Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome back everyone. It is still Thursday, February 26 at 01:10, 01:12PM.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: this is the Committee on General and Housing. Okay, there is a vote on seven seventy two. There have been Counsel, do you want to quickly go over those?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yes, If you want to get to that question first. The Marc question is, is the ADA coordinator bill being discussed at all this week?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. Okay. It's that because the ADA coordinator

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Was gonna do a walkthrough.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there a reason that can't happen tomorrow for the walkthrough?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: She's at

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, great. Alright.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And just quickly, so there's still time to work on that, right?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, also, let's see how is Katie by the way, does Katie have any time this afternoon? Yeah. Some minor changes and then I'd like to have discussion and I think, so I think that bill is, and get out of here, and get to a probe sometime.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: My other question is for Cameron, and Cameron knows what I'm talking about. It was the discussion of current law with regards to remedies for inhabitable dwellings.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just didn't visit somebody. Yes, I'd be happy to. For the record, Cameron with Office of Legislative Counsel. So typically, I'm going pull up the current statutory submission regarding habitability and tenant remedies. Okay, so if the landlord fails to comply with the landlord's obligations for habitability so as you all remember, there is a specific section about the landlord's obligation and warranty of habitability for the premises. That section specifically only references to heat and water. But there is the Division of Fire Safety residential rules that go into much more detail about the code requirements for habitability of a residential dwelling unit. If the landlord fails to comply and after actual notice of the non compliance from the tenant, a governmental entity or qualified independent inspector. In this case, at this point, that would be the Division of Fire Safety because you've gotten rid of the municipal inspectors and put that jurisdiction under the Division of Fire Safety. If the landlord fails to make repairs within a reasonable time and the noncompliance materially affects the health and safety, the tenant may withhold payment of rent, obtain injunctive relief, recover damages, cost reasonable attorneys fees, and terminate the rental agreement on reasonable notice. I have not done exhaustive search of Vermont's court cases in this regard. There's kind of a lot of questions around some of those things. One was asked earlier who determines what a reasonable time is, the courts would. And I'm not aware off the top of my head that they have given some sort of hard line rule of a reasonable time means ten days. I'm not aware of that. And the discussion that I was having, rep Burrows, if I may, the question was about what if a unit is uninhabitable? And I would look at a few things. If the landlord fails to comply with the landlord's obligations, then a question would be the first question I would have is, what is the issue? And was it within control of the landlord for starters. And then you would need to look at, is the landlord failing to make the repairs within a reasonable time? Within that time, the tenant can withhold payment of rent. They could seek injunctive relief, so they could go to court and try to seek an order from the court mandating that the landlord repair whatever the habitability issue is. That's the injunctive relief. Yes, sir. The tenant could seek damages from the landlord. So if the habitability issue somehow led to some sort of damage to the tenant, so either damage to the individual themselves, they were injured as a result of the uninhabitability issue, or there was some sort of damage to their property as a result?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How about if they were just forced to rent something else?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the answer to that. It is not here. So you would have to demonstrate that you had to move somewhere else and you were damaged to that effect. I think it is possible. I don't know what the courts have determined. I think the discussion was, to what extent is this within the control of the landlord? Was the landlord aware of it and chose to ignore it and not fix it versus something that may have occurred Like the funding? Under the acts of God type situation that may not have been known to the landlord, but I would be looking at it as what was the occurrence, how long did it take the landlord to react, did the landlord sit on it and do nothing such that your apartment was flooding and didn't have a plumber come out, didn't call someone to come fix the issue and you know, you're telling them, hey, there's clearly, you know, water building up in the roof and the landlord does nothing about it and then a week goes by and then, you know, it bursts and floods your apartment, you probably have get Exactly, a significant case, the factual. From my life, my former life as a legal aid lawyer, those are the factual demonstrations. Have to give a really good notice and then show that it's uninhabitable and then look for a reasonable place to live. To answer the question, I don't know because I would need to spend some time doing some analysis of what the cases have determined if somebody has asked for or sought damages that included recovering cost of additional relocation expense or costs of additional dwelling, you could put that in there. You could specify that if it was that those damages include the cost of relocation, and then you would be signaling to the court that we're intending that to be included. I'm personally not I can't answer that immediate question at this point, but I will do the legal analysis, and you may be criticized. Other individuals, possibly even in the removal period of pain in the knee.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, go ahead. I know who you're referring Did you have another question, Elizabeth?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, no, that was it for now. Okay.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So what I'd like to do is, go ahead and go through. Oh, did you have a question?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I just had a question. So in other words, it sounds like this, Looking at all of that language, have we not now added much more specific definitions of

