Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Around Yep, seven zero

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: so thank you everyone. We are still Thursday, February 12, nope, March 12. And we are going to get an update from Sarah Kayle. And it is on seven zero four, which is an act relating to the Tenant Representation Pilot Program. Sarah, I think this is probably your first time talking to this committee, so we're going to go through and really quickly introduce ourselves.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Gayle, do you want to start?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Gayle Pezzo. I represent District 20, Colchester.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Good morning, I'm Mary E. Howard. I represent Rutland City District 6.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Good morning, Saudia LaMont. I represent Lamoille Washington District, which is, Morristown, Elmore, Worcester, Woodbury, and a small part of Stowe.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Hello. Ashley Bartley, Fairfax, and Georgia.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Joe Parsons, Newberry, Topsum, and Groton. Hi, Tom Charlton, Athens, Chester, Draft, and New Wyndham.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Deborah Dolgin, St. Johnsbury, Concord,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: and Kirby.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: And

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: we have one last member who, once I sit down, can introduce themselves.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Is that me? Yes. Oh, sorry. Hi.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Hello, I'm Elizabeth Burrows. I represent Windsor One, which is Heartland West Windsor. Wonderful.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And Sarah, the floor is yours.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Okay, thank you. Can you hear me okay? We can. Okay, thank you. So my name is Sarah Kagall. I'm an attorney at Vermont Legal Aid. I historically have practiced in Windham and Windsor Counties. I'm the project director for what is referred to as TRP, the tenant representation pilot. The pilot was funded as of 11/01/2024, pursuant to Act 47. I'm here today in support of H704, which is a narrow request to allow us to use funding that was already allocated to us more broadly by expanding it to other counties at our discretion. The pilot was originally limited and is currently limited to Windsor and Lamoille Counties. So I'm here today to testify and answer questions about TRP, but I'm sure you all know that whenever VLA advocates testify, it's always as part of a broader and cohesive mission. We work in collaboration based on core values and never in isolation. So for example, I'm talking about eviction prevention today, but eviction prevention is linear with homeless prevention. And so that is in my heart and my mind as I testify today. And we want very much to expand the pilot using both, well, both using the existing funds as identified in H704, and also hopefully with additional funding because this pilot is ultimately only funded through 2026. As I wrote, I don't there's a report that we submitted. The first report was due in November 2025, and as I wrote in that report, the pilot represents real commitment to the representation of tenants in Vermont, because it is so broad and inclusive. And not one client has been rejected based on income ineligibility. All tenants really are eligible to be represented through this pilot. And success can be measured in so many ways. And we believe the pilot has been successful. But I wanted to provide some data just on very specific measurements of success that I think are more accessible. So between 08/01/2025 and yesterday, 03/11/2026, we closed seventy nine cases. And because of the way Act 47 is written, it's important to note that every single case is a case where an actual complaint has been filed against a tenant. So every case is an eviction lawsuit where tenant is a defendant. Of those 79 cases over that seven month period, 17 of those tenants were 60. So over 20% of the tenants who were eligible for representation through this pilot were 60 years old. And that for me is, I've learned a lot through data collection in this pilot because previously my housing work was limited to people 60. At Legal Aid, we've always represented people 60, but in a different project. So for me to see that over 20% of our clients cases in that short period of time are 60 is significant. Of those seventy nine closed cases, fifty eight were cases where it was appropriate that at the time the case was closed, the advocate was answering the question of whether representation by VLA actually prevented eviction. Meaning, is the tenant, the defendant still housed in the unit that was the subject of the eviction? And out of the 58 closed cases over that seven month period, 26 people were still housed in the same unit. So that is, by that measure of success, that's 45% of the people in that period of time, of the cases that we closed. I wanted to read something from the report that I wrote because I think it's relevant to my testimony today. It's just my closing paragraph is just even with the limited data collected, it is apparent that we reached a broad and inclusive cohort of tenants facing eviction. The request to modify the grant such that BLA may represent eligible tenants in other counties is a short term solution using the funds that have already been designated. The terms of the pilot reflect a meaningful commitment to housing stability. The pilot is broadly inclusive at 120% of AMI and allows VLA attorneys to enter a full appearance when necessary and appropriate for the best possible outcome. The long term policy recommendation and our request is for longer term funding consistent with the pilot.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Great. Thanks, Sarah. Does anybody have questions?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. I just have a question. Let me scroll to the bottom here. I'm just trying to get a numbers thing on here because the bill that were in front of us doesn't have any appropriation to it. And you had said that in the beginning, some some of this is just reappropriating money that's already been allocated to defer something else and also more funding to keep it going. I didn't know if you had some numbers on what what are we talking about that's already been allocated that you'd like to use for this, and where was it allocated to? And then what would your funding request be for additional?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Well, so I just wanna be clear that we're not the money is being used as allocated. The initial allocation of 1,000,025 was for a two year period just for Windsor and Lamoille. So we're not asking for anything right now with the already allocated funds, we're using them, but we want to use them at our discretion rather than just in those two counties if we're

