Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Have you been here before?

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: Yes. A number of occasions. It's one of my favorite rooms.

[Speaker 0]: Back, everybody, to the House Committee on General and Housing. It's Wednesday, March 25, around 09:30. We have a little time before Cox in the Hole on floor at ten. And we just heard a little bit on an interesting policy question which involves a study by the Department of Labor on S two thirty. And now what we're doing is we're considering two amendments to H-seven 72 and doing our straw poll. One of them is the appropriations amendment, and I don't know which we have with us, not only our esteemed general counsels, but we have a member of the Appropriations Committee who is our buddy on the Appropriations Committee, and in fact, is charged with so much that I don't even know how she holds it in her head. So the two of you, would you take it away with respect to the Appropriations Committee amendment?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. My apologies, I was trying to, I am trying to get into your zoom meeting but the amendment is straightforward from the appropriations committee there's a I believe it's just three instances of amendments if you were

[Speaker 0]: Are you having trouble getting

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm waiting to get into the

[Speaker 0]: zoom but I can describe it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's straightforward and then I'll pull it up here in a second. If you recall, is the towards the end of your bill in July, you have the positive rental payment pilot program from the state treasurer's office And then separate from that, there was a section to have the CVOEO do training for landlords and tenants statewide building upon the training that they've already developed and put out there. And you had appropriations for both of those things in the last section of the bill. And so as is standard practice for the Appropriations Committee.

[Speaker 0]: We also had appropriations for the rental.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, You had you had other appropriations. Rental?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, And we also had appropriation just to put it on the record. We had an appropriation for the positive rent. You mentioned that. Yes. And an appropriation for The rent arrears a whole program putting ombudspersons in the CAP program.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yes, sir. And so as is kind of standard practice for the Appropriations Committee, so they can consolidate all new state appropriations appropriations into the budget of other appropriate vehicles. The appropriations have been removed from the bill. And because the appropriations have been removed from the bill, the committee is adding in you've probably seen kind of standard contingency language for those two programs, for the rental payment pilot program and then for the training requirement for CVOEO. They've added in some contingency language to say that the requirement to implement those programs is contingent upon an appropriation in fiscal year twenty seven for that specific purpose. So three reasons of amendment, adding the contingency language in, removing the appropriations section entirely. That's the appropriations amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Great, Rep. Lamoille, do you want to?

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: Yeah, well the rental arrears assistance was put into the budget at $1,000,000

[Speaker 0]: It's on page 99 of the budget. Oh, wow.

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: Did you get a copy of the addendum?

[Speaker 0]: I got a copy of the big bill. Yes,

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: well, I have yesterday's copy, but I don't, anyway we're waiting for the addendum because that's what most people are going to be looking at for page numbers and stuff

[Speaker 0]: like I shouldn't tell people it's all the pain

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: was not. No, it's Kind of nerdy and silly, but anyway, yeah. So, I don't think there was any question in our committee about the importance of the appropriations that you put forward. We had about $275,000,000 in asks above the governor's budget. And so we prioritized rental arrears money so that that program could be continued and address the needs of folks that you know have barely benefited from that program in the past. So we prioritized that. And ain't over until it's over, so the budget will go over to the Senate and they will have their way with it. And some of those appropriations that you made might make it back in. But it was a decision from the committee that that seemed like the most important thing to try to preserve at this hill. The vote was nine-two. Did

[Speaker 0]: you, just one question, then I'll open it up to other questions. You said you had 200 and some million in AS? Above the percentage. And how much did you have to play with? 15,000,000 or 10,000,000?

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: You know, about 20,000,000 in the end.

[Speaker 0]: We might have might done million million in in just want to emphasize to the committee, this is the first cut. This is what the the appropriations committee has done on the first cut. And so, one of our appropriations, the biggest, made it in. That does not mean that others could not be funded. For example, the positive credit reporting is very small. It's possible that it would be put in in the Senate, and then they'd have to work it out in conference. It's also possible that at the BAA stage, budget adjustment next year, that we'll find that there's money, more money than we thought we had, and that it can be dealt with at that time. In other words, these programs are kind

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: of there. Alright. Also, just one addendum. We got a We I had about 30 bills to deal with at the same time I were trying to finance the budget. So we didn't have very much time to go into depth in a lot of bills, to weigh one thing against And the so folks were most familiar with the rental arrears piece, it was passed in 'twenty three, created in 'twenty three that fund. And that's why we ended up, I think funding that to not fighting over other things.

[Speaker 0]: Debbie, did you have something? And then Elizabeth.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I just know the Northeast Kingdom Community Action, they must have a lot of money because they are doing a program right now led by Heather Alger that is teaching people how to budget, how to be a responsible person, how to clean up after themselves, how to go food shopping, make recipes, yada yada yada. And I mean, so, I mean, I don't know why these why we have to give more money for training. I mean, this is something that should probably be taught in school before they get out in the real world.