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, what there's the habitability section, which anybody can use at any time, and then there's this other section that we've added, it's a defense, once you've been a defense to an ejectment. For ejectment action. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So now are we deciding if we No.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So what are the changes?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, yes, will walk through the amendments that you have. So this is draft 3.1, strike all amendment to seven seventy two. The first change I'm going to get to is on page four, where I've added some language here that states that if conducting a background or credit check on an applicant, the landlord or the landlord's agent shall provide a copy of the results of the background credit check through the app. Pause there, just make sure I've captured what the desire was. Okay,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: page five.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does gotta get in the loop at this point. I'm just referring to previous conversations about sometimes that background check is just calling previous landlords, things like that. And it's not actually necessarily pulling a neat, clean background check that you can

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: hand them on paper. It's actually just following with other pieces.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. But if you're gonna charge somebody

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you have to, like, write write what people said down and then hand it to them? Like, write down what people told you? Is this or is this, like, let's just check with references?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: That's reference.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Okay. So okay. Perfect. Good. Move on.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page five. Can the Yes.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I mean, we could could you indicate that if payment was received for background, then the results will be

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: shared?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could further condition for if you wanted to to say if they're charging for a background. Right now, it's just if they conduct one. You could change it to say if you're charging for them, then you have to provide the results. You could change that if you want.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So I would say conduct and charge. I say would say charging. Okay.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: If there is a charge for a backhanded pet.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right? In theory, that would also somewhat ensure that if you're going to charge someone for one, you're going to do one if you have to provide them with the results of it, as opposed to charging them and then not doing one.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: All right, committee? I think

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: that this way it benefits the person who's

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: paying for it.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: We're going to allow for that as part of the process, then Okay, they

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: should it's very difficult to criminal background check though. That's what they're called, is creditworthiness and criminal government, but it's not preferences.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Sure, I'm happy with that in criminal.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Background can just encompass a little

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

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't conduct them, so I don't know if there is a, I don't imagine there's a statutory form of art here. So my legal opinion to you is fact that the check is fine.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Think it's all right.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I agree.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And if another body thinks that needs to be criminal, we'll put it in.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I think criminal is fine because the Oh, you

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: want criminal?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, I

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: would like to say criminal.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. It doesn't look like we want criminal. Some people. Don't care. Just care. Look

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: at your social media posts.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Are they gonna look at

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: but that's not you're not that's not oh. Background. Let me check.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I think we're getting a little weedy.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yes, I was getting a little weedy.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It's your fault.

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

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Joe loves to get weedy.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not a bad thing to have

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: if you're charging for one, but

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, let's go. Next. So I'm

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not making any changes in saying charging. Moving to page five, under the subdivision two, this is under those circumstances where the landlord is terminating the tenancy, the landlord shall return one half of the security deposit. And there was a request for a clarification to ensure that the landlord shall return one half of the security deposit subject to any deductions authorized by subsection B, which is the section that authorizes the landlord to deduct for non appointments. Still requires the written statement itemizing the deduction. So that's more of a clarification piece. The next change is going So