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: able. Okay.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Okay. So, and Windsor and Lamoille were picked for very particular reasons, they're representative of Vermont overall, but there were some situations that presented in both counties, just not by design, but that limited us to some extent. The civil division in Windsor County, for example, was closed for not closed, but was being used by criminal division because of construction in the court in White River Junction. So we were appearing remotely much more than I would have liked, and in person appearance would have allowed more accessibility. So we want to use the resources that we already have, and we need more broadly in other counties, and we need actual permission to do that. So, I mean, I think Andrea Smith is in the room. I think, and she may have that, the specific funding request. I think what we're saying is that the little over $1,000,000 over two years is two to four counties for a two year period.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Okay. My sec the second question I have would be, were there any cases that came to you that you declined to take as for people looking for the assistance?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Can you

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: can you yeah. Yeah. Did anyone come to you and you declined to take their, you know, to represent them?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: I think declined is a term of art for us. I mean, this pilot allowed us to represent everybody when it was appropriate. Sometimes we might limit our appearance or the scope of our representation based on best use of resources or what's best for the tenant, what the tenant's goals are.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: So there were other times where it was not appropriate, I guess would be the?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Not appropriate meaning because of the type of ejectment case?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yeah. I'm just curious. I I'm less concerned about how we phrase it. But were there any cases that came to you that you

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So we don't So I think I hope we're having a We're not having a conversation that is not linear. I think the answer, based on my understanding of what you're asking, would be no.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Elizabeth?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: What? I thought you had a question.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No, that's like Zoom putting my hand up when I just made a gesture. So

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: my question is about this very similar to representative Parsons. Is was there any times that anyone came and they weren't eligible, the criteria for taking them their case? No where they lived.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Say that last thing again?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: No matter where they lived whether it was Windsor or anywhere.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So, think if I'm understanding correctly the answer is that all tenants are eligible because the income eligibility is at the forefront. That's often at legal aid or not often, but it has sometimes presented at legal aid where we haven't been able to represent people because they've been over income, for example. So, I view this as inclusive really of all tenants in Vermont. It's hard. I'm sure there are some tenants who are over 120% of AMI for their county, but we have not encountered that. We make decisions in individual cases, as I said, to limit our representation or only help tenants with certain things, but people are not rejected because of why they're being evicted, if that's what I'm being asked.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Debbie, sorry. I just wanted to verify that just because I wanna make sure I understand this process. So, the eviction process starts with a termination a notice of termination of tenancy. And so legal aid would not help through that. Like, the the tenant would go through that. Let's say it's just for nonpayment of rent. And then the plaintiff might go to the next step where they do file that complaint, and that's when you step in. Am I understanding that correctly?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So again, just speaking more broadly about Vermont Legal Aid. Vermont Legal Aid and LSV also, many, many people, many of the advocates are speaking to people at the notice to quit stage. That's always been part of our work. This pilot is limited by the language of Act 47, and we are only allowed to come in at the complaint stage.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you. Mary? Thank you. I had a constituent who applied for the delay and was declined without a reason, and then was notified, oh yes, we will take it up, and then was declined again without a reason. She got an attorney and it has been dissolved, but do you normally give a reason when you decline someone? And is it due to lack of the number of people, attorneys in the office or what?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Okay, so thank you, because actually that question helps me to maybe address something that I wasn't thinking of. So I'm sure you all know that attorneys have ethical rules that we have to follow. And so sometimes we have conflicts, sometimes we have an ethical barrier to representing an individual person. Speaking very broadly, we can't represent people where it creates some kind of conflict or obligation that we may have had to someone else. And those ethical obligations are there's a lot of privacy and it is hard to explain sometimes. So, I'm reading between the lines and it's always difficult to address a specific question without more knowledge. I completely understand that something can land within an individual as a kind of rejection. And maybe if we knew the individual facts, I would explain it in a way that why it's not actually that. So I mean, maybe just speaking broadly, we never want to reject anybody and I view this pilot as really allowing us to represent everybody. That doesn't mean, of course, that there aren't going to be conflicts, first of all, or there aren't going to be scenarios where people have a sense that they've been rejected.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: If an attorney for whatever reason can't take the case, couldn't another attorney be assigned?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So conflicts, we are a law firm and a conflict for one attorney in our law firm prevents all the attorneys in our law firm from doing that work.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I see. Okay, thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Tom, did you have a question?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: A general question. Closing the cases, preventing evictions is one metric for success. Of the cases that you closed, what's your sense walking away from them that the issues were resolved long term?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: I mean, a sense is not the same as data, obviously.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: If you have data, that's even better. I'm just wondering. Right,