[Speaker 0]: It's great that they have those programs, and I am not going to comment on the possible duplication because in any case, they didn't make it into the budget. Only one that made it in. So, it's clear to everybody, the only one that made it into the budget is the rental arrears program. For now. For now. Yes.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I don't think Debbie was done.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, I mean, that's another thing. I mean, that must have a lot of money because they they can tell a landlord within forty eight hours if they'll be able to assist a tenant in arrears, and they will and there's other agencies that are out there that will help somebody that may not fit into a low income bracket to get, you know, help on rental arrears. I mean, I don't know if we're unique in our Northeast Kingdom, but I mean, that's what we have available to us.

[Speaker 0]: Of course, the Northeast Kingdom can be.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, for the whole state, it's not the same. So like, yeah. It's

[Speaker 0]: not. Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thank you. I have a question about your budgeting process. I noticed that it was mentioned yesterday it was mentioned to me yesterday, I think, that I'm getting stuck on trying to remember where I heard it, but I can't remember. So that rental arrears was mentioned in the homelessness bill. And I wondered whether

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: that's a different, that is part of that $82,000,000 package and that's through DCF. This would be through USHA.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Okay, different. Different stuff. That's not my question. My question is, if more than one committee prioritizes something for funding, does that make it a super priority for your committee?

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: We certainly take, it certainly is something that we talk about. And yet, for example, food assistance at $5,000,000 was recommended by several different committees. We did not have $5,000,000 We ended up about a million and a half towards food assistance. And each of us talks with the committee chairs and then asks, well, how important is this to you versus other things you put on your list? Because people didn't necessarily rank them one through 12. They said highest, high. So it just was, I think our process is informed by a lot of discussions outside Goofy, and then bring that into the committee. And we had a process where we looked, we had a list of every ask from every advocate who publicly testified or wrote a letter, every legislator who came in, and every government agency and every committee that made recommendations. Those were very long lists. And each of us was asked by the chair to say, okay, if you have $5,000,000 what do you prioritize? You got $10,000,000 what's the next tranche? And what's your third $5,000,000 And then all of those, gave them to JFO and then they consolidated those and ranked them in order of the number of votes that they got. And we talked about them. There were things people weren't familiar with. So we talked about things people didn't know about. And then JFO and Robin worked to look at the list and the rankings. And then Robin was checked in with chairs and came up with, hey, here's what I think we heard, and then from there we talked about what we could

[Speaker 0]: do. So, if we do, If there's an urgent question, please ask it, but we really need to respond No. To our next have another amendment. So, my question is Go ahead.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I would like find this favorable and would like

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to take a straw poll, and I'll

[Speaker 0]: be voting in support. So where are we on our straw for this?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: For the appropriations amendment.

[Speaker 0]: Which just the amendment just strips everything. Strips out the It strips out everything. And just puts it in the budget.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And puts it in the budget.

[Speaker 0]: Debbie, are you unsure uncertain? I'm I'm not sure. You know? Okay. Okay. Okay. So it's 12323. 4567. Joan, did you have a question? Oh, Leonora and

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Sarah. Raising her hands for

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, Joseph.

[Speaker 0]: Saudia and Leonora, where are you on this? Saudia and Leonora on a straw poll.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. So in other words, this is funding, not the not a straw poll on on anything other

[Speaker 0]: than putting

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: the funding into the foot putting the funding into the budget Yes. Out of the bill. Yeah. I mean, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Well Okay. And Saudia just

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: to be clear, they stripped all the funding.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: They stripped it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Saudia Currently only Right. Variances in the budget.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's right.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Saudia, I'll have to collect Saudia in a minute. Okay.

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: So Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I'm Oh, yes.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Trying to the the conversation because I think I'm a little bit confused as to what is being conveyed that it is it is it is or is not in the budget. So, I mean, the whole purp like, this the how does this affect the bill?

[Speaker 0]: It affects the bill. The the literal amendment itself doesn't affect the bill. The amendment simply is part of the usual process of stripping all appropriations requests out of all bills and collecting them into the to the appropriations committee, Saudia. That's all this amendment does. However, we know at this point that the million dollar appropriation for the rental arrears program has made it into the current draft of the budget and the others have not. The others of the appropriations have not. They might be in a later draft, they might be in the Senate, they might be in the conference committee, but they are currently not. What's in it is the rental arrears program. What we're voting on is on the straw poll is just the amendment, which is to strip it out, but if you want to take into account where the current draft of the budget is, you should.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. I'm gonna probably be a no on that, but

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Great.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: 9920.

