Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, welcome everybody to Houzz General and Housing. It is February 26, February '85. Today, we're going to focus first on H. Seven seventy two, which is the landlord tenant bill. We've been walking through changes to the bill. We walked through entirely yesterday the bill, but today, but there are changes that need to be made, and we have counsel with this. And we're going to have a walkthrough, discussion, and a potential vote on seven seventy two. It's and then if seven seventy two if the committee and its wisdom decides it it is passing seven seventy two in some form out of this committee, it will go to appropriations. I think it will also be looked at in some way by judiciary. So, we have our esteemed counsel back with us, and would you like to take it away, Cameron? Sure.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Good morning. Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Council. I have a new draft 2.1, your amendment to age seven seventy two and I've shared it just moments ago with Miriam, so I presume at this point it has made its way onto your web page.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Miriam, is it posted yet?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Fortunately for you, you have me here to share my screen. It is very fortunate. Okay, so draft 2.1, as I mentioned yesterday, this has not been edited or would not be edited by 09:00 this morning, so I do have a watermark on here just indicating that. It's highlighting that for you all before you vote, I would need to send this off and have new sections reviewed. I have highlighted the changes yellow. I removed all the highlights from the previous version, the things that had been discussed. I know there were still a few points for discussion, but I removed those highlights so this would at least indicate for you all to follow along more easily what has changed in this version. We're in section one, amending chapter 137, residential rental agreements in the definitions section. I'm moving to page two. In the subdivision five, I did a little cleanup that was pointed out by Rep Parsons to state that if the last address is unknown, then it's posted on the door. And then the only other addition here is in the sub B to add the posting on the door under the rebuttable presumption. So the rebuttable presumption is the notice is received after five days of the date email is sent, the date of posting on the door, date of mailing. The landlord is still going to need to prove in some capacity that they posted it on the door, but assumes that they can prove that, then there would be a presumption of receipt. But I don't do that.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Don't want to spell that out. A what? What constitutes proof of having posted it? What would normally happen? I would expect, you can

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if you want, but Is there

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: a normal procedure that you know? Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so that is the first change.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I will say, the practical matter, and Debbie, correct me since you are our resident expert, my guess, if I'm wrong, as a practical matter, landlords are very concerned that the notice be real. Notice is important to landlords. So they make an effort to make sure that they do everything they need to do to nail it down, and if they post, my assumption is if they post it because they, you know, there's no address, they'll take a picture or something to show they posted it. They're important to the tenant. As well, right. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The next change is going to be on the next page, page three. This is related to the prohibition on increasing rent more than once in a twelve month period and I've draft that this subsection shall not prohibit a landlord from increasing rent after the purchase of a dwelling unit subject to the requirements of this section.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right, so this is the change, remember, that we had for people who are purchasing the buildings different than perpetually owning it. Remember?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We're still doing that?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, no. I'm saying that if you purchase a new building, carve out of the requirement.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: If

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you purchase the building as mentioned, you can then raise the rent regardless of when the rent was raised previously and at that point you wouldn't be able to raise it again. Okay, The next change is going to be at the bottom of this section where we're talking about the residential rental application and the definition of what is the application and the carve out for the credit report and the background check. So I've tweaked the language slightly to just say here on beginning lines 19, unless the tenant so the landlord can charge the actual cost unless the tenant or applicant provides a current credit report instead of credit check, so a current credit report as part of the application. So we've added the word current and then I've added the language moving to the top of page four. For the purposes of this subdivision, a current credit report means a report dated within ninety days prior to the date of the residential rent to act?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think that this goes against our whole, like, there's no application of these that is I think if there's going to be some sort of yeah. I'm not comfortable with that language, just because from speaking to the attorney general's office, there's not clarity about the fees, what people out in the field are telling, like applicants that complain to the AGs or have frequently delayed, it's stated like, no, you can't be charging application fees, period. That includes credit checks, background checks. Yes.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Unless we change

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: it here. My question would just be, has it ever been ruled upon whether that because that because that's been the whole problem, which is like this they created a law, then people said, it's not I'm not charging a fee to submit it. I'm charging you a fee after we move forward, and now we're stuck with this process. And then legal aid had said, well, we don't read it that way. And, like, well, we do. Has anyone ever made that?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: There's no case on point. Nobody is sued based on it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of. I know what the remedy would be. I guess a resident could sue the landlord for damages of having to pay the cost of the credit check. And I don't imagine anyone's getting through that process. I haven't seen court make that determination.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, the AG said that basically they'll call the landlord and just say, hey, there's this they'll just do a Just send that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The AG. The attorney.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: The office or the attorney general?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The office.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Yes. If we think that we would have I'm not recommending that we do it right this second, but a realtor or rental agent would be better able to tell you the fee, a fee to apply to live somewhere used to be a device to Separate it. Well, was to manipulate the clientele. So it was a higher class brand. Yeah, right. And that's the thing that's prohibited.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I guess my own view on this as we clarify it. Right. It did. My own view is there are two issues here. One is the language clearer than the language was, and the other is a policy question that Leonora is raising. In my view on the clarity, it couldn't be clearer than it is now, much more than it was in the sense that you can't charge any fee except a credit and backlash, period. It's easy to say, it's easy to explain, there it is. And in fact, I think from the legal point of view, which my own view, from a legal point of view, it's better than it was because by putting that you can do this, by implication, you can't do anything else. However, there's the policy question, which I think you're raising, which is, should we who should pay for the credit check? And I think one argument is the tenant should pay for it, and the other a background check, and the other is the landlord, and that's a policy decision. This draft makes a policy decision in favor of the landlord being able to charge for that, and thus that the tenant pays it. And, you know, that's a pure policy decision.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think if we defined current more clearly, then it would make more sense, right? Because then it would be like the applicant doesn't have

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Have to do repeated? Well, the ninety day idea was the ninety day idea was Where is that?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The clarification.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The last second sentence. The ninety days, remember, was to in order to avoid a Right, having to do repeated, repeated,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But people even notice that

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: you've got sixty or ninety days to leave your place, you're going to start applying for five or six apartments. Do you need to suddenly pay like

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Each time.

