by marginalized or disadvantaged Vermonters. This aligns with the originating statute of the board. The board was asked to do this, but doesn't really have the ability to. So this report would give the board information to work with around that piece. And then projecting the fiscal impacts of these various incentives and penalties on the revenue of the state, It would be important to understand if we're giving tax breaks for these kinds of transactions, how is that going to affect our overall general fund and our overall tax base? Because if we give too many tax breaks, then there won't be money to fund things. There has to be a balance and we acknowledge that here. Before I move on to the final section, I would just say that this piece here seems very relevant to the work you've been doing on tenants rights and on tenant, the experience of tenants and tenant landlord relationships. And, you know, if other pieces of the bill don't fit in your work this year, I would encourage you to consider taking this piece and finding a way to make this fit, because if we could come back in a year, whoever comes back from this group, maybe we all come back, maybe only some of us or none of us, but when the legislature reconvenes in a year, if the legislature had information about how the tax system could be used to promote home ownership, promote affordable rent, that could improve the experience for tenants. And the more owner occupied property we have, the more we're building wealth at a broader level and building equity. And I think that that's something that we should be considering moving forward as we try to dig our way out of the housing crisis. So this section five, land security working group, our staff suggested this based on work that they have done this year with a variety of partners. And the land security working group, I'm not going to read the membership in detail right now. That's something that could happen and walk through, but you see the membership of this working group. There are a vast array of members, I'm seeing 18 from various stakeholder groups. The powers and duties would be to provide an assessment and recommendations regarding the following: disparate economic and environmental justice impacts of Vermont's land use and conservation policies and regulations, including Act two fifty, 2024 action resolves number 181 and other relevant policies, and identification and protection of agricultural land for community food security purposes. And a report would be submitted to the General Assembly in December 2026. And then you see it has the standard boilerplate language around who starts the meeting, how they're run, quorum, that's the stuff Legg Council could go through with you in a walkthrough if you took up this section and you could consider it. We do suggest that members of the working group are paid if they're not otherwise eligible for pay. And I highlight that because that would be the component of this piece that would cost money. There would also be an expense associated with any kind of report or study, just to be straightforward about that. How much it would cost, I think you'd need to hear from JFO what they would project it would cost to study tax incentives and penalties. And obviously the fund part, this committee is already weighing in on appropriations for the Land Access and Opportunity Board and that would be interconnected with those decisions. So I covered the bill trying It's been fifteen minutes, so I went five minutes longer. You said ten to 15. I was aiming for ten. I want to make sure that people have a minute for questions. I feel like I've covered the basics of it though and hoping that people get the gist of the idea and can take these ideas into consideration in your work if you choose not to move on this bill and the things you are working on, consider how these ideas can fit into that. Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley]: Great. Thank you so much, Rutgina. Does anybody have any questions? Awesome. Well, again, thank you for coming in last minute and being available via Zoom as you're also available on Zoom upstairs. So definitely we'll be talking about some of the bills on our wall. So thank you so much.

[Rep. Brian Cina]: Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley]: All right, committee. We have a break until 11:10, and the chair should be back by then. But we are going to be hearing from Commissioner Farrell from the Department of Housing and Community Development and Catherine Demetrax, and she's North West Regional Planning Commission. We're gonna be talking about those housing targets that we talked about yesterday. Are there any comments, thoughts? Awesome. We can

[Leonora Dodge]: adjourn

[Ashley Bartley]: until