Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good morning again. Welcome to House General and Housing. We're still addressing H. Seven seventy two, which is rental reform, rental landlord tenant, residential rental agreements. We have, just for the general public, we have, at this point, had a series of walkthroughs from council, and at the moment, council is just producing the next quasi final, I would say, draft. And I think at this point, I would very much like to hear from people in terms of how they're feeling about this bill, etcetera. At this point, all I'm going to say myself at this point is I'm going to repeat that I feel like we are operating in a very imperfect world on this bill. And it's because we're operating in a world in which vacancy is very tight, it's very hard to find housing, we don't have a social safety net, landlords are being asked to perform functions that in other countries social agencies perform, and tenants who are perfectly good tenants but run out of money find themselves at risk of homelessness or living out of their car. The state is having to pay increasing amounts of money much greater than anything else to deal with homelessness. It's just a very I'm acknowledging that we are operating in a very difficult environment in which housing is important and at the same time, people who provide those housing, landlords, need to know that they have a stable, viable situation in which to operate. I think the question to ask yourself as you are looking this, is this an improvement or not compared to the status quo? And, you know, is it or is it? And at that point, I'm going to shut up and open it up for discussion.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie? I just have a question on this show cause. So the landlord's going to bring a lease violation, let's just say, and they're in court, we're showing the lease violation, and let's say the judge is like, the candidate brings their side of it, and the judge's like, not enough evidence for this. How many times in a time period can a landlord bring forth a show cause? Here's my understanding,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and I think that when Caledonia gets back here, we can answer, okay, But my understanding is this: the show cause hearing is a subset of all of this. In other words, the show cause hearing is just about a tenant who's violent or is making life safe or dangerous for other tenants or the landlord. That's all the show causes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Putting Zoom in there, so you're not on. Saudia is asking powerful.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's stop for a moment.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: We're live, it's the Saudia canceling.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, it's the Zoom, We're holding off because the zoom isn't functioning, and there's somebody, at least one person, who wants to zoom in. You have any idea what's going on, Mary? Does is it Elizabeth, did Saudia text you Yep. That she couldn't get in or that she was trying? She texted me to say,

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: when are we back? The Zoom link has stopped.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Ask her to try again.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: If someone can't get on Zoom, can they call and they'd be on a on a phone?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We could do that if we could treat that. What I'm gonna do is while she's trying to get in is just respond to Debbie's question, which will take me a minute. Debbie, if a landlord is bringing a case because of, let's say, nonpayment of rent, for example. Okay? They're not a dangerous tenant. They're just it's nonpayment of rent or it's some other violation of hey, Saudia, are you in?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. I don't know what that was. That was weird. I was I couldn't get in the the thing, but thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's all because of your politics.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. So, Debbie, to answer your question, if it's if a landlord is facing a situation with, you know, non tenant tenants, some other violation of the lease, if it's not a violent tenant, not dangerous, in that case, life is pretty much the same as it was before, except faster. So, if one hearing, you know, you could go to filing rent into court, and if they don't do that, they're out. Same rules, everything, that's the same. Or you could just skip that and go through the hearing process. This is assuming they don't, if they default, same rule. It's a little quicker to get the judgment under this law. And if they contest it, and they want a hearing, now the hearing has to be faster. So that's where that is. If they are a dangerous tenant, only if they are a tenant who is threatening the health or safety of other tenants, the landlord or the landlord's agent, then you have an option, it's an option of the landlord, to file at the same time as you file an objection, you file an affidavit that says this person, it just sets out in your sworn affidavit, you're saying, I'm the landlord and here's the information I have that leads me to believe that this person is a danger to other tenants, blah blah blah blah. At that point, you have the right to request a hearing within seven days, which is really fast. And in that hearing, either, a, the tenant doesn't show up, in which case you get possession, or b, they show up. If they have nothing, the judge listens to them. The judge, let's say, decides, I'm sorry. I don't think that to the tenant, you have not carried the burden, then you get possession. Let's say the judge says, well, I think that there really are disputed facts here. You know, they've introduced evidence that why there's a pile of needles outside of the front of their door. I don't know. Whatever they they have some good reason. The judge has to set a hearing, but the hearing has to be set within thirty days. The whole thing is faster, and then it's done. At the hearing, the judge decides. Does that help? It helps. So,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: in here we have, let's say, if we have to repeat non payment of rent, we were repeating that. Can we do the same thing with lease violations? Because they might be violating the lease, then they remedy it, and then they violate it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Three times in twelve months.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Three times in twelve months.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Mean, theoretically, let's play this out. Non payment of rent is a special case, because I think it's fairly easy for someone to scrape around, not fairly easy, but it's possible that someone scrapes around and pays the rent, but we really need to deal with the habitual thing.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. Habitual and egregious. And egregious. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If someone's violating a term of the lease and you move to eject them, let's say there's smoke, okay, in the building. Is that a good example? Yeah. We had no smoking. Yeah. Right. Okay. Let's use that because it's actually a lot of landlords feel pretty strongly about that. So, let's say you see that they're smoking, you move to eject them, you know, you go through, they stop smoking, they don't, they move to eject them. Then let's say they stop smoking for a while, I don't think you would stop the ejectment action and there's no requirements. There's no requirement that you stop the ejection action. You could just move forward, and if they say, well, your honor, I'm not smoking anymore, you can say, well, you know, they violated the lease and they're out. See, the problem is with non payment of rent is special because the law provides, gives people the ability to pay rent and cure. It doesn't give them the ability to cure for other violations. So, you just keep going. I wouldn't abandon the process. You know, if they're smoking again during you have one infection, they