[Unidentified Member]: $600 in And

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I had also talked to the banker guy about that was doing the credit, and he said

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you mean brims?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That's soft. Yeah, soft. Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they're softwolves, but yes, Elizabeth.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thank you. My question for the landlords in the room is, is there a stepped process for applying to live in a residence? Like, is the credit check at the initial step, or is it at a final step?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bet it depends on the person. You

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: guys I mean, I would imagine a landlord Let's say a landlord gets 25 applications. I don't know that they would bother to ask for credit checks from everybody.

[Unidentified Member]: To look They're

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: at them and sort of pick top three or something and ask for credit back fixed, but I don't know. Debbie, what do you think? I actually am sorry if I'm calling on you unnecessarily. I know

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: do have other landlords in the room, but Are you a landlord? Anyhow, we needed to talk to the person first to find out if they do know where St. John's Ferry, Vermont is.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: sometimes they're know, due to how far away we are, even though you may be in Vermont, we're two and a half hours from where you're living right now. So if your job is at that location, you may not want to have that commute time. We're just doing like a little clearing

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, you know, yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And also, who's going to be living there, know, kind of thing. It's like, oh.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Like a little pre screen.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: A little pre screen, Yeah, that's what we do first. But Personally, do our own background credit check. Do you mean? Well, we get a list of previous landlords, we get a list of where they work, we call them employers, we call people that know them. You have a legal background or you don't know anything We know about personally, but I know where landlords are too.

[Unidentified participant]: You don't know their credit worthiness and you don't know anything about that illegal, whether they have any felonies or anything like that. We ask them

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: if they have felonies. Well, me.

[Unidentified participant]: I don't know.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Chris, you want to identify yourself? Chris Donnelly, Chippen, Housing Trust. Do you have anything to add to the answer to Elizabeth's question?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We have a pre application before a full application. We do credit and background checks. We do not charge the tenant.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, but do you do them on everybody in the pre application or So you have, you narrow it and then you do it. Okay, okay. Go ahead, Elizabeth. Sorry.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I I guess part of my my understanding is that there is a first phase and that the background and credit check are part of kind of a as Debbie was saying, that that next step is kind of like a, you know, looking at references. We're getting more serious now kind of step. And I guess my point actually is that in that delineation, it's easy to separate out the credit check from any kind of application fee.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Uh-huh. I I've been I'm

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: town with this language because we've made it clear that it's at cost. We've taken away the incentive to require all 25 applicants do it because we're making $20 ahead on it. So that's taken out. There's really no incentive to ask for it unless you're serious.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I agree. And I think maybe just something that would say, like and and and the letter has to provide the you know, if it's if it's pulled, they have to give a copy to the tenant.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Yeah. The tenant should be able to review that, certainly. We did make it a little more difficult to do background checks in the last session by Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because of the Social Security number. Right. Yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So Unless the person

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: bangs their own. Yeah. It's it's, you know, it's it's at their discretion. Think that with the answer changes we made in the last session, I'm okay with this.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Can we is it okay? Maybe when there's if there's more time. I swear, I we don't wanna make any more language changes. I get that. But if we're talking about possible language changes, I would add just a stipulation that the when you ask when you charge for one, you have to give the copy.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You have

[Unidentified Member]: to give it to the tenant. So

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: it'd be something like and present the tenant with

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: with background check, with a copy

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of the report.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Could dismiss those there all

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the time. Okay, you got that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would you like that included? Yes, yeah, okay, yes.

[Unidentified participant]: And so if that were to fall through, and the next landlord didn't wanna accept it

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Then ninety days, they have to for ninety days. Right. Okay. Yeah. Okay, go ahead, counsel.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm happy So we're changing that

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: way. Okay. We're on page 10. Awesome. Alright. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am Moving to the next change, which is gonna be on page five. This is regarding security deposits. If you recall, there was the section where if the landlord terminates the tenancy under the four thousand four and sixty seven D or E, So the the landlord is kind of the one primarily initiating the the termination, not because of some sort of fault of the tenants. I see. Yeah. At the request of the tenant, the landlord shall return one half of the security deposit along with a written statement itemizing the deductions no later than forty five days. It was sixty days on the forty five and included at the request of the tenant.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the next section is going to be the bottom the page.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do want to say anything, Tim?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: now, okay, alright. We'll have discussion and we can come back to this, okay? Alright, I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: with you. I have not forgotten. Okay, bottom of page five, top of page six, I've added in this entire section about retaliatory conduct, statutes, but it's a new section in the bill because I've added in this subdivision four here on page six, So as we talked yesterday, the landlord cannot retaliate against a tenant by changing the terms or threatening to bring an action if the tenant is exercising their rights under the chapter, if they've made some sort of complaint to the landlord about the habitability or a complaint to a government entity. So I've added in here, or the tenant has taken any legal action against the landlord authorized by law.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: By the way, since we just mentioned, we just went over something where what we want to try to focus on on the walkthrough is it doesn't mean we can't raise issues that during the walkthrough as opposed to discussion, if they are amenable to like small changes in the text. If your feeling is, I just don't like this whole idea, the time for that is when we discuss it. But if your feeling is like just happened a minute ago, I'm okay with this if we add this provision, then this is the time to say that. You see what I mean? In other words, when we got the guy here and we can make language

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But keep track as we go along Yeah. For the discussion.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Right.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Checking it off.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. Alright. K. Go ahead. Questions about this or no. Okay. We keep moving this. I'm going to move to page eight. We're moving into the section about termination of tenancy. And I highlighted this not because it's a change, but because it was discussion about whether to change it. So I'm happy to move over this if you all want to reserve that for conversation. This is where you've added in a, the landlord may terminate for repeated late payment of rent and then it's defined as payments more than ten days after it's due. So I think we all can reserve that for your discussion, but it was one that I had circled,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: because it seemed like there was possibilities. Right, I'm just putting a pin on something. Earlier, we changed notice, remember the notice provisions, right in the beginning, and I'm responsible for this, and I could be wrong, I just want to say it. It used to say that notice was effective after you know, presumed to have occurred after three days, and I changed it to five. I just wanna say my simple reason for doing that is just what's been going on with the mail and the fact that our postal service is getting worse and worse. There's no magic behind that, I just wanted to say that. Okay, go on. I appreciate that. So the next change, I'm going

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to move all the way down to page 11. So these are all the changes that we've made in relation to the terminations notices. Think for what reasonings. Mr. Chair, I'm going pause to direct Burrows has her hand up.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Good thing someone's looking at that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, you see that? I didn't. Usually I'm