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: this is something like, like, it's not like it's leaving between the tenant and the landlord. Like, the tenant makes the request.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You will ask in the last amendment to have it at the request of the tenant. Okay. So two conditions have to be met. It has to be a termination under one of those subdivisions, and the tenant has to request it. Right. Okay. All right. The next change is on page six. It's from the retaliation provisions. This is just it was a change recommended by our editors, and I made it. And so I just wanted everyone to be aware and not think I was sneaking things by you. On line 14, it's just restructuring the sentence to say that the tenant has taken any legal action authorized by law. Next change is in the trespass section page 22 or excuse me the change is actually on page 23. So I spoke with our legal counsel on the fiduciary team, and we felt that the provision that I had added in was somewhat unnecessary, so I removed it. The purpose? No, the purpose remains the same. What this is doing is I had it to say that also if somebody's been objected then the trespass order would apply. And we felt that your intention was to ensure that if somebody has been objected and they come back and they're conducting illegal activity or they're violating lease terms of other individuals that was kind of one of the scenarios I remember hearing was you get ejected but then you just go into somebody else's apartment and you're dealing drugs out of that apartment this time those are really already covered under the B and Cs. If you come back and you're breaking the law or you're breaking the lease, then you can be given a trespass under this section. And there was some concern about if you just say you've been ejected and you're not allowed back, you're not violating the law and you're not breaking anyone's lease, that may be too over for us. So the BNC was covering what you meant.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, all right. Okay. This was your editors, the judicial.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And talking with the judiciary. Yes, right. Okay, so the next change is on page 25 and I just wanted to flag something for you all similar to the conversation we were having. So the request that I had after I left was to add a default judgment here. If the court of jurists so this is we mentioned this is regarding the confidential nature of the records. So it says that if the court of jurisdiction in an adjutment case issues a final or default judgment after an evidentiary hearing in favor of the landlord where a finding has been made of non payment of rent or breach of rental agreement, the court shall remove the confidentiality. So I added or default there. One thing I'm not quite clear on and I would ask the judiciary representative if the individual were able to answer is, there's the condition of saying after an evidentiary hearing. So I see that as a policy decision for you all. If an individual goes in and files the complaint and then the defendant never participates and they get a default judgment, do you want that to remain confidential? Do you want there to be a requirement of the evidentiary hearing? If so, leave it alone.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I just want to know, does the language as you've written it intend to say, Stephanie, confidentiality is lifted if there is a judgment, either after a judgmental hearing or just a default judgment. And there's no evidentiary hearing because the tenant leaves or for any number of reasons.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would read this to say that the final or default judgment an evidentiary hearing so it would require an evidentiary hearing. And so if someone came in, filed the complaint, and the defendant never participated and the plaintiff received a default judgment against the individual and there was never a hearing, then it would remain confidential. I think the intention was that the confidentiality would lift upon any judgment. Then I would remove the second highlight and just say, final judgment, or default judgment in favor based on those two conditions, a or b. All right. I would remove that. Just saying. The injectment case issued a final or default judgment in favor of the landlord where the finding has been made of nonpayment of rent or breach of the rental agreement. There's one other change, page 32. 30. 32. This is in the Landlord and Tenant Education Technical Assistance Program, and it's where CVOEO is developing this curriculum. It had in there that CVOEO would work with specific partners that listed them and there was a request to remove it. This language would allow CVOEO, they can work with whomever they want. It would be entirely at their discretion, so it was just removing language. For the landlords, they shall develop the curriculum.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So this just gives them discretion who they want to work with. Right. Okay.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are those all the changes? Those are all the changes that I've made.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So at this point, what I think I'd like to do, right, is I'd like to open this for discussion.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: He's not good.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So I, at this point, would very much like to invite the committee to discuss this draft and say what they want to say, and then after discussion, we'll have a vote.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes. I'll kick us off. Everyone to nod, I guess. Earlier when both stepped out, I gave a mini with this, you know, I have spent several years diving into this line of policy, and Representative Parsons and I had served on the task force committee, which had a report. I feel like it's important to follow through on the work that we did on the report. We spent a lot of time listening, learning, and we're continuing that work. This has not been easy. This has been one of the hardest bills that I've worked on in my time in the legislature. There are things in this bill that I don't love. There are things I do love. But it has been made abundantly clear to me that the status quo is not working for people. And as we continue to work on different tools addressing the housing crisis in Vermont, which a new poll showed, you know, 82% of Vermonters are wanting the legislature to act on housing related issues, and it's still a number one issue. I think that landlord tenant relationships is a huge part of that, and I will be voting to support this bill. Again, it still has a road to go through. And I want to thank the committee for incredibly intense work and great detail and dedication to get us to this point with, what was it, five or six landlord tenant bills that have been on our wall, working to give and get. And I think that this bill achieves things for folks that they've been asking for, and I am going to support this bill. But that doesn't mean that everything in the bill I love. And that's kind of where I'm at. So I will be voting to support the bill and just want to thank the committee for their dedication and work on this to get us here.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: So we knew going into this that it was not going to be simple and that there wasn't going to be a conclusion that would make