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: violated your lease. So they can't remedy a lease They

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: can't remedy, at least, I don't think you can remedy, you can get out of a case by just remedying a lease violation, unless it's some

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I don't know what else

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it would be. What other

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, say they don't

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: take out the door and they

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: don't have fuel in

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: the tank and it's wintertime, and it's like you have to have heat in the building, it's the police that you have to have fuel. And then they get fuel and they put it in, but they've already violated that police.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that's an evidentiary matter. I think that the trial court, I think you could maintain the action and say, it's really dangerous. This is something that happened, and I don't want to wait until they do it again, your honor. You know? And, I mean, they might have to say, well, I let it go once, but now I have you know, there would have to be a factual termination at court, I think. I'm not saying that we couldn't add something. I'm just saying I'm not sure what it would be, but the reason that rent is a special case is because the law expressly gives them the right to cure it. And what we counsel and I, as we were going over drafts, realized that the existing law wasn't very clear about what happens in that situation, the repeated problem. And I didn't like that from a tenant's perspective, because it would discourage a landlord from accepting rent. In other words, most of the testimony we've received is most landlords want a tenant who's a good tenant and is paying rent, why would they want to reject them? So, if a I think in most situations, if somebody's, let's say, twelve days late, I think most landlords are going to want to say, and they spend they pay. You know, a landlord may wanna let that go, but the problem is then that if it happens again and again, there has to be a rep. Discussion? Other thoughts? I mean, let's keep going. Yes? I have a question. Did we take

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: any testimony at all on the positive rental payment? Did I miss that? Because I know last year and I'm not saying I'm either for it or against it. I know that last year, it was in s 01/27. We took it out because we just didn't have time to take testimony, but we liked the idea of having the conversation this year, and now it's in this bill, and I'm just not sure if we actually took I'm not sure any testimony if on

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: was through VHFA or through

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: the senior year, neither. It's through the treasurer's department.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I can't remember, honestly. I don't know the answer.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I don't think we did.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I don't think we did.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I guess I'm just a little bit concerned about having an entire section in a bill that we haven't taken any testimony on. Or that we don't consent to. But how

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: do we even know about it? I'm pretty positive we haven't. So how did we end up in the bill?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I put it in the first draft because we had it before.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And then when we were looking, I'm just realizing now when we were looking at all the timelines and all the things that were different, I just don't think this ever came up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Chris, do you remember whether you heard, either you or any testimony you heard?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I guess it's Donald J. But the discussion has been, I have not heard testimony this year. I have been, participating in testimony the last two years on this program, that is to try to get a product around. They operate a similar program that they want to pilot, and we've seen great results with our tenants and increasing their credit scores by positively reporting rental payments to the credit agencies. I just pulled up some data, I'm happy to share that with the committees they want in terms of how our then it's done.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that would be good to go ahead and share it. Joe?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Section seven, Lawrence Hall.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I mean, to be fair, if any credit reporting agency that only reports positive things, it's gonna improve people's credit.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: The the If they only reported positive,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they pay every payment I made, and I have credit.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You want me to go to the chair?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, you should.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Then Debbie, I'll get to you. Sorry, I don't know if it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I'll It just was discussed. We'll