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: trying to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that's good. That's helpful. I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: seeing it like right when it happens.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hey Elizabeth, you're on.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thanks. My question is for the mail requirement. Right. And really it addresses your expansion of the time from three to five days. Does the mail requirement include a receipt?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You only receive the rebuttable presumption if you send it via first class or certified U. Email.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: When we send via certified or first class mail, do we still have to sign off on it?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You pay for a receipt,

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: that's an extra add on, and you probably will not get one.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. You can ask for that type of thing, but it's not always, if that makes sense.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: My suggestion might be that we require a receipt, a proof of receipt, instead of having a date certain three or five days. And then that that would actually take away whatever constraints there are by the postal delivery service because there's proof of the recipient having received it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. We have a number of comments. Tom, let's gonna start with you because you said a minute ago that you wouldn't get the return receipt. All I have to do

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: is not sign for it. And and that and they cannot sign for it indefinitely. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Debbie, did you want no. I guess Joe was saying.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. I think it is Tom's point rolls back into the same whole point of why tack where they're given. It's because, I mean, you're saying we're giving sort of looking for I don't know what it is. But, we're giving sheriffs

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and the postal office the benefit of

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: the doubt, basically, saying, like, they tried

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

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And not reaching the person and giving them that benefit of the doubt.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm not a doubt.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: So I think the whole point is that goes against kind of the entire point of having to be a first class certified mail order.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Debbie, did you want to add anything?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, I just want to tell people that if you said it's certified, which I think costs $5.10, the price might have gone up, but you get tracking with that. So you can track it and you can say, you'll say it was delivered, you So track I agree with Tom in the return receipt. Nobody signs those things, plus that takes like thirty days for that whole process to happen. And it's like, we're not waiting for

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: be I'm not comfortable.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I guess, my feeling is, if there were a device, I would be interested, but apparently there isn't.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm not comfortable with adding it just since it's become more burdensome.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Alright. So go let's in this draft, it's staying this way. Let's go to your next change.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As I mentioned, the next change is going to be on page 11. This is related to week to week rental agreements. This is just making it consistent with the period that you have above for non payment of rent in ten days. So I struck the section, the language that says, however, a notice determined for non payment of rent shall be as provided in Section A, system.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Anybody have?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. The next change is going to be on page 13. This is the time frame that a landlord has to bring an ejectment action after a termination notice has been provided and if you recall there was a breakout to have it as thirty days if it was for non payment rent or for breach of the rental agreement, it's sixty days otherwise, and you all discuss just going back to sixty days. There's nothing requiring a landlord to wait sixty days. The landlord can bring it at whatever time the landlord so chooses. This just says that if you do not bring it within sixty days then you can't use that termination notice for the defendant. Okay, the next section is the affirmative defense section, this is where the tenant has the right to this defense and judgment is issued. If there exists a serious health safety code violation issued to the landlord and I made the change to state, and the landlord has made no reasonable attempt to correct the violation. Previously, said the violation was uncorrected as of the date of the nomination, and it says the landlord hasn't taken reasonable steps. So long as the landlord is making those reasonable steps to fix it, then this defense would not be eligible.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: As of the date of the termination. That's good. I like that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is Now

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: we know.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is consistent with the other section that authorizes the tenant not to plead them if there are violations. That section also states that the landlord hasn't made some reasonable protect the Yeah, it did.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Okay, well, they're not paying rent to the landlords. Is this the place where they put it in, I guess they call it escrow? So you could show the court, I have the money over here in my bank account. I can prove I have the money, but I'm not paying it because of these violations. Is that when this happens?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a separate thing. Yes, I don't think you need to do anything with escrow. There's a section that says, if there is serious health, it doesn't use this exact term, but there's a section that says, if there is a serious health and safety violation, then the tenant is not obligated to

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: pay

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: rent. In other words, that's the habitability section. Correct. This is not the habitability section. This is a section that says, if you've been sued and to be thrown out of an ejectment action, a defense is that it's not up to code, there's been a violation, and the landlord is not making any attempt to correct it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and so the tenant wouldn't have to prove that they've put the money in escrow anywhere. They're not obligated to pay, and this is saying that if the landlord then proceeds with an ejectment because or a termination of an ejectment because you aren't paying, it's a defense to that ejectment to say there's this violation and you aren't taking any reasonable steps to cure it, that's why I'm not paying.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Who

[Unidentified Member]: defines reasonable and would it be the court? Okay.

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so the next change is going to be on the next page, page 14. I've added this section. There was I believe a request from the Vermont State Housing Authority no longer federal programs including their voucher programs, the termination periods except for governed by federal rules. And so this section is just calling that out, that the termination section shall not be construed to apply to any program governed by federal law.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Does

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: that include if you're receiving a voucher?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes ma'am. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you're receiving a voucher then the landlord would have to comply with the federal rules associated with that. Okay, the next change is on page 16 and this is just a drafting technical amendment that we discussed yesterday because there's two substantive case here, so I'm just directing one of them going along that's more descriptive, so just highlighting that for you all. Our editors will probably slightly gleaner amendment. The next change is going to be on the bottom of page 17 where we discuss the property that remains after eviction. And the only thing I've changed here is to further clean up this section. So the landlord may dispose of the personal property of the individual immediately upon the landlord being legally restored to possession of dwelling unit. So I've just, I've removed the whichever is later because you all wanted it to be immediately after. The next change is off the next page where I actually amended the next section that wasn't previously here. This is saying that if the court stays the execution, so the execution of the writ is being stayed for a certain period of time, presumably for the tenant to be able to move out or for some other reason, the court has determined that the execution needs to be delayed, if you will, so the stay is. This section says that the landlord can dispose of the property one day after they're put into legal possession, so I just made that consistent immediately so there's nothing difference. Okay, now we're getting into the new ejectment process and I've changed this to just simply be superior court ejectment for non payment or breach. Because this process is limited to just those terminations. And then the next change is going be on page 19 a change Through your trial, yeah. To just mirror what's currently there. Allow me to go right through a jury trial. Next change is going be all the way on page 22 regarding breast masks. Hold on a minute. Okay, so I cleaned up the section at the top of this page, the 4,868. So it's after you're legally restored, the plaintiff can issue the defendant an order against trespass for the entire premise subject to the ejectment action in accordance with referencing back to the trespass section. Then what I've done is I've included the purpose statement that was in H728. I don't know that it's necessary, I'm waiting on our judiciary team to get back to me, but I felt that it's probably best to indicate To be super clear. To provide that indication to the court system that this is the purpose behind these changes. And then in section five, what I've done is I've cleaned this up a little bit. So I kept the structure of what's in 728 and then I just added the subdivision B. So it's notwithstanding subsection A or any provision of laws of contrary, the landlord of the dwelling unit may cause to be served in order to remit trespass to prohibit a tenant's invitees or licensees from trespassing in the dwelling unit if and then I've just incorporated what was in my draft which is the invitee or the licensee subject to the order has been ejected from the premises under 12 BSA Chapter 169. Okay, The next change is going to be in the confidentiality of the ejectment record. So I've cleaned this up a little bit based on our conversation and some of the edits that were requested. So there's not really a lot of amendments to the language. I've just dropped some of the language and removed it. I've highlighted one of these things blue because I'm hoping to have a quick conversation with some external individuals about this sentence because there's two separate things as I understand them. There's confidentiality of something and then there's kind of the concept of expungement. Right. And so what this sentence is saying is the objectment is deemed to have never happened. I don't think we can say that. And I agree Mr. Chair that's different than saying that it happened, it's just confidential.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that that was a deliberate choice of the judiciary committee when they reviewed an earlier version of this last year. It didn't go out, but it was not seal it was not permanently expunged. It was confidential because the whole point is it becomes when the landlord prevails, either