[Speaker 0]: 920, yeah, because we have one, yeah, she's there. Okay, thank you so much. Sorry to rush. Okay,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get over there. Just a no Friday's record of action.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, Ian's doing

[Speaker 0]: it. Oh, Ian's doing it.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna grab him.

[Speaker 0]: Excuse me. Sorry. Okay. Alright. You wanna put it up? Yes. So the next bill, the next amendment is won by representative Krasnow and Others. Ian is a co and Emilie Kornheiser. And

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: He's back.

[Speaker 0]: He's coming. This is a bill this is an amendment that heals remember with the problem of just to set the stage, do you guys remember part of the landlord tenant bill is dealing with a tenant who is endangering the health or safety of other tenants, and it is a sort of an accelerated process to get to here? Yep. Okay. One of the problems, which we identified with was, but we just didn't have time to deal with, one of the problems was, what do you do when you have domestic partners are both on a lease, okay, and one domestic partner is victimizing the others, you know, in some physical, really awful, dangerous way, and you really want to, and we all knew we didn't want a situation where the only option left to the landlord was to throw out the victim. But they're both on the they're both on the lease. So what you have is an amendment that addresses that issue in its primary There

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: he is.

[Speaker 0]: There he is, have a seat,

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: right there.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: There's a black chair

[Speaker 0]: there. There's a black chair there. And its primary element is to allow the tenant to ask, essentially, to bifurcate the lease and divide the lease into two, So then the landlord is able, if the landlord wants, it's a May, to throw out, to evict the abuser, but not the victim.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Real quick, was I supposed to send this to the clerk's office? And I didn't. That's why it hasn't been posted yet in the emails of legislators.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know what you did.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I did nothing.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But you need to send it to the clerk's office. Yes, ma'am.

[Speaker 0]: Why don't you do that?

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

[Speaker 0]: We'll do that right now. Go ahead.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: This is my first time doing a floor amendment, so I apologize.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes. So in that event, if the person that is the victim can't afford to when they're on their own, would they be?

[Speaker 0]: There's ninety days to find a roommate.

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: Okay. Yes, that's right.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, I'll tell you what, Ian, do you want to address, generally address this and then we'll have a quick walk through?

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: Yeah, very, very briefly. I'm on house judiciary. We've spent a lot of time in this bill too. There's a lot of balancing back and forth to try to strike a good balance and just try to hear both sides. I think that the domestic violence world is one, a voice that we probably should have heard more during the drafting of this bill and the work that done on it. And so this amendment rectifies that and adds in some pretty important protections for victims of domestic violence. I think I can speak for, sure, a number of you and definitely people from judiciary. A lot of the issues that we heard from witnesses were around tenant situations that are contentious, difficult, are complex. Domestic violence is going to be a part of that, and we need to ensure that this bill has protections in place for the inevitability that one of these issues comes before a landlord. So I'm a lawyer in my other job, but here I'm just a representative, so

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going let the real lawyer here talk about it.

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: But generally speaking, this is going to provide protections for people who actually are a victim of domestic violence so that that fact alone cannot be the reason that they're evicted and will allow for bifurcation of the release so that an abuser could be evicted because of that domestic violence that poses a real risk and a real threat.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, you want to put it up, and do you have a question, Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I do.

[Speaker 0]: Can we put it up? Do you need the text or?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I just have a question.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, go ahead.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: How do you define domestic violence?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have the bill in

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: front of me, but you're gonna look and you'll see in the, I'll

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

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: Yeah, we can pull We can pull We pull from prior definitions for these terms in existing meaning. So do you pull from laws regarding

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: domestic and sexual violence, or do you pull from laws regarding the definition of partnership? I guess what I'm asking is, can domestic violence include people who are roommates

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: Yes. And We need to be in a sexual or long term relationship. There's case law around this, but yeah, you don't need to be married to the person person or you don't need to be in a current relationship with them. You've never been

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: in a relationship with them in

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: the past. There are a couple of different ways it's defined. But yeah, so there are definitely ways that two tenants, if they have some kind of relationship or had a past relationship, that that would be domestic violence. Just

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be clear, you don't have to be in an emotional relationship or sexual relationship. You could be household members. That's what I

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: that is exactly what I'm Oh, I apologize. Yeah. And then

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: it's just basically you just put it together.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Right. Like, roommates. Not Mhmm. Yeah. Because sometimes it's dependent on the scenario whether that is included in the domestic violence definition as evidence is not.