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: today I don't, I don't. I'd have to even think about how, where we're measuring that. I'm not sure that we're measuring exactly that. And I think that sort of illustrates why I say that we have many, many measures of success. Keeping somebody housed longer is a measure of success. I like being able to say that we kept somebody housed in their same unit when we closed the case, because I think that is really good data to present, but that is not the only way we measure success. So I think sometimes if we're talking about non payment cases, if a non payment case is resolved and the person remains in their unit, that likely means that the money was all paid. So that would be a long term solution. There are other things that are cured. We, you know, prevail at a procedural due process stage also where we're filing motions to dismiss, So that's not necessarily getting to the content of the reason for the eviction necessarily. So I think, again, it's the way I understand things and the way I think we understand things at Vermont Legal Aid, I would say that we have resolved a problem long term if we're keeping somebody housed in the same unit. I understand that you're parsing something out differently, but I think that is a long term resolution. I think that's housing stability.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Saudia? Thank you. Thank you. I have a question of, just to clarify, because I think things are getting lost in translation, because it's Vermont legal aid, but this is not the overarching Vermont legal aid. And so this is like a program of. Is that correct? Is there a difference? Is the pilot separate or the pilot is one and the same?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Yeah, so that's what I was trying to message is that, yes, I'm one of the faces of Vermont Legal Aid. We all work together. When we have this pilot, so meaning some of us are assigned to this work, I'm the project director, and then there are three other attorneys who work with me in the project doing the cases. But we are part of Vermont Legal Aid. Everything that we do at Vermont Legal Aid is together based on our mission and our core values. And this is just one project funded by Act 47 at Vermont Legal Aid. Is that clear?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: No, does. Thank you. Because I was just trying to understand on how folks could get confused because if the project is only to serve Lamoille and Windsor Counties, if folks are calling legal aid who don't live in those counties, there may be some confusion as to why they don't qualify for those programmings. That's what I was trying to clarify. Are you allowed to serve people? If someone were to call you not in Memorial or Windsor County, would this program be able to service them and support them in their process?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Not without the passage of H704. Thank you. And yes, of course, I thought we were only talking about the TRP counties, but of course, you're absolutely right. The funding to do housing in other counties is not as broad and inclusive. This pilot has been in some ways best practice for representing tenants in Vermont, and it wasn't meant to over serve two counties. It was meant to collect data, and if you allow us to use the existing funds, it also expands our data

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: collection. Thank you. And so just to clarify also the ask for current is there are current firms that have been allocated that are to carry through October 2026, correct? Is that the timeline? And so, first part of the ask is the ability to use those funds outside of the two existing counties, so that you can serve more people. With the funds that you already have that are in play. Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Really quickly, Andrea has sent what the proposal would be for additional funds. For statewide, it would be $4,000,000 For four to six counties, it's going to be roughly $2,000,000 and for two to four, it's going to be $1,000,000 roughly.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: So, for two to four counties would be 1,000,000?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: For how, in one year?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's a great