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: by landlord by default or by winning, it's the confidentiality disappears. Right. And so I wanted to ask the attorney general's office about this. And my recommendation is if you're wanting to simply keep them confidential, I would strike this sentence because I think it indicates a different legal consequence.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that as a default, you should strike it. I think that's pretty clear, and you're onto something also. I think it's very likely that judiciary committee will, one way or another, look at this, and I think it's this is a good place to start is by taking that out.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes? Is the point so that a new landlord can't see a history of whether there was The point is, on the one hand, landlords rely as part of their check on tenant. Did these people,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: were they evicted from any other prior unit? And the tenants are arguing, you know, a lot of times a case is begun just for reasons that I didn't do anything wrong. It's just a mistake, or I didn't pay rent, but then I cured it, or the landlord was wrong and lost the case. And what this is trying to do is to address both concerns by saying it's confidential, but once the judgment is in favor of the landlord, it's not confidential anymore. So the landlord has access to that information.

[Unidentified participant]: I'm confused, so isn't everything public to begin with, and this is saying that the outcome?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, this is saying that nothing is public with respect to a filing until the outcome.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So currently an ejectment is public. The members of public can go, it's a matter of public record. What this language would say is that when an ejectment action is filed, it becomes confidential, and no longer open to the public. That confidentiality is only removed if the landlord prevails in the case, And it is a termination based on nonpayment of rent or breach of the rental agreement. So if it's a termination based on any other reason, it would still remain confidential. So if it's a termination because the landlord is not renewing the lease

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Or condominium, I would say. Right. Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then they end up having to bring an object on action, that would remain confidential. But if it is a termination based on your non payment of rent or you're breaching the terms of the agreement or acts of violence, those individual scenarios, if the landlord prevailed, they would remove the confidential nature of the records that

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: would be available to the public.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is a section here to answer your initial question that would prohibit reporting agencies, consumer reporting agencies, from reporting the information that is confidential. So the only thing that would be reported under this language moving forward would be if the landlord prevailed because of nonpayment or for breach. Joe.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: A question that goes for judiciary, but just curious. What happens if prior to the case, the person just leaves? Is is there a judgment made in for either at that point? Like, they just leave? Yeah. Just default. It would be a judgment. Yeah. Be able to land on at that point? Yeah.

[Unidentified Member]: Okay. Yes. We've heard testimony that a tenant is being evicted, but part of their causing issues with other tenants. If it's confidential, are other tenants going to be able to testify if needed?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, it wouldn't prohibit the court from gathering whatever evidence that court needed or the attorney that information that was provided to the court as part of the record would be confidential. Gotcha, okay.

[Unidentified participant]: Can I just say We something about heard testimony last year also that very, very often they believe, they do believe so that this doesn't happen and there's a If there's no ejectment filed,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: then this is not relevant? If there's an ejectment filed and then they leave, there's going to be a judgment in favor, a default judgment in favor. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or the case could just be dismissed if the landlord decides it's not worth continuing to pursue because the tenant has vacated the premises. They ask for a dismissal of the case And just to end

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: the dismissal of a case is assumed to be okay, there was no problem. Yes. Okay.

[Unidentified Member]: Yes. I don't know why this hasn't popped into my brain until this second. It happens. It does happen. In employment law, as HR, I hire somebody who's filled out an application and they said they have their master's degree in accounting. Turns out they never even went to school. I can then terminate them. Would it be considered a breach of a contract or a breach of a lease if a tenant lies on their application? I don't know what they would lie about, but it's like, if there is a question like, have you ever been evicted?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. Would

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: say, I'll hazard an answer. Not in law. Probably if your contract, the rental contract says that facts and the application are correct.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think if you as a landlord had some sort of regressions in there, qualifying the contract if somebody was lying on the application, probably enforced that. I think

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: that's why they got rid of the question of like, do you have a felony on the very first application? Because it could have been thirty years ago, and that would be, if you're just of the initial thing, people would just throw away your application even though

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Before you go to the yellow,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I want to clarify something here.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Look at that on that page. Yeah,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I just want to clarify an earlier change. You see where it says who has access to this, Where it says each party, the judge, court staff, and each attorney?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yes,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: sir. Here, I'm just telling the group, I wanna remind you guys, first draft of this bill had all kinds of additional people who had access. Anyone from legal aid, anyone from legal services, etcetera. Judge Zone pointed out Do