[Speaker 0]: You know what, since we're so short on time, what I would urge upon you, Cameron, is that you do this conceptually rather than walk through the entire thing. In other words, what's what's going on here? I can be very quick.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is the current bill. You have subsection B, termination for breach of rental agreements. If you all recall, you're making these changes in the subsection two regarding activity that threatens the health or safety of other people. There were some concerns about that, as was mentioned by the reporter of the bill, some concerns about how that could impact individuals who are victims in some sort of domestic issue or domestic abuse situation. And so this amendment proposes to make a few changes. First, it will add a few definitions. It adds a definition of actual and imminent threat, and that definition is pulled from the Federal Violence Against Women's Act. I'll mention that in a second when I get to it. It has a definition of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and stalking. And then domestic abuse comes from the Civil Abuse Prevention Orders chapter. And it has a definition of abuse here. It's pretty lengthy in how it references to other things. So I'm not going to walk through the whole piece. I'll just comment that household member is defined and it's persons who for any period of time are living or have lived together. And it does also then include people who have engaged in a sexual relationship or dating. So it's broad and trying to encompass all of those potential scenarios. And then that's the definitions. You get into the second instance of amendments, which strikes out in section four thousand four and sixty five. Four thousand four and sixty five is about the retaliatory conduct that's prohibited. If you remember that section here on the second page, if you remember, you're proposing to add in the sub four, which a landlord can't retaliate against somebody for taking legal action against the landlord.

[Speaker 0]: That's in the bill.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's in your bill. The only thing this amendment does is it adds a five to say that the landlord can't retaliate against someone who has contacted law enforcement to respond to an instance of a domestic abuse. So protection for a tenant there. You get into the third instance of amendment, which strikes that sub B in its entirety, the one I was just referring to about termination of the rental agreement and the notice. Strikes it entirely, but it only makes two changes. For starters, it makes a technical mix. This subsection three was initially listed as a two b.

[Speaker 0]: Oh yeah, it changes the number.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It changes the number, this is the affidavit that has to be provided as part of the termination notice. Okay, Fixing an error there in my drafting. Section five is what's being added. The rest of the language remains the same. New section five, a landlord shall not terminate a rental agreement of a tenant because the tenant is the victim of an instant or pattern of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. So that could be an incident between them and another roommate, or it could also be somebody who doesn't live there. They are the victim of an incident or pattern of one of those things. The landlord will not be able to argue that that is somehow an act of violence to remove the individual victim from the unit. It would also cover the scenarios where the two tenants live together and the victim here cannot then be removed from the property because of the violence. They can't remove the victims. Correct. Okay. Okay, so now I'm going to get to the B and C here. It says that the landlord can allow the victim to bifurcate the rental agreements to then be able to evict the abuser tenant. And it references to a new section four thousand four and seventy two that I'll get to in just a second. This is going in the termination notice section. And then it says that the landlord may terminate the rental agreement for the tenant who has committed an act of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking against another tenant if the act poses an actual and imminent threat to the remaining tenants and there's no other actions to be taken that would reduce or eliminate the threat. So the threshold here to remove the abuser tenant is a little bit higher than what you have in the other section because the act of violence needs to be an immediate excuse me, an actual and immediate threat as opposed to just an act of violence. But key point here is victim tenant is protected, can't be ejected because of the incident. Bifurcation of the rental agreement is they shall, the landlord shall bifurcate it in the instance that somebody is a victim of a domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking, and then the tenant is authorized to eject the abuser if the abuser's activity is creating an actual and imminent threat to the victim, other residents, landlord, neighbors, etcetera. No, I know. That's going in the notice period. The fourth instance of amendment is adding a new section into subchapter four of this chapter, is protections for tenants because of domestic violence. And it's adding this new section which basically is stating the same thing, providing that the landlord shall authorize a tenant to bifurcate a rental agreement if they are the victim sexual assault or stalking. The landlord may terminate the rental agreement of the abuser. And then there's this subdivision B1 here that says, in the event that the landlord bifurcates the rental agreement and the remaining tenant isn't able to cover the cost of rent for the dwelling units, the landlord shall provide the protected tenant with a reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants or to otherwise find new housing, then the reasonable opportunity is defined as a minimum of ninety days.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Yes. Who determines that it's domestic violence? In real life sometimes the victim will pull back. Can the cops make that decision and move forward with this?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it has a definition. It doesn't require there to be a police report filed or anything like that. So if the facts are sufficient to demonstrate that an abuse has occurred, the landlord could move forward under the statutory section without there needing to be some sort of action taken. But I think for the victim tenant and the landlord, you're obviously going to have more surety if there is that documentation to be able to move forward in the section.

[Speaker 0]: But usually it's the landlord who has to make all these decisions. The landlord looks at the situation and said, without this amendment, the landlord has to decide, is this someone who's threatening the endangered, and then they evict them. And if they resist the if the eviction goes to court, then, you know, the process goes ahead. But it's the landlord who decides. Saudia has a