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: To go on our answer that question, when people fail to pay rent, they get dropped out of the program. Not sorted. But not, it's not reported. Typically rent does not get reported to any agencies anywhere, unless property owners or landlords are proactively doing that. And so we've felt like it's a way for some people's ability to access credit and plan for the future. So, I can say that, let's see, let me just look at this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And if they're dropped out of the program, then what would show up on a credit report is a few months of payment of rent,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: and then And then nothing. Right. Yep, and my guess, my assumption, I don't have the data on this, but something else is going on in their life that's going be impacting their credit case. But we've seen people's credit scores increase by an average of 26 points after they enroll. Do people, are there a lot of dropouts? Let's see, we have,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: prepared to find all this.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I don't have that right handy here. Sorry, I don't have that on the sheet. I can tell you that five twenty one of our tenants became visible by the credit agencies for the first time by enrolling them. They had no credit score at all because they had not access to credit.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is that because they don't have credit cards, don't borrow any?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: A lot of people, yeah, a lot of people have no credit.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It could be that they just newly moved to the country for recent years.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I didn't have credit for a bit, and then I got one of those starter cards and paid a utility. It's very common.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It's a pilot program. It's something that the treasurer has talked about wanting to do. I think it's just another tool for low income people to be able to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I will say one thing about it, just process wise, it got kind of lost, is what happened. It went to the Senate. It came from f 01/27. Yeah. And then they didn't they weren't gonna put it in, and and somewhat, to what I heard testimony, there was some concern, Joe, that the issue you raised was a concern, and then it was determined that people who didn't pay were just dropped. And that was enough so that the senate it was in the senate bill, but somehow it didn't make it. It kinda got lost. We took it out. Yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And thought that we were gonna talk about it this year, and it just got put in. I actually, I have maybe a question for you. So a landlord has to opt into it. Right. If a landlord opts into it, is that for all of his unit or their units? Or is it just, so if they have, say it's a larger landlord who wants to be part of this program and there are requirements that we don't know of yet, could they choose, want this conglomerate of units to be a part of this program, but I have another conglomerate of units from a different town that I don't want.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Does it have to be all?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It does not have to be

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: all. Okay.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No, and in fact, think if I recall the language correctly in the treasurer's pilot, they mean the participating tenant to opt in. In our program, we we let tenants opt out, to opt people in, and people can opt out if they want to.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I for keeping it and making sure that they get more testimony.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We have now had a little test. Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That counts. Count it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Well, actually, course, just don't think good legislating.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Couldn't I

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: didn't say that. I just wanted to understand.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, I think if we had brought it up earlier and we had denied the right to get testimony on it, that would be terrible legislating. But I think the fact that we're it's an honest timing.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm flagging it for the future that if we have something in the bill, we need to take testimony on everything that's in the bill. I agree. I agree.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Agree. But I'm just saying that the timing to call testimony is something as as as helpful as this measure is we it's not the end of I'm hoping that this is I'm really grateful that you're flagging it, and I really wanna make sure that we follow through think flagging that for the next step.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There is going to be follow-up legislation because you're going to have to see this committee is going to have to take testimony. I don't know how many of you plan to be here next year, but we are going to have to take testimony on what has happened. You just don't I've learned you don't just fire and forget, you know, because each one of us has fears about this film. Right?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Honestly? So we'll see the landscape.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Fears that it will play out this way in some case or that case, and I think we're going to have to find out if it's past.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And it may not even look the way we presented it when it comes back to us.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I'm talking about next year.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No. I know. But even just this year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, this year. That's true. Any other questions of Chris on this issue? I mean, I feel like we've had some testimony. Yes.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Court should

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: raise the questions and not necessarily have some, but are there other agencies that do this to help build credit? Is this a unique thing or is this a common practice?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No, there are a handful of, well, the treasurer did a scan of the University of Vermont, and

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there are a number of similar types of programs. I think that, who operates

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: the unit above the transit station, The units. Down street? Down street. Down street has a pilot program. In it? We cover the cost of enrollment for our tenants because we think it's good for them.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Okay. And the second would be at some point, there should be testimony from the credit industry saying, is there, you know, people who use the report saying, does this, are they still able to assess what they need to assess?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I think you're

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: right. Or are we flattening the bell curve? Okay. I think that's a place for another committee to move forward to make sure that that gets Might be us. Followed up It might come back to us.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: would be expeditious.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yes. You said you covered the cost to the tenant? We covered the

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: cost of the enrollment, we don't pass on them. So,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: we work with a, and that may not be the case in the market, but you need to have incentives for the

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: property. It says not to charge a participant tenant for participation. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Okay. What I would like to do, just to clarify, some of us are going down to, at 11:30, down to house government operations, at their request to talk to them about the treasurer's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's like he heard you talking about this. Not him specifically.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Well, think it's specifically to