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: you know who he's I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: mean, you're asking the court to Yeah. Where are you from, and will you prove it? And then I thought, and why? And I just realized this was exceptional, we took it out.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And on that note, Mr. Chair, on the sub deed here, I removed a lot of language because it also had the court this was the language upon motion and subject to a balancing of interests for and against disclosure, the court could make confidential objectment records available to requesting parties for scholarly, educational, journalistic, or government purposes. And Judge Soni called that. I think he referred to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it as wide open. Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this would limit it, Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, to adjust the parties, adjust the court system, the attorneys representing the parties, and then there is in the sub B, they can make the confidential records available to any person with a valid court order authorizing access to the directive. Okay, so the next thing we need I think we're going go all the way down to the appropriations section where I've added in the 600,000. It's 33. So the sum of 600,000 to the Department of Children for Children and Families to be granted to community action agencies to be used to support liaison work with landlords and tenants. That is very vague language. So keep it vague. Or if you all want to further clarify, I was reviewing some of the materials that were given. I really wasn't able to ascertain whether this was a current program with a proper name.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Right, I think so.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just assume that if this stays in, when we will give We just couldn't get more information fast enough. We'll just give it the information to appropriations. You don't want to say

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: cap agencies or

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It says community action There

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was also within that request a distribution of the funds of 200,000 through one in particular, I didn't include that because I was just trying to But get it if you wanted to make

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: a I think we can make that clear. I do wanna comment on this appropriation section, if I might. I'm somewhat torn, to be honest. I feel like we should leave this stuff in, but with an understand. On the one hand, we all know there's no money. I intend to tell and I have to testify this afternoon as chair on our letter. Remember our letter? I intend to tell them that two things. First of all, I intend to tell them that 3 a, 1,000,000 to the Vermont State Housing Authority for Rent A Spheres Assistance Fund, we've put that in tier one of our letter, and I intend to say that is a priority. And the reason it's a priority is that it addresses homelessness directly in the landlord tenant context, and everyone I've talked to has said that program, it could be loosened up a little, it could be worked on. I have heard from the director of housing authority that they're doing that, but everyone has told me that it's an excellent program and really important. It's running out of money, and I'm going to indicate that's a priority.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Can I say something about that?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, go ahead. I support that, especially given the context of what we're doing to the landlord tenant. Yes. Like, if we're shortening evictions and we're putting frameworks around, like, I have plans for my place, blah blah blah. Like, we've heard that evictions are 80% or whatever the figure was because of running out of money.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And so 75% in Burlington. Right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And so I think that I think that we've also heard how easy it is to fall into place.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. So actually, Leonora sort of said half of what I was gonna say. Oops. Well, no. Other words, I started off by saying, We're on appropriations here. I'm just saying I'm ambivalent. What's gonna happen in appropriations is they're gonna put right up at the top, for each of these, this is what they do. They'll put to the extent funds are available, period. They do that with every bill. Okay? In other words, they don't strip out the money. They just put to the extent funds are available in the budget. Then, they do all the trade offs when they make the budget. I think, personally, my own opinion is that money is so tight this year that many of these things will either not make it into the budget or in very reduced form. Nonetheless, here's what I'm planning, absent contrary instruction from my committee, I'm planning to say to them pretty much what Leonora said, that the essence of the bill is to try to seek, this bill, is to try to seek balance, and one of the things that is essential to the landlord community, and may help tenants in some ways, but it's basically for the full financial functioning of the rental sector is a shortened eviction process for people who really have to get out, and that the price of that, so let's just be honest, the price of that is the possibility of an increase in evictions, and some of those are going to be homeless. So, we're talking about potential increase in homelessness. One way we deal with that is by having more rental units, by encouraging landlords, if we're making life easier for them, to invest and create more rental units.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And more housing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And more housing. But on the other side, I feel that it's important that we try to improve or maintain the safety net for homeless people, and that's what this money is about. So even though I know that they aren't gonna be able to prove everything, I think that I have to remind them it's important, and that's why that's in here. I just want to say for myself, that's why I feel strongly that we need to say these things, regardless of whether we think they'll do it.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And we have to fight for it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think it's important also to remind them that this program has, the candidates for it are people that have been paying, have been these are exactly the people that landlords want to be renting in their properties. And with a little bit of help could get past

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Get past it. That helps landlords as well. And also, will add that the alternative is the motel program, which is very expensive.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That costs way more money.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And splits families up. Is there

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: any other

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Not on the appropriation book, I had to step up for Cal, but can we look at something on page seven? The termination of tenancy notice section on page seven.

[Unidentified Member]: I'm going to jump you in round.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, not you. I would. And again, this is my wishes not. And I know I'm the one who's like, let's get it done, but I have.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, we have

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: counsel here who needs to be here for this. I think that myself and a couple other members on the committee had discussed yesterday, I believe, about something from the network language around survivors and people who were, if there was an eviction, not having people who are

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: with

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: not having those folks

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. Who the victim Right. Like, if you're trying to get out the perpetrator Right.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Unintended consequences related to eviction. And I believe the network had sent in. Did they have language in their memo or no?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are we talking about the eviction for the dang the dangerous tenant? When they're not saying the dangerous tenant? Right. Yeah. And so you wanna make sure that the

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I wanna make sure that victims are not harmed in any way. I want I would like to make sure that

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So this is not on that page. Where is it? Oh. It's Oh, I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: was talking about where it would go.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I know. I'm just trying to get to the right page. Where it's two a at the top of page eight. Where termination is based on acts of violence, threat the set landmark, terminate the tenancy. Right. Okay. So the question is, we wanna we the real question you're asking, you're trying to prevent a situation where the victim is Yeah. Is protected. Yeah. Joe?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I guess. I feel like I I definitely saw that letter that came through, but without seeing it in any form here.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I don't know.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It seems really hard to try to get to that because, number one, that's if you you follow Not that I just I totally don't want them kicked out because Yeah. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I have But it's really hard to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get to, like, the victim of because then you found the same thing

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: that years ago with other belts. Like, you're

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not a victim yet because they haven't been charged. And I'm gonna come through the whole process. So now they're kind of

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: a potential victim of and then it's was it were they a survivor of domestic violence thirty years ago? Or is it, like, something that's happening now?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, it's as a result of this, whatever issue.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But it was just like the way to word it. I didn't it it didn't jump out to me. It's like, oh, that's clear. Like, have you Okay. Well, here's

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: a question. I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I Yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah. We're telling him what

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: we're sad about, and he has to make it into, like

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I wanna propose a a possibility, but I'm not gonna ascertain it. I'm just being Yeah.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And I just wanna hear one. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, let's I'm asking a question. We do have a remedy, hear me out now, we have a remedy for the drug dealer who isn't a tenant, who lands on the tenant and says, at the point of a gun or a hypodermic needle, you're letting me stay here. Right? And that remedy is that enhanced trespass. Okay. So, if I want to get tenant out, excuse me, if I want to get the offending person out, and the offending person is not the tenant, it's the victim, I have my remedy in trespass. So, this really is aimed at, well, gee, what if it isn't the drug dealer who's landed on them? What if it's the tenant?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: One of several tenants.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. So, what I'm wondering is, is it overbroad and dangerous and harmful to the landlord, or is it a solution if we were to read when termination is based on Acts of violence. Acts by the tenant, which are acts of violence, damage, or any other activity. You see what I'm saying?