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: question. I'm assuming. Just have a lovely little sticky note that has If it

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: was 1,000,000 for It was 1.25 for two years, so I would assume it'd probably be closer to two years ago.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yeah, I just don't know if worth it.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, but Also, it have

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: to be a date certain, or can it

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: be until the '22 settlement? Two years.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right. Here. This is all I have. What I- Thank you, Andrea, for listening. Yes, but thank you. We might have some more questions.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: We do, and we will. But I just, thank you. I trying, what I was trying to, because what I'm hearing is that those two counties are being over served. Andrea, if you're listening, a number of what is left of the funding would be extremely helpful. So that will give us an idea of how much it costs thus far to service those two counties so that you can have an idea on how much it would approximately cost to serve in a timeframe of two counties if you would duplicate that going forward. And that may be how you came to that number. That's what I would assume is that's how that number came to be. It's based off of what you've done in two counties thus far. And so thank you, thank you for that. And that's what I just wanted to just clarify and understand a little bit of how that looked in your service and what that means, because I think that's where the confusion is that this program exists, but it doesn't exist to, it's not extended to everyone because it's limited to two counties. And then my last question for you, or the question in this segment, but if you can just really quickly, is just given the work that you've done and these 79 cases, we've talked in here a little bit about what does cases that are closed mean. Does that mean cases that it's a two part. So are those cases that have been finalized or cases that have been dropped or dismissed? Where do you, how do you define closed?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So, I just want to say that 79 cases closed in a seven month period. So, this is a snapshot, not the whole. Yes. Okay, thank you. So, yes, closed is when we, again, closed is a term of art. It's inclusive of all those things you listed. It could close because we went to trial and won. It could be closed because we went to trial and lost. It could be closed because it never got to trial because we got it dismissed based on the pleadings. So there are so many reasons, but closing represents the attorney being done with the case. And we have many, many open cases now, but 79 are closed in seven months.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. And do you have a sense of how this has impacted, I'm using the term impacted because I don't want to say positive or negative. I'm looking to you for that feedback. Based off of your engagement participation in these cases, have you noticed what happened? I don't know, maybe you can't speak to this. The climate between the landlords that were bringing these cases forward and the tenants, has it been beneficial in serving? Do people feel like it was helpful, it was not helpful? Is there like a sense or do you not have a gauge on that?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: I mean, again, can speak from my years and years of practice. I mean, I've done landlord tenant cases since 1998, you know, not exclusively, but so do I think that because one of the things that we're measuring is even in the playing field. Oftentimes, and I don't have those numbers, but I do have that data, we are collecting that data, many of the landlords are represented. And landlords, I think we've established over, you know, testimony, previous testimony that landlords are much more likely to have an attorney and tenants much less likely. I think when both parties are represented, it's actually much more efficient. The I courts, I think the judges, and I'm speaking again from my long term practice, my relationship with the courts, the judges are very happy to have the legal aid attorneys there. Again, I can't collect data on that. So I'm speaking from my personal experience as a senior attorney at Vermont Legal Aid. And I think that there is tremendous efficiency for everyone promoted by both parties having representation. And then sometimes, I think it's also helpful if the landlord doesn't have an attorney and the tenant does. It sometimes helps with respect to efficiency perhaps from the court's perspective. I certainly don't feel that way about the reverse, it's very, very concerning for tenants not to have attorneys when so much is at stake for them. So I don't know if I'm answering the question exactly, but all I can say is that from my perspective, there is absolutely no downside. It's essential for tenants to be represented. And it's an honor, an absolute honor to do the work that we do at Legal Aid and to represent tenants.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Great. We have about ten minutes left, I believe. Elizabeth, I think you had a question.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I've got two quick questions. One is, of the 79 cases in the last seven months, do you and you've been collecting data how many of those cases have involved back payment of rent?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: I don't have that number in front of me. We are collecting data on that, but I did not prepare that for this morning.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay. But my other question is not really related to that, but have there been any cases where because I assume that the majority have been related to back payment of rent Yes. But not exclusively related to back payment of rent. And sort of related to representative Charlton's question, have there been any clients who have had to come right back to you and ask you for help a second time?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: That's a good question.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I'm not talking about the nonpayment of rent clients. Right. I'm talking about clients who had a deeper problem that was a little bit more complex and might not have been entirely solved the first time around.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: And then there's another complaint filed against them.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: As an anecdotal matter, I can't think of any, and I, All the cases are opened through me. I literally see every case we open. I cannot think of one, but that isn't a data based answer.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Okay, thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Real quick, Andrea has responded. The 1,000,000 would be funded over two years of work. Sarah, thank you. I actually do have a question for you. So it's, in the bill, it's at your discretion. What does that mean? What would you consider? Why would you consider one county over the other? Like, I'm assuming it's, you'd be considering a county rather than an individual case. Can you just kind of confirm and help me understand that?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Yeah, that's a really good question. I mean, ideally, as I think is obvious, we want I would like tenants in every county to have access to this, not as a pilot, but as an ongoing program. Counties are of different sizes. So, for example so, well, I think a simple answer to your question is that two of the counties I would think of or I think of are ones where we can make be physically present. So this pilot excludes the county, Wyndham County, that I've practiced in my entire career, and where I can be in the courtroom with the tenants, which is very impactful. Same for Rutland County. So Windham and Rutland are both huge counties, meaning the numbers of evictions are in the highest top four, I think. So Rutland would be another where I have an attorney who's there in Rutland, and so she can be very physically present. So I think our discretion allows us to use the resources in the most efficient way possible, helping as many people as we can, the way that we always want to.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yeah. So before you said it's based on income as far as representing, are land small landlords eligible for representation if they fall within that income criteria?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: So act 47 is the money allocated to us is for representation of tenants who are defendants in eviction cases.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Are there any other questions? Sarah, is there anything else you would like to share with us?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: No, thank you.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Actually, I'm sorry. Given go