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: talk about July, and the part of July that expands the treasures 10% to Vermont. I'm doing that at 11:30, which means I will be walking out of here, and I might have company.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And then I'm in charge?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You are in charge at 11:25. We're voting. I'm sorry. So I what I'd like to do is have a discussion for ten more minutes, questions, and then adjourn until our and that will give counsel I don't wanna have we're not going to vote until we have a draft, the modal.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: A clean draft.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: A clean draft. Also, I've corresponded with counsel, I just want to let you know. Do you remember the part of the bill where this confidentiality part? And everybody, a number of people ask, well, the confidentiality disappears, not just when you win, but if there's a default, right? Guess what, the language wasn't clear on that. So I signaled It's good. I signaled That signaled. Yeah, camera to please make it like we all understood it in that regard.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That was a good follow-up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, anyway, well, I had help.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I heard.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, so, other comments or thoughts, questions?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Debbie, and

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: then I know we've

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: been over this a million times.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There's never too much, go on.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm still gonna go for the three day notice, because I'm gonna tell you, I would say so many are gonna be mailed. To hand deliver, you set up a time, oh yeah, I'll be home at 04:00, You go there at 04:00, they're not there. Oh, I got delayed. It's almost like a hassle. So it's like things are gonna get mailed and that will bring us to eight days. So ninth day. And if we're extending to sixty days

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You're talking about further payment of rent.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Non payment of And if we're extending to sixty days to give time to negotiate, remedy the situation, I just feel like if we're looking at how can we make this process faster for everyone involved, the landlords, to make it attractive for them to participate, That's my 2¢ on that.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So I have a question for you, Debbie.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Okay, go ahead. No,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm just asking, so in the spirit of the bill, is this hard line for you? It is. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I want to say my view on this, my personal view. My personal view is I'm fine with three days. I don't think in the big picture of things it changes very much. I'm a little I was a little ill at ease in going to five just because of the post office. I don't really know what the future holds for the post office. I'm also fine with Most it for this of the time, people who are in trouble, they're either not paying their rent or are causing violent problems or really problem tenants, they know what's happening. I don't feel that the notice is a surprise to most of these tenants. I'm perfectly happy with three days, but it's up to the

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: committee. If that's where you need us to be to support the bill, and that's what you're stating, how do folks feel about that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I would prefer a few days. For every three days?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I'm fine with that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I live in a rural town where we don't ever get within our three days, because it has to go to another part of the state and then come back, even if it's in the same town. And I think it's a slippery slope. And I also think that if it's three days for If a person If I am to understand correctly Okay. Anyway, I think it's a very slippery slope.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: We have in here, but you can email it, and you can follow it up by mailing it. So there's with the five day mailing thing, it's like you everything is backed up except for the delivery. Everything is backed up for the mailing. And so, like, we can email. Email you, like, this is coming in the mail kind of thing. You're they you might never you might receive it, you know, what? Twenty days later because of your or something. But I just feel like it's, you know, you're looking at eight days before, or nine days really, before anything can be started.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Regardless of when the mail arrives, you're

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: saying? Right.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Mary. Mary. Just as an example, in Montpelier, they get their mail once a week, sometimes on a Sunday.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So, I mean, they have to consider that.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What happens if, what's the repercussion if the male is late? Is there a way to know?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's just shortening the time. In other words, I don't get my it's just shortening the time.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And what is it now?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's three.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: We have 14 to to raise a year. It's three

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: now. The point is, it's just a question of how much time, because we're adding a provision that says a rent isn't late until ten days out. We're adding that. So, we've given ten days, and this three days is just on top of that. I mean, I don't get my mail in three days, and in fact, I don't get it in five. So the reality is, what's really happening is, it's three days plus ten or thirteen days

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: if or you were

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: five days plus ten or fifteen days, yes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So is your concern that if they get an email and then they have to wait for the mail and it starts the clock again?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I don't think they have to wait for the mail. I don't mean wait

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: for the mail, that if they get an email and then they don't get their mail until five or eight days, that you're concerned that that starts the clock again?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: No, What it is is we're giving them five days, we're giving the post office five days to get the mail to them. Right now, law is three days. So if we do our, this is just for nonpayment of rent, a termination notice. If we write it where it's three days plus five days for mailing, so that you're up to eight days. Know, theoretically, on the ninth day, a landlord could start a process. Most likely, they'll start negotiation and go that route. But, you know, you can have a lot of different ways we can do this. We can email it. We can but everything's followed up by well, except for delivered by sheriff, and that could take a while of itself. But the only thing that's a 100% is we hand deliver it. I'm just saying that in the real world, doing it that way is probably not gonna be a strong point, but by adding five days for mailing, your the total picture like, if I wrote a termination notice out and I say, you know, I might even give an extra day and pay the in pay, you know, on the first all the way to the second depending on holidays and all that. When I write that termination notice, the termination date will be eight days or nine days because we had to start counting the next day, not the day that we do it. One minute. So that would be how much time you would have.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I don't get my mail in three to five days either. But