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: anybody giddy.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I feel like we have provided some protections for people, landlords and tenants, who are doing their best to do things right. And I think that we've upped the expectation of responsibility on all involved. Any one of us at the table would have written the bill a little bit differently. At this point, we have to give time for this to get to the other committees. I'll give it a C plus, maybe a B minus, and I think that that's the time. I I can move on on that basis. But I think there will be opportunity in the next session. There will be opportunity in the third committees. They will have some perspective that we might not hate the stable sign in favor of the Welch as it stands.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Comments? Thank you very much, Tom. Other comments by this wonderful committee? Yes.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I think I just want

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to take a second and thank the committee. I think starting last year and this year, we've created this foundation where we're willing to take on really difficult bills that we know are going to have hard conversations, And kind of going into it, we've braced before the storm, but I just really appreciate. I feel we've asked a lot of questions and that's what we're here to do. And I agree, it's actually one of my biggest peeves is that we're constantly hearing you can't let perfect be the enemy of the good. But I think we have just continuously heard that the status quo is not working. I don't think this is the end of the conversation. I think there's going, you know, we're gonna have to make corrections. But again, I just wanted to take a moment and thank the rest of the committee for their dedication to working in the uncomfortable.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other comments?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes. I

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: want to say yes. Thank you to the community for taking this up and having and engaging in this conversation. I feel like the conversation didn't go where it needed to go, But we received an abundance of written testimony that was not acknowledged in this room. And that was, in my opinion, disregarded. I also feel like we failed to acknowledge the inherent systemic inequities that exist as a result of systemic oppression inherently, which is why we are told, we go through things, we learn, we do better, we get put in positions where we can make the change if necessary so that those cycles do not repeat themselves. I don't feel like we met the mark here. I feel like we didn't discuss the balance between power and privilege that was held. And I feel like this was not a conversation with what's supposed to be I feel like it was supposed to be around the evictions eviction procedures and the creation of positive rental. So I just feel like if I would support this bill if it were an act relating to rental agreements and the creation of the positive rental payment and creating a pilot program. The eviction procedures portion, I feel like we heard an abundance of testimony from the powers that be, the powers that have served in its roles for several years, decades, they tell us. People create bias and lens. And I would like to say, I thank you for listening to my rant this morning, and I apologize because I don't live there. I am housed and I am healed. However, that's why I go through this, so that other people don't have to. And when I hear conversations that will put people in the same positions that we've worked so hard to overcome, it kind of breaks my heart a little bit and it's infuriating as I'm still I still I will tell you, I take 10 people. I help them pack their boxes when they have to move. And I said, You know what? Let me try to help so we can do something. What I would have loved to have more of, of that landlord tenant relationship. Where was the relationship building in this conversation? That part, I didn't hear. What we heard was this side and this side. What we didn't hear was a balance and a way to mitigate and mediate and build stronger relationships so we can have more improved societal norms, which I feel like as a body, as the government, which I had to go and look up, was like, what is the role of the government? What is my role as a legislator? So I'm like, am I gaslighting myself here to think that I'm wrong in my thought process? And we are here, we are responsible for making the laws that govern the state. And that vary, dependingly, but we are here to provide that balance. And I wanted I feel like we didn't do that. I feel like we didn't give it teeth. I feel like we've had diligent conversation. I will say that. Conversation's been there. But it hasn't been what it needed to be. And it hasn't focused on the things that will move our communities in a way where we will see change and impact for benefit on either party. Full disclosure, I don't see either party benefiting from this. So I can't even mean, I would like to say it is more landlord heavy,

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: my opinion, but I don't really see them benefiting me. And I think we didn't discuss the word compromise, because I think we approach this from a lens of compromises, nobody gets what they want. No. Compromise is, how do we get folks as close to what they want as possible? And I feel like we approach this conversation from the lens of going in opposite directions instead of trying to meet in the middle, and that's why we got where we are. So I'm grateful that the conversation got here, and I don't feel like it's where it needs to be, and for that, I'm gonna.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Other people, any other people wish to comment?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Debbie? Did we change the

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: notice? What's the, is mailing five It's or five at the moment.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It was five for mailing.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yes. Presumption is that five days for male and female, post, that didn't change your gender, It is three, that's going be fine.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Right, for the male and part.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'll create each. We were changing at those I thought we actually had

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: to leave right in the middle

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: of I thought we

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: were moving towards three, but it was a divided view.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sorry. We did decide. I think we we need to make it three.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: We did? No.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. No. Sorry.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Mail is fine.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So then it's okay the way it is?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: No, right now we changed it to a ten day notice for five days of bailing. Right. We're gonna change it to a three day notice for five days of bailing.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I thought it was gonna be three and 10.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. I thought it was three and 10.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Well, I'm not

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I thought that's just me. I could be wrong. I think he wanted three and five. Yes.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Before what I'd like yes. Just Would

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you like me to change anything as it relates to the conversation that you were just having?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In other words, originally, now, under existing law, mailing is deemed received after three days. Right now, under existing law. I will take responsibility for this. I put it five just because I worry about the mail these days.