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: that, so in the counter, would there be a similar version, or is there a place similar to Vermont Legal Aid where landlords could go to, small landlords, that were just mentioned, is there a venue for that? Does that exist?

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: I mean, there is a Vermont Landlord Association that's Angela Zykowski is the attorney associated with that. But Vermont Legal Aid represents indigent and low income tenants. That's the work that we do. We do not represent landlords.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Any other questions? Okay. Well, thank you so much, Sarah, for being with us this morning. I believe we are just waiting for Sophie. We have a few more minutes before we're going. No, Sophie?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: So just committee discussion.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Great, JT.

[Sarah Kagall (Vermont Legal Aid, TRP Project Director)]: Thank you so much.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you so much. Beautiful. Thank you. Thank you for your help. Okay, so. So, we're still live. So, we're going to move on to our next topic, which is H. Five fifty six, an act relating to exceptions to applicability of state minimum wage. It's what's been, the chair's been calling the Marcotte bill. And so this is what we talked about yesterday. We heard from Sophie, and then we heard from Josh Hanford from VLCT. So Sophie has sent new language. Does everybody have a copy of it?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so it is 1.1. And so right now on our agenda, we have potential vote, but I think we can, now that we have the language in front of us, we can discuss questions. Tom, do you want a printed out version? Okay. So I guess I'll just really quickly walk Again, through and this came after Sophie was able to talk to DevOps and solidify the language. So in talking to Sophie, we agreed that it made the most sense for this to be a strike all, because it was strangely so small. It just made sense to just kind of say, we're scrapping it. Here's the new language. But it's very, very similar where all it is adding that. So in accolating to the exemptions to the applicability of state minimum wage respectfully reports that it is considered the same and recommends that the bill be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting it through thereof the following. So there's definitions, and this is where we're adding a few things, and it's line 17, elected and appointed municipal officers. So you'll remember yesterday, the language was the legislative body that really wasn't getting to the point of the problem. We heard from Josh Hanford, and if I am misspeaking, maybe there was somebody in the room who would correct me, it would be greatly appreciated. But the bill was really, the problem was, we were looking at somebody like a town clerk, delinquent tax collector. So what the recommended changes and what Sophie has provided to us is that instead of the legislative body, that it's elected and appointed municipal officers. And that is H556.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Regretfully, Yes. I was not here for part of the discussion yesterday. That's why. However,