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: you're doing it as a backup. The mailing is a backup. I can email you. Can I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: just ask, so who's uncomfortable with are there people in the committee you've expressed you're not comfortable with it, Elizabeth? Are there other people who are Saudia, did you want to say something on

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that? Uncomfortable with.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: With the piece, three day. So you're not comfortable with the three day, and is that a sticking point for you? Okay.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So we're talking about the time, sorry. Oh, I'm sorry.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Go ahead.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yes. I thought you were I wanna make sure that I'm understanding. This is the time given for a response.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's put it this way. Let's see. You have to put this in context. It's not sitting alone. Okay? Alright. Day one, your rent is due. Yep. Day two, they don't pay the rent. Okay? There's nothing to stop a landlord from saying your rent. Your rent. They can't send a notice of termination because for purposes of notice of termination, it's defined in the law now. This is what Debbie's saying. It's defined in the law that they have to wait ten days after

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: the land is due. K?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. So they wait. Right? I don't think that's how it is. They can you're

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: saying In in present law, you have fourteen days. If I send a termination notice, notice of termination, I have to count the fourteen days starting with the next day, And if I mail it present law, I have to add three more days onto that, and that will be the date.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Now it's fifteen days, or you would argue thirteen days? You would want it to be ten plus three, not 10

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: plus four. Well, I want it to be three plus five.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You know what? I unfortunately can't wait anymore. You are in charge, and we can talk on on this. But I would ask as a courtesy that we not vote.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Obviously, we will not vote without you, chair. Unless, you know good luck.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Let's see if you can clarify this

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: and So, Arnden, they're going to be with you. Okay. We're not on a break. Yeah, counsel will be with you. Sure. Oh, we're losing all three of them.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: We started losing

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: door or not.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're good.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Don't know why it's a stick.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, yeah, no, Joseph. We're gonna get Okay. So, right now, the committee has discussed probably our biggest sticking point at this point moving forward. And so, Saudia, would you like to discuss why that is your sticking point? Saudia, can you hear us?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah, I can hear. Were you asking me why that is my sticking point?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I I think I I stated this, you know, many times, and it has just also been stated around the when we're talking about mail and the reception or receiving of mail and technology or things like that, you're you're counting on external factors if the weather doesn't get delivered. There's so many things that can happen, and the fact that we're talking about three like, I wanna just point out the fact for a minute. Yeah. We're talking about ten days, fourteen days, three days, three plus five, three plus eight. Like, for me, I'm sorry, but that just seems like a trivial conversation to be having in the gravity of what we're talking about. And when we're talking about landlords who like trying to get them what they need, ultimately the goal should be to get you the outcome that you want with the least amount of impact and harm so that like you're not getting damage to your property, people are getting out and you're getting as much money as you can back in the shortest amount of time. Meaning that people aren't staying in the property for years on end without paying rent. And I think if we're talking about or months on end, we're trying to get the process to be within six months, reasonable. We're talking about humans here that have work, lives, etcetera, male external factors, technology, power outages, internet connection. There's so many external factors.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: So I