[Unidentified Member]: I think the question is what happens if it's two tenants in one unit. Right. So it's Yeah.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And you're both on the lease.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Because right now we're saying the tenancy, the whole tenancy. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think the option I can't

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Saudia has her hand up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hey, Saudia.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thanks. Yeah. So I just I I here here's the thing. And I I I'm I was trying to save my comments for discussion, but I feel like if I do that, it's just going to be too late. And ultimately what I've been trying to say this whole time, it's not that I don't agree with what you're trying to do. Problem here is you're trying to do too much at the same simultaneously in this bill. Because when, Bartley just stated, I'm going over every head in room. And for transparency, I don't know how many people in the room at the table who are making the decisions on this are currently renters or have rented in the past five to ten years. Because as we have heard, the rental system has changed over the course of those years. I will explicitly say on the record, my most recent bout of homelessness and eviction was 2018 when I went through the process. Okay? So I will say that, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about here is the violence. My first apartment, my first bout with homelessness and becoming homeless as a result of tenancy was when I was 17 years old, living with a partner in my apartment that my name was on the lease and I paid the rent and security deposit. And I was abused. I was put through a wall. My four foot eleven ninety eight pound body was put through a wall. And my neighbors heard me screaming for help and called the police. And the police came and told me they were taken. Do you know who had to move out of that apartment? Right. Do you know that apartment? Who had to move? Me. I had to pack up all my belongings. I had to leave my place, my home to protect my life and my safety. So what we're doing here when we're saying who we are protecting, we should be doing these things in isolation to make sure we're getting to what we're doing. We can't say, oh, we can't do anything about it because people's lives are at stake. Because if if we can't do anything about it, then who will? That is why we're here. We're here to fix the problems, not with a broad stroking brush. Sorry. That that we if we're gonna address it, it has to be addressed. And there is a way, there is language, we and we don't have time really. And I'm if if we want to say that we have to not move forward with this bill to get to the point, then so be it. I hate to see that happen because there's so there is some good things in this bill. I'm not saying it's all bad, but there is a lot of harm that will come from this bill as well. Sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you, Saudia. Debbie Well, I just

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: wanna make sure I understand the situation, abusive situation. The police get called. The police come. And I thought the way the laws were is that the victim doesn't even have a say anymore. The abuser is removed.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that I think that what Saudi is getting to and, the issue the issue we're wrestling with is not the criminal part of whatever activity, you know, not the whole criminal side, but what happens in a situation where And, Chris, I might ask you to comment on this. Maybe there's nothing we can do, some of us are feeling like, gosh, maybe it's not amenable to change. But the situation, I just want to lay it out, is where it's really not the tenant that's the problem. It's a member of the tenant's family, or the tenant's partner or a drug dealer or somebody that's landed on them. And the question is, is there any way to protect the tenant in that situation as opposed to others? And I don't know that there is, but I just want to be clear about what Saudia is saying and what you're saying. Chris, do you have anything to add to this at all?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: If they are on the lease, it's thorny. If they're

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on the lease, it's

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: thorny. Think the provision of the notes trespass in this bill is very helpful, but that doesn't help if they're on release. The courts have, and I think Judge Zonay mentioned this, the courts have the ability to have conditions of release when someone is arrested, and that one of those conditions could be that they're not allowed to go back to the apartment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In law. Current law.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Problem in practice is that then you have to rely on the police reports to prove that they're a danger to the other tenants or the rest of the building. And so it's just

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not foolproof.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: What's the matter with relying on the police report?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: The police reports don't have enough information for the state's attorney to actually make the case that the definition of release is that they can't get back to the police department. So there's just not enough detail oftentimes in the police reports. The education with each individual police department that needs to happen.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So how about this?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If they're not on the lease, if they're on the lease, you said it's difficult because you can

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: only They have a right

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to go back. Or you evict you can't evict one signatory on the lease and not keep you evict everybody on the lease. Right. I see. Yes, Tom. I think

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: the enhanced trespass creates the opportunity to terminate the lease, apply the the enhanced trespass to the perpetrator, and write up a new lease for the remainder of the the tenants. It's an option. I don't know how kind of whether that's Mhmm.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Yeah. Doable practical, but It would take months.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: How about this?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It may not be practical.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: How about this? For the sake of everyone's lives and what we're doing, I see two options moving forward. One, I'm thinking that if we can't come up with I'm going to try to get some language that might be amenable. But if that's not, then I'm committed to working with the network to work on it in the next chamber. And so I am gonna try to get a language piece. You don't have to do anything. I'm going to try to get a language piece before we come back. And if it does not get agreed upon and it's too much to deal with and people don't find that amenable, then I'm going to commit to working with the next chamber to make sure that the network has time to present and take the testimony on survivor and this type of language. Does that sound like a good plan for people?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And I would oh, sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, both raised your hand at the same time, and I'm going to go with Leonora, your first. Yes.