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: does under on line 15, where

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: it states students working during or any of any part of the school year, does saying that using that language preclude rather than using an age, does that mean that students anywhere of any age would be allowed to be paid

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: sub minimum wage wages? I'm not an attorney. However, this

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I'm raising the question.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, no. I can answer to the best of my ability because, and I believe the language is in there the way it is, is that current FSLA, so Fair Labor Standards Act, dictates number of hours that students can work depending on age, but depending on whether school is in session.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: But it doesn't say what school, like doesn't say high school

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: It or doesn't say it's defined elsewhere. Student is defined elsewhere.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yes. In the FLSA, it's defined by age. And it's also defined by what their responsibilities can be. So I'm thinking of, you could not have a student who is 14

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Working power tools.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. But you could have somebody who is 14 mulching. So it really has nothing to do with the school, it has to do with the age.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Okay, and does it mean that anybody who is of that age can be paid subminimum wage? Yeah. I only know this because I've been listening into the discussions in ag about four zero three or whatever the other show is about minimum wage mobility. And they just had this exact conversation in committee about what's a student like if I jump by theology class, why start taking classes? Do I count

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: as a student? And it's like, no. So it's age versus age. Age and whether school is like school hours. Like, you know, until 02:30PM or whatever. Like, you cannot work at this job because you should be in school. So we're you know? Are you asking something deeper than that? Sorry. Like, whether this needs to be spelled out in the bill or

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: No. It's fine. Also, I I guess one final question is between these two bills that address minimum wage, I wonder why we don't include the last remaining bastion of people who don't get paid minimum wage, which are waitstaff.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So this came to us as So what this bill does is it is aligning us with the federal law. And so that's why it is just us, and it's just aligning us with that. We haven't heard any other testimony. No one has brought that up. Okay, thank you. So we have this as a potential vote. Do we feel like we want to have more just committee discussion? Are we comfortable with a vote on this? Do we want to hear, I mean, if we want to pass this, we have to do it before tomorrow, before tomorrow. There are no appropriations, it doesn't have to go in the ways and means. We had committee discussion, questions, comments, concerns.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I'm going ask a very, very annoying question. It's too rippy. Being hands full.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I was not here, which is why I find this question annoying. So, was this this is saying we are going to exempt these people from getting minimum wage? Correct. Okay. And so the idea being, like, if I'm on board of abatement and I just get paid a flat, whatever, attendance fee or whatever. That's why we need this to align with.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Got it. So the original bill, the language was members of a legislative body of a municipality. And so, that's going to sound like your select board, appointees, not the appointees, not Yeah,

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: that makes sense. So that's why So that was kind of

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: very brief background of how this came up, is there's a concern that So this hasn't been brought up in Vermont, so there hasn't been a decision on this. There are several municipalities who are very concerned about what this could mean for them going forward, so they're trying to reflect the federal fair labor standards, and we just wanted to make sure we actually got to the root of the problem with this change. And then, the Act would take effect on 07/01/2026. And this has also had buy in from our Department of Labor. Yes?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I am in strong support of this bill.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Would you like to call for a vote? Nope.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Are you gonna vote yes?

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: We'll find out.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Alright. Yes. If we're I mean, are we I will then I will just call it for a vote. I will second. Okay. So I would like to vote draft 1.1 of H556, and I hope that we find the strike all amendment favorable. Second. Great. Committee discussion.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I think this purely just outlines what I would suggest would be the vast overwhelming majority of these people affected already expect.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Madam Clerk, are you ready for us? And this is draft number 1.1.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Bartley? Yes. Representative Burrows? Yes. Representative Charlton?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: Yes.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Dodge? Yes. Excuse me. Representative Dolgin? Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Krasnow is absent. Representative Lamoille?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

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

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yes.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Representative Pezzo? Yes. And representative Mihaly is

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Nine. Zero. Two. Eight. I will be the presenter of this bill unless there is anyone else who would like to do it. And with that, I believe we may adjourn until 1PM, where we will be having a, we have witnesses coming to talk to us about Act six zero seven, which is an act relating to institutional real estate investors purchase of single and two family residences.