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: think talking about three days versus fourteen days versus ten days versus three plus five versus eight plus five, like this is, it's just, it's silly to me. And I think what the fourteen days was fine. I think that stands. I said that before, and that's why it's a sticker for me because in the grand scheme of things, this should not be this lengthy of a conversation for the gravity of what we're talking about in the subject matter at hand.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, I understand. But for one of the committee members, it was something that was important to talk about and was their sticking point. So I was giving space.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: That's fine. That's fine. I just I which I which I hear heard, but I I just feel like we should be trying to figure out how and full disclosure, honestly, this conversation we've been going we've been talking about actors. We've been talking about bad actors this, bad actors that. The whole conversation of this change, we were supposed to be talking about rental agreements, contracts, notifications, and disclosures. And it became all these different factors factoring in. And honestly, what we should have done as a policy decision was made landlord tenant laws become consumer rights and have if someone wants to engage in the business of being a landlord and running a business and charging people money, then put it under business status so that they have more protection, so that they have the same legal rights as a business owner, as an employee. And those things are there and work. But we're not doing that because one, we don't want to give more restrictions to landlord. We want to make it as flexible as possible for them. And also, we don't want to give any protections to tenants because, you know, they don't own anything. So at the end of the day, they just, they sign a contract. But I feel like if we're talking about contracts and negotiations and things, there should be consumer protections. There should be things involved. We have laws and regulations. We're talking about the laws and regulations that are currently in place, and we're talking about changing them, but we're not talking about changing them in a way that would benefit most people, is what I'm saying. Like, if the current is not working at the dates that are there, shortening those days, what impact would that make? What is the difference? If it's not working at fourteen days, how is it magically gonna all of a sudden work at three? That's just that's how I'm trying to understand that.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Debbie, do you have another thought? And then I'd like to move on.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yeah. No, I just wanna respond that we had memo, I'm going to call it, or testimony if you want to call it, from NECA, Northeast Kingdom Community Action, that they can give a response in forty eight hours if they can help with rent. Yeah. And churches is another resource. And there's other organizations out there for resources that give fast notice what they can do.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay, well it sounds like this particular piece of the bill is a sticking point for several members of the committee. And, you know, we have to make a decision on this as a group so that we can vote after lunch. So people need to think about what that means for them as we vote. Are there other points of discussion that folks have before we see the next draft with those changes and then plan to vote around 01:00? Elizabeth? Can

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: we go back up to the part where we talk about so called dangerous tenants and the affidavit?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What page you said?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I don't know the show cause section. Okay. Okay. Yep.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: First of all have that?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. Okay. There you are. Oh.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Page seventeen and eighteen.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think eight. 20?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Put together a lot of pages.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We're all looking at

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: today's graph. Right? That's okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: 2.1.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: 2.1.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I see page

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Page 20 is a show policy hearing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm with the hearing.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Elizabeth, do you have it?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I have page 20. I was not talking about a specific language in the bill. I was actually, I wanted to back up to the domestic violence protection, but also in here. And first, I wanna say, I wanna, like, on the record, thank Saudia for her her comments earlier today about her experience. And

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: in light of that,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I wonder whether in a show cause scenario where a landlord signs a sworn affidavit about violence from being perpetrated by a tenant, what if it is a mistake? What if it is a scenario in which a tenant is not actually the cause. It actually the person on the lease is not actually the cause. It is somebody else. It's not but the tenant is the person who is named on the or the lesser or or lessee is the person named on a police report Right. Is seven days really enough time to for a tenant who's in that situation facing immediate eviction, is that really enough time for a tenant to be able to reasonably prove that they didn't do what they're being accused of by the landlord. I think we've

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: talked about With

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: a full time job.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think we did talk about this yesterday. Right? Yeah. I think we did. Well, first off, I also wanna thank Saudia for sharing her experience. And I have received language from the network and I've sent it to Cameron for us to look at when he comes back about survivors and it may address some of the victims and

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it was

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: true that. I'm not a lawyer, I can't interpret it the way that he can. But I think we did talk about that all the days are blurring. Was it yesterday or the day before about what would happen and how someone would go about dealing with that if that happened. But I might be mistaken. It's my recollection. We did talk about that. But are you making a suggestion or just raising that as an issue with the bill? Or is there a suggestion that you can make that would change that?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I am saying that that is problematic to me. But when talking about what sections are problematic, I'm flagging it as a problem.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: All right. Are there other points of discussion about the bill before we go out one?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yes? I just wanted to clarify what Elizabeth is talking about. Don't know if I understand it. Are you saying that the person on the lease is the abuser? No. I'm saying that the opposite, that the person on the lease is not the abuser. And a neighbor hears of a commotion and calls the police, the police blame the leaseholder.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: The

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: one that's getting abused. Police are blaming the victim.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yep, and then very suddenly within seven days, the victim is potentially out on their ear. Right. Well, mean,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I don't know the situation when they had the wrong person.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think that was a judiciary discussion and that there was language in here about trespassing and that had to do again, we can flag it to ask Cameron if you'd like. There was, I believe, part of the judiciary section dealt with that situation.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Well, I'm not necessarily talking about someone for whom there is a order against them or a no trespass order or anything necessarily like that. I'm I'm just talking about protecting tenants from losing their homes in inadvertent ejection Yeah. When when it's not necessarily fair.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, and we were also saying that that's stickier if they're on the lease versus not on the lease, that we did discuss that. And as mentioned, there will be language coming forward about domestic violence and sexual survivors coming forward when we get back. Yes? I just wanted

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: to refer to page five, line two, when we're talking about returning security deposit. I believe present law is that for landlords, they'll return, along with a written statement, It has to be mailed. You have fourteen days to mail it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Deductions to the tenant within It is