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: We have to come up with a remedy. I think we need the right legislation that allows the aim to be removed from the lease rather than canceling the whole lease. There's gotta be a simpler way to like, we're gonna have to create a way for a tenant's victim to be protected.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think that might have to be done in the Senate.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Leonora? Yeah. I'm just encouraging conversations with our judiciary folks too because I think that that's going to end up in their hands, in their lap at some point.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. That may be a suggestion when after they do their flyby, they may have that too. So I'm going to get language in the next ish time from the network, and I'll share it with everyone. And if it seems like it's not an easy just thing to add in to our bill, then perhaps when it goes to judiciary, they'll make a suggestion, given that that's more of their wheelhouse and they deal with the network stuff a lot. And then if that doesn't make it in, then I will commit myself to making sure that our senate counterparts hear from the network on this piece and write a letter myself with others. Does that seem good?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It is very good.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So, to sum up, what I'm hearing is that there seems to be a general recognition that although this section is I mean, this section was drafted, it's a major part of the bill. It was drafted in response to a lot of testimony we heard that this is major, is addressing a major problem confronting landlords. It is not without, what I'm hearing is that there are situations, they may not be the majority of the situations, but there are situations where the tools that are available are not as good as they could be, and we have to make them better, and we just don't quite yet know how to do that. And so, we're going to have to do it either in another committee, via another committee, or others.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And as Saudia mentioned, why are we here if we're not here to make things better for everyone? And this is a glaring piece of policy that we are working on and doing great things, but it's not closed forever. So anyway, so I'll let everyone know when I receive the language. And if it doesn't work, then we'll work on it in another chamber. Thank you, for hanging in. Bear with us as things go on. Joe, to submit?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Joe, separate from that, but same area of

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: pill. Where are you? Same age seven.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Dry not until 10:30, right? 11:30. Oh, 11:30.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: 11:30. Okay. Right.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Could you help me understand, Cameron, the ten day termination for nonpayment of rent in coordination with the late of the rental agreement.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Like we wanna highlight

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Then on the eight page eight, it references the ten days again. So they're not what I'm getting is if they're more than ten days late on rent, you can terminate them for that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe it's fair. Think the language doesn't allow that. Yes. Day 12, you

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: can just say we're done. You can send

[Unidentified participant]: them the termination notice. Right.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You give them their termination notice,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: and

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: then they have ten days to pay it after that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you're doing it for non payment of rent, your agreement whether in writing or verbal says rent is due on X day, payments first. Again as I've mentioned there's a separate section that says you do not have to demand it, it's due on that day. I see nothing in the statute that would prevent you if ten days later they hadn't paid, it's the first month or presumably the second month, you got the first month's rent when they moved down, so maybe it's the second month. The statute would authorize you to provide them a termination notice on day 12 as you mentioned. Keep in mind you have to provide the notice, so if you're hand delivering it to them and then the notice period is currently fourteen days. So you would say the rent is terminating fourteen days from now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's a tenancy. Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is proposing to reduce that to ten. The section also says if the person pays rent during that period, notice period, it kind of cancels the termination. So you would not have to move forward at that point.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But now below if that process plays out three times, now

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: you can. Right,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so it's saying that if you three times you've paid late, now you're not going to move forward due to non payment of rent, you're moving forward because you're breaching the terms of the rental agreement, which has a separate notice period. It has a twenty one day notice period, so you'd have to provide them more notice, but they wouldn't be able to necessarily cure that notice. You would be able to move forward regardless of whether they paid you or not.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's an important point.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: So after that one, they can't Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is an important change in this problem. One, by the way, that appears somewhat hyper technical, but it's important to note. In prior law, it's really not clear. This is not it's not clear what happens to try to help the situation where someone is late once, but then they keep being late. What do you do? And our attempt here is try to make it absolutely clear that if this happens, if you have a repeat offender where they're repeatedly late, they can't just say on day 12 yet again, oh, here's the rent again. At that point, they have violated the terms of the lease and you can evict them and the eviction stands.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I'll just comment because you asked about the separate ten days on page 80. I'm trying to tie that one into how we decide that it's

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: late, because that's what it's now.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and so that's saying that for purposes of the termination notice period, so to be able to terminate someone, to be able to terminate their rental agreement due to repeated late payment of rent, the late payment has to be more than ten days after it's due, more than ten days after it's due. So if it's nine days after it's due, might be late

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: but this three strike thing doesn't work,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but you wouldn't be able to use that as justification under that section.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. The the three strikes is a good way to put it. Right now, the strike is defined as ten days late in this day.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie. I just wanted on record that if we're giving five days for mailing, I would like to go to the three day. I am. Because when you look at what you have when you do ten days plus five, right now we have fourteen days plus three for mailing, we haven't done anything. And this would bring us almost back in line with the seven days that you had in your original bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I just wanna say that is a committee decision. I do not have any strong feelings on five. I'm happy to make it three. It's up to the committee. I mean, my feeling, I guess alright. As chair, I think this is the committee decision. I think we should decide what to put in the string. Okay? I I I think I think it's up to us. I wanna say, I want the notice to I want the notice to be effective. At the same time, I don't want it to take forever. Yes, sir. I'm sorry to interrupt you.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: May I propose something for myself? Please. I have two edits here. May I go make them and get this into the editing process? If you are feeling like you're at a position where you're not going to make substantial amendments, if you're amending a day, that's easy. I can do it here and you can vote it out. Those are easy. But I do want to get into the process. I'm just thinking if I could go do that while you all continued your discussion, then I can get it in there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. If it's edited and we do not have consensus and don't wanna vote it out, then it could be edited to get changed and edited again.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's what I'm saying, once I get it edited, if I get it back and you're just changing a day, we don't want it to be ten days, want it to be seven days. Like, I don't need to have it edited for that purpose again, so I can make those edits on the fly and then you can vote it this afternoon if that's what you're aiming for. Because there are some substantive changes here, I want to have those edited and I just want to get it into the hot burn as soon as possible if you're looking for a possible vote today.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We are. Debbie, you got your hand up.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I have my hand up because I think on paper, show cause looks great, but in reality, it doesn't fly. We've been through it, and I think we need to also We can keep that in there, but we have to have no cause.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that's a policy issue that we should deal with on that level. I mean, I don't think that's a drafting issue. I think it's a real policy issue.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I would Yes. Some drafting support that just came up, the unpaid when we were talking about the does not apply page 14, section M on line 13, it says, this section shall not be construed to apply to any programs governed by federal law. I'm getting advice that it should say shall not conflict with any programs, just

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: they don't Because some of your things.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can't say conflict, because it would read, the section shall not be construed

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: to Conflict with any

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They do conflict. That's the thing. They're intended to conflict because they're entirely different, because there are termination periods that govern federal programs that have different timelines than what you've put in here. So I don't want it to say the section shall not be construed to conflict with any programs governed by federal law because the section does conflict with programs governed by federal law. We want to go to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the next step and say, if it conflicts with federal law, it doesn't apply. Right. Chris, do you have some comment on this?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: There's a lot in this whole section that

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: you would want to apply to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: program. So I would then say it this way. You can either tell me which one you want specifically, and I can call them out individually. But I will also highlight for the committee, I don't legally think you need this language anyway because there's nothing that the state is going to do to preempt those federal program requirements. So I would articulate it to you this way. This doesn't exist in the section and the federal law controls. What page are we on?