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

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have to say that I was comfortable moving it back to three, just personally, if we want to. I don't have strong feelings about this, but I don't wanna hold this up. The current draft is five. I think what I'd like to do, if it's alright with people, first of all, is hear from people about the whole bill, that aside, and we can discuss whether we want to make that much change.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's good.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The reason I was When

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: someone

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is in a situation where they're going to be ejected because they either damage the apartment or they are not paying rent, or then they know. If someone is going to be ejected because of action by the landlord, such as nonrenewal of the lease or conversion of the building to some other use. The landlord, after they give them whatever this three, five or whatever notice is, it doesn't matter because they have another three months after that. There's ninety days notice. So I'm for me, it's that's why I don't find that this these two days makes that much of a difference. But I guess let's move on, and I'd like to know if there are other people who'd like comment on the legislation as a whole. Yes?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So,

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'm hearing loud and clear from advocates that the shortened periods are going to put a real stress on tenants who are struggling. We have heard continuously that small landlords are facing similar struggles, similar challenges, not to the degree of necessarily being out on the street, but having enough pressures that it could cause them to get out of the business of renting spaces, which is also undesirable. It's also undesirable to anybody to go without because they have higher costs than what they make. I recognize that the imbalance is very different, that the level of who's in the most vulnerable position is vastly different. For me, the comfort was in the access to assistance. And I'm putting a lot of good faith into education before this becomes law, into what resources are out there, the rights and obligations, and buckets of money for well intentioned, good tenants who should not fall through the cracks because 30% of your income is no longer reasonable to expect to spend on housing, when the other 70% costs are actually all so higher. It's very hard to remain whole if your housing is up and your health insurance and your food assistance is gone. I am nervous about doing this change while we are also losing a lot of federal supports for people who are vulnerable. That is going to be our responsibility as a state to take into account that we are now putting folks at risk. I hope that people will be better actors. I truly, truly do.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I really hope I don't regret this, folks. But I will vote yes, as long as there's a serious rental arrears program in place to support people and backing up

[Rep. Leonora Dodge (Member)]: legal representation.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes, Debbie. The reason I was advocating for a three day, for nonpayment of rent, a three day termination notice, was because the faster that gets into the hands of the tenant, the faster they'll be able to find a remedy. And they can take it to agencies. They can take it to we've been through this churches. There's other organizations. They can take it. And we've expanded, we had thirty days for, if you wanna call it negotiation or mediation to try to figure things out between the tenant and the landlord, we've gone to sixty days. So we have a longer period that we can work things out. Remember, we changed it back to sixty. So I think it's important for the tenants to get that in their hands. We added the five days extra for the mailing part. So you're actually looking at the total of like eight days. So we can whatever way the tenant, we can email it. I mean, the landlord is gonna get this notice to them because they know they can get help when they have that in their hands. It doesn't mean you have to receive it in the mail, but if the mail is like a backup and you can email this, we can have it served by sheriff, we can, all the things that we have in here. So that's why I was advocating for non payment of rent, doing a three day termination notice. We get that in their hands and they can go out. We had a memo from forty eight hours will tell you how much we can help.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can we hear how other folks feel about the bill first? Because I think we're gonna go back to that piece, but we're still working on hearing. Mary, I think there's.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, let's see how people feel about the

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: whole This is such a difficult,

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I've heard from landlords and tenants, I know good landlords and good tenants, and I know the bad landlords and the bad tenants. I kind of agree with a lot of what Saudia said, and also what Leonora said. I think this is more advantageous for the landlord than it is for the tenant, especially today when, I mean, you can't find an apartment anywhere. In Rutland alone, there's a 120 duplexes