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: fourteen fourteen after the date.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, the current law is whatever you see written there that's not underlined.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Right. So what's underlined is after. That's new.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, I'm just wondering if we need to clarify since there's a problem with the mail.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, I see what you're saying. Know, it's like The statement I originally just clarified

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: it and say that the landlord, you know, if you put mailed by or mailed fourteen day or however it's set.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think that would be I I think it's pretty I think it's stated, but if you'd like to ask Cameron for language clarity, that's fine. I don't see a problem with it personally, but if you wanna it looks like you have a checklist going. No. Don't. No, it's just Okay. I came across that before. So do you think it looks good you're gonna get this done?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Because when we rented last year, I said, I go, they have fourteen days to get that to us. So of course, when we got the envelope, I looked at the mailing date.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, right.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: And we didn't receive it fourteen days. I did. You've received yours or you live closer.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, no. Sometimes it's right. Some people look at what the dates send and postmarked versus

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah. I have them hand stamped. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Elizabeth? So should we then also make that the same case for renters, that they are if the rent is mailed within a time frame?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I don't think we're changing it, but we can ask Cameron if it's not reading properly. But I don't think that we're changing the policy. We're just asking if it reads right. Okay. And you'll make you wrote that down to ask. You got it in your little thingy. Okay. Gayle, is your hand up? Yeah. Just the thinking hand?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Also Yeah. Side note, why is Marc's chair more comfortable than mine?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Should swing

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: his one up.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: That's good.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: But it really I mean, it's like No, I think it has an extra cushion. Anyway but I just I couldn't get off because I was trying to be closer to Leonora. It's like but and then I was, like, I'm just saying. Anyway alright. Well, we'll Joe, did you have anything you wanted to add before we go back?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No. I'm good. I appreciate

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: the offer though.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No problem. Alright. Well, we're gonna we're gonna we're still live and we can go off, but I just wanted to I know this is really difficult work. This has been one of the hardest me, at least. This has been one of the hardest bills that I've worked on since I've been in my time in the legislature, and it's something that my background, not that I'm not going to pontificate here, but for folks who don't know, I actually have a background in tenants' rights work. And I worked on a lot of work for tenants in different communities for a long time. And then after chairing the landlord tenant study committee Anyway, this has been work that I've been engrossed in for several years. And so I know how difficult it's been, and I'm really proud of I'll save it more for when we vote, but I'm really proud of the discussion. And this is the type of bill that not everyone is gonna like every piece, and it still has a long journey through the legislative process. So, I don't want people to feel like this is the end. But with that, committee, three of our members are in government operations with legislative counsel, Cameron, because we have our tracker on him now. Marc left his phone. So I guess we'll take a break for lunch early, but when we come back at one, we'll have everyone back here and

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: be prepared to vote. If there's So are we done with discussions of whether we have any other problems in the bill? No.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: If there's things you'd like to talk about, you're welcome to share them. But Cameron's not here, and have half our committees kind of left. So I didn't know if you wanted to do that now. It looked like people are trying to leave and take a break.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I guess, Mike, So at one, will there be another opportunity to talk about other questions about the bill, or are we just going go straight to voting? I'm not going to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: be the chair at that point, but if I was, I would ask folks who have I mean, these things that in the bill that you well, when you're advocating for like, do you have things that can change that haven't been discussed already? Or Yep. Okay. So then, yeah, we would talk about it, I assume. I just You know, we've been working on this bill. I'm not trying to rush people, but we've working on it for a while. And due to the legislature, it still has to go to two other committees. So if there's I guess what I'm trying to say is was is there language suggestions that you would make to put into the bill or to change?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Because we can give those to camera.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. So that's that's what I'm saying. That's what I did. So I thought I had had an issue with the bill, so I got language to give him before the draft.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Then we can vote on that language. Right. Because I think it's getting to the point where it'd be hard to create new language. Right. Have discussion on that new like, get assigned the new the call for a new language, discussion around the new language, and then also get the get the bill out in time. So I think I'm feeling I'm feeling like like that's why that's why I I was making a big deal out of, like, the the fees, for instance. And yeah.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: What is like, I'd be is it okay to talk the issues out, right? Or or at

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: least raise them? We are we started

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: with quorum. We have we have a quorum. I yeah.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So it would be just an issue of figuring out whether

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: if there's

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: change Right.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: There's changes