[Unidentified Member]: I'm sorry. Page four, which is

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the subsection.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That M highlight. So it

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: doesn't currently exist.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So we're stating the obvious.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it can be helpful to signal to the public. So what if it said So I don't think it's harmful, but I I don't think it's necessary because these programs are currently governed under their federal program requirements currently as it is, and there's nothing you're going to change in the state law that's going to change that because you can't preempt the federal government. But I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think you've made the case for taking it out. Would seem to me the choice is either take it out or write it to say, no provision of this section which conflicts with federal law shall apply.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you only want the ones that conflict, and that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Where I'm don't know if that's

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what they're saying, so I think that would

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: be a if that's what they're saying. I think, Chris, what you're saying is there are sections that you would like to apply.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So let me restate it in the opposite, though, which is what I need to know. We only wanting the sections that conflict not to apply? So if it doesn't conflict, you want it to apply. And if that is the case, I would say, but then they don't conflict.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that this is a puzzle. Take it out, and we'll deal with it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to keep working on that.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The other one, I just wondered whether we need to specify the credit report that it be a soft check. I know that folks were very worried about if I'm getting a lot

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: of But

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the problem is we have to define that term. It's not a defined term. We'd have to define the term. I'm just not sure. Yes?

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Peter Tucker, for the Vermont Association of Realtors. You know, I heard the discussion on SoftCheck, and I had a conversation

[Unidentified Member]: If the

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: the tenant pulls, gets their credit report, that is a soft pull. But if the landlord pulls the credit check, that is not a soft pull. I think first time not that big a deal but think about a land or a tenant who you know goes to one landlord and is you know doesn't end up getting the apartment ninety days ninety one days goes by and you know the next landlord says, hey I've got to get a fresh credit report. Those sequential, you know maybe the first one doesn't really ding their credit, but if they're pulling in a short period, multiple in a short period of time, then it would. I'm not a banker or an expert on this, but I talked with Chris yesterday and heard that, and I wanted to make sure it was clarified for the committee.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that the ninety days was our best effort there. Other words, it means

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

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The tenant only has to pull it once in ninety days.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And is that I've flagged again for myself to follow-up on, and I've met with them about it. I will be looking for those unintended consequences.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: As

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: we move through the building. It's something that is not good, that I don't like. Right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can we make validity last longer so that there are fewer I mean, we're putting in here that we would like the person to be able to use the copy of their credit check when applying to other places if the other landlord is requiring a background or credit check. The other thing is that I can't tell I mean, I think we're pretty familiar with credit check services, but I don't know what a background check entails, whether we need to also

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: like, what? Background check?

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah, yeah, you would know. Yeah. So what happens is depending on the software being used or depending on the industry, because they're all very different, somebody provides their either things say, yep, you're good or something pops up. And like, I don't know if there's any software that says, hey, you shouldn't rent to this person or you shouldn't hire this person. It's usually up to the discretion of the landlord. Just the same as for an employer. But so I guess what

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm saying is that the fuzziness in saying, I and thought we had delineated between charging for a credit check versus a background check because a background check, now suddenly it's creeping into an application fee because it could be like, I'm using my staff time to call places. I'm using my I don't know what the I feel like we had distinguished between the two. I thought we had said an actual cost.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We said actual cost. I mean, I think I guess my view

[Unidentified Member]: You know

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: what I'm saying?

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: And I think that the language says it's the actual cost of the credit check, not the actual cost of performing the credit check.

[Unidentified participant]: What's the difference?

[Unidentified participant (multiple – see time-bound overrides)]: Whether or not you're billing them for the time that you spend doing it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. Like, you gonna bill for the utilities and the time and the staffing and the, you know, is it When

[Unidentified participant]: you do the background select credit check, isn't it going out of state looking for felonies and evictions?

[Unidentified Member]: It depends. Mean, some, most of my experience is unemployment, but some will just do just Vermont. Others are state. So, I mean, a good example is for teachers, Title 16, BCIC, that is a national, but there are softwares that can do like an interim where it's just Vermont. So like, it really depends on what somebody's going to use. So the companies that we've used,

[Unidentified participant]: you get a choice, like three states or five states, and what comes back is any felonies and any evictions, and, of course, whether there's a sexual predator or something like that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I guess I would like to release counsel at this point, because to pursue this, which we may have to, is something that would require defining something that has never been defined in law, the term credit check. And I don't see an easy, just add a word here or a sentence there, to this fear that you're describing that we've opened a door for landlords to charge all kinds of things beyond actual cost. So I'd like to release them at least to just get this going and edit it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I have three edits that I'm making. The clarification that if a landlord runs the credit check, they have to provide a copy to the applicant. And then I have removing two things. One is the federal the reference to the federal housing program in the confidential ejectment records section that it has never occurred. I will comment, too, and very quickly in response to that discussion we were having, you have added in very clearly that a violation of that section regarding the application fees would be an unfair practice in commerce. So the AG's office could issue guidance or rules associated with that. And if you saw or if tenants saw repeated possible offenses from a landlord who was charging some sort of excessive fee that was an actual cost, the AG's office would be able to investigate that. So I think that will be helpful in clarifying that section that the AG can then begin to further articulate what are violations of that section. I think that's great. I don't think that necessarily alleviates the concern that's been raised, but I think it's at least helpful. Take off, but we

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Wait, I think were you going to he was maybe going through the three edits.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, was it. I went through the three. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm not ordering out of the room, but I do think it would be good if you could, that's done, come back, Because I have a feeling during discussion, we're going to take a break now for fifteen minutes, and then during discussion, there may be legal issues.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is what I'm going to do. I'm going go make these edits, get it in the process. I'm going to try to be back here at a minimum,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: make eleven.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do have to step out at 11:30 but I will at least be here in case you all have questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Are you going to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We'd like to know your warehouse. Oh I believe someone else is going there today.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ask them to have it edited as quickly as possible. Okay. So you Yeah. We were gonna track so I could get back.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Okay. Okay. Let's take ten minutes. Let's come back here at the border of, please, and we'll have discussion. We can