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: on rent.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: That's a lot.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: This hasn't been just a housing problem since COVID, this has been before COVID, and we should have been doing, but hindsight's a great thing. I have a hard time thinking about a family that's being evicted and can't find a place to live and is put out on the street. I really have a hard time with that. When I worked in the state's attorney's office and when children were living in motels hotels, it was heart wrenching, and everybody knew the address of the hotels. They knew these kids were playing in the parking lots. That's not a way for a child to grow up in. I will, with some reluctancy, vote yes only because I think something is better than nothing. And I know, I'm sure, when it goes to these other committees, they're gonna look at it and they're gonna change things all around. I have a strong suspicion that this bill will not be passed this year. I think we put a

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: ton of time into this

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: bill. I don't think we can hear from any more witnesses because now it's becoming so complicated when it should be a little more simple.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's you, Mary. My Anybody else want to make any general comments? No, go ahead. No, thank you.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'll just reiterate what's been said a thousand times during this process, but like everything in this bill is gonna get you to wanna vote for it or say, I can't do that. And there's certainly things in this bill that I if it was a stand alone bill, I wouldn't be voting for. But that being said,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it's, you know,

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: we have 33 pages bound to happen. So I my process is literally if I were to talk this talk to this in front of the 4,400 people I represent, I think majority of them would say that's better than the system we have now. And that's how I pretty much vote on everything. Elizabeth,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you had your hand up.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I was going to say that I agree that there are some good things in this bill. And I don't think that those in any way outweigh the scenarios that I see being set up for people losing their homes and families being separated from each other. We do not have a system set up to support people who have lost their homes. We know that. But the outcome of that is increasingly acute, really month over month, year over year. And we have done nothing to address that massive and glaring problem, and certainly not through this bill. And I see it kind of nibbling around the edges for landlords, and I see it really undermining a lot of dignity of tenants. There There hasn't been enough asking of who is being left out of this bill. There hasn't been enough asking of who has been damaged already and how there hasn't been enough. We have taken testimony, in my mind, I don't see it as a landlord tenant bill. I see it as a landlord bill. So I would be a no on this bill.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is there anyone else who would like to comment

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: on this?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: My inclination is, at this point, for the bill as it is, call for a vote. Yes?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I beg your own comments on language. Please. And as we were sitting here, one of the discussed possible changes was about the background check or the credit check and providing the copy to the individual. And it currently says if you conduct one, and it was talked about changing to charging one. And after that sat in my head for a minute, I would potentially not make that change because I think my understanding of the intent is that you want the tenant or the applicant to have a copy of that. And my thought is whether the landlord charges them for funds. So if you change it to charging, then if I don't charge you,

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I don't have to give you a copy.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the applicant may want the copy, they may want to see, you've done a background check and I may want to see what you found because I may want to, test it may not be the right word, but identify errors if there are some. My recommendation would be just to leave it as it is if the landlord conducts the background check whether you're going to charge for it or not. If you're conducting one, you're giving a copy of it to the applicant. So that would be my proposal. You all then can tell me if you get a feel that's not

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: meeting your expectation. I was going to look towards the person who doesn't charge for all of them then would have to then give everybody Please. I'm just pointing it

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: out because I wasn't sure that that was the intent of what we were thinking.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. Sorry to jump in, but it seems odd to have to give something to somebody that they never gave.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Do you give people a report? I'm not being called upon. Just asking.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Chris Donnelly was Champion Housing Trust.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We have received over 3,000 applications in here, we do a lot of credit checks, background checks, what have you. We don't provide them. It would be a huge expense and the administrator is a kind of lead mayor to process all the fattening approaches at the hospital. We don't charge because we want to have a low barrier to access. If something comes up to you, use then that information to say, Three days out. Then we provide the reason why, and people have a chance to appeal.

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'd like to then stay with charts.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask a question? How would the committee feel if we final change one more change. How would the committee feel if we moved to the three day? Mailing is Okay. I thought that's what

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: you Three days

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Isn't that what you wanted?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, it's really not what you

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Oh, it has to do

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: with It has to do with the terms. Is it For not

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: having a rent determination notice, it would be three days. Failing, you wanted to keep it at five. We do five.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Gotcha, gotcha.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Only thing I Yeah, eight to nine days. Right, okay. It just gets it in their hand faster so they can get I would like,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I am going to make a motion.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, don't I'll

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: What's the latest draft?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It will be 4.1.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I make a motion to approve draft 4.1 of H seven seventy two. Do I have a second?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. Do you have a question?