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: that need to be made, then they have to go to legislative council.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah. Two issues. One is I feel strongly that the landlord be required to provide alternative accommodations if the tenant as if the tenant is living in an unsafe scenario that is that has to do with the dwelling. As I said yesterday, I don't think that it is where we have in the bill a list of reasons to be able to withhold rent, I don't feel that's adequate. Because if a tenant is living in a dwelling where they're living with the danger of being electrocuted, that's one of them, A landlord should be required to provide alternative accommodations for the tenant. Did you say should?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Should be?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah. I thought it was already.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It's tenant is currently

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: allowed to withhold rent.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's my understanding that they have to we went over this section, and they had to provide If they don't meet those standards, then they have to provide that. It's in there.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: So, are you saying they have to provide a remedy and that's not stated?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Or are you saying that I'm there's gotta be a remedy. That it was my understanding when we went through it yesterday that the remedy, as it stands right now, is limited to a tenant's withholding of rent.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What? So in tenant's rights, they are required to provide that to someone if they don't meet the dwelling standards. We did talk yesterday.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Current tenants' rights, a tenant has the right to recover damages, obtain injunctive relief, recover legal fees.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. So if they had to go and if they had to fix the problem, the malfunction, then they'd get all of that paid back. I don't know that putting more obligation on the landlord is actually going to achieve what we want to do. I think that it's better right now to say, if the landlord didn't fix it and you had to, you get paid back for that. Because then it actually gets fixed. I'm trying to understand. Because if it because the landlord could still not fix it even if we say that there's a law that says that you have to. Like, we're saying the room the place has to be habitable and safe. That is the law. Do I have that? Like Gayle.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Right? I mean

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I just wanna make sure

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: that right.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: So right

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: now the law says that you have to have that habit that the place has to be habitable and safe.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And there's criteria

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: for that.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: And there's and there's and it's criteria. And then we say, if you have to fix it yourself because the landlord does not, the landlord must pay you back for that. And so I feel like we're doing what you want to achieve. I don't agree. I think that, for example,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: pipes burst. Yeah. And a tenant's apartment is flooded. Not all of the apartments in a building, but a tenant's apartment apartment is flooded. As it is right now, the landlord is not obligated to provide alternative accommodations. Why would it be why on earth would it be incumbent upon the tenant to fix that and then build

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's not. There's it's not incumbent. There's anything can Yes. And get reimbursed. But but your argument is

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: for a hotel, and that would also be reimbursed.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So I guess at this point, would that I think the

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: landlord would have

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

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: They do. The hotel.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Would have They do.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: That's Elizabeth, think she wants

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: it more specific in there.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So then what I would do if I were you, Elizabeth, with that piece is I would have asked legislative counsel to write something that would be different language for that, to be more specific at this point. Otherwise, we can't change it if we don't have the language. And right now, there's kind of an we have a different interpretation of it, so we can't know what the language would be if you don't share it with us.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: The other one was I just I do still feel that making I don't agree with limiting a deposit to be first, last, and deposit. I think it should be first plus deposit, plus one month of deposit.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Well, I think the committee had made that decision about that piece. I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: appreciate it. Absolutely.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie? I mean, can just say from experience is that when you have first blast in security, that when somebody, you know, gives notice they're gonna be moving, that they use that last as their last month's rent. They've had their first, they've had their, they use that as their last month's rent, so they're not paying rent again that last month. And then they have the security deposit for them to go towards damages.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, I think we spent a fair amount of time on this part, and we did already make a compromise in this section,

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Let me get to one extra.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. Do you remember we did that?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yep. And I'm just saying on the record that I I still strongly object to that. I don't really understand why what if that's the case, then why you it it goes both ways. Like, why do you need the last month's rent if the tenants

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Well, that's, you know, a decision that but I understand that

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: It's already the obligation of the tenant. Why does the tenant have to pay the last month rent in advance? Okay. Well,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate We don't have witnesses to ask questions like that, so we're not going to just ask the committee member or if you're just asking in general, I understand that. Not directed. So when they prepay Unless you want to answer that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, I'm

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: just hoping when they prepay that last month, let's say, let's just say it's $500 your rent's 500. So that last month you're not paying 500, but you have 500 to put towards your new place, first place rent.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, I understand. Okay, well, I understand that folk there are folks in the room who still have heavy issues with the bill, and we're not you may not hammer everything out for everyone, but we have if there's language you need to get to Cameron, it has to be during lunch because we can't rewrite the bill on our own. So, as mentioned, if there's things that you need to get to Cameron, then I would do that so that the committee can look at it and we can vote clean coffee this afternoon, which is what we have to do. All right. And with that, I hope everyone has a good lunch. And we'll be back at

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: one