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh. That's allowable at this time. Sure. Do we have

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: a copy of 4.1? I

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do not at this moment, but I can get you one Yeah,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry, I thought we had the copy.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, we don't. We have. Know what it is.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Couldn't even look at the color. Oh sure.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page three I changed this to charging so we're charging for a background check, the landlord will say, you shall buy a copy.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Or go down there and

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: tell them I'm be late,

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and they'll have to have else. Towards the end of the section, actually I

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think you should go down and tell the committee suspension After until it you're doing what, you do that first. Okay. What?

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Okay.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Simply state that it loses its confidential status here. If the court of jurisdiction line 11 in an ejectment case issues a final or default judgment in favor of the landlord where a binding has been made is not on the rent. Just reach a rental agreement, the court shall remove Compton chair. Those are the only changes from draft 3.1 and I will get you a I'm sending a copy to the committee assistant as we speak. Okay. Do we have a second to the bill?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Is a second? I'm passing. Okay.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. The bill is on the I mean, it's on the floor, and we're about to call for a vote. Do we need

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think people just need a few minutes to read through the bill.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Gonna Why say don't Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The bill is now posted, and what I do wanna say something, if I might. Mostly, I just wanna say I really am so feel so fortunate to be a member of this committee, period. And it's just It's really been one of the best experiences of my life. And this very difficult debate has not only not changed that, but enhanced it. Thank you. That's what I have to say. And individual statements of people have done nothing but enhance that feeling, and the votes, your votes, it's not not a matter that affects that in the slightest. That's all. Everything else has been said. I do wanna say now, going from the sublime to the ridiculous, I do wanna say, I do think that if a landlord provides notice to a tenant in nonpayment of rent and they're in a relationship where the tenant can go get help and the landlord's encouraging it. They will right away as soon as they receive the notice without waiting for any time. Two days, three days, five days. They'll just use it, but I understand the concern. At this point what? Sorry. No. Sorry. At this point, we wanna wait a few minutes?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Joe?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Well, I haven't seen this draft that we're moving forward. So, yes, I would like Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's a three foot one. It's 4.1. Very sweet. Oh, will you send him to your back?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I thought it was Friday.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's fine.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: It is for someone Yeah,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: no, I know.

[Rep. Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Chant, while I'm waiting for the bill to come to me, but in the interim, I asked earlier when you had stepped out or made a statement, now I'm inquiring, I'm changing my statement to a question, around why, is there a reason or some legal precedent as to why landlords are not treated as business owners? Or, like, because there would there would be provisions by default. There would be requirements by default. So I'm confused if we're talking about in the business of being a landlord or charging money or contractual agreement, why are there not consumer protections around those types of things?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think there are, but counsel, do you want to comment on that?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Mean,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: all the fair business practice laws apply to landlords, to my knowledge.

[Cameron (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would be a question I would pose to the Attorney General of their interpretation of it. They are You're operating in a commercial capacity, sure, and you may very well register as an organization. So your landlord may very well be a registered LLC, for example. So they're treated as a commercial entity in that sense. And the AG's office may very well say that they feel that it comes under the Consumer Protection Act. One thing that is in the bill is to very clearly articulate that the violation of the fees provision would be an unfair practice in commerce.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I think Are we at this point I

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: think at this point, are we ready for Good.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: All right. Mary, would you call the role? Please. Representative Bartley? Oh my god, I'm so sorry. Yes. I'm so sorry. Representative Burrows? Yep. Representative Charlton?

[Rep. Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member) [time-bound override]]: Yes.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Dodge? Yes. Representative Dalton Dalton?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Debbie? Okay.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: It's gonna come back to inspection, and there's a lot I do not agree with. But I will vote yes to get it out of here, and then hopefully we can fix it when it comes back to us.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We got a lot of work ahead of us. Please continue.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Howard?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I have to Representative Krasnow? Yes. Representative Beaumont? No. Representative Parsons?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member) [time-bound override]]: Yes.

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Pezzo? Yes. Excuse me. Representative Mihaly? Yes. 830. Thank you everyone.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I will be the reporter of the bill for now. I will now depart in order to go down to appropriations and defend the money that we have put in the bill, and I will indicate that that's what we're here.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Are we on a break now?

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: We're on a break, and I don't know if we have anything else on the agenda.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We but I think we need a break.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We need a break. We are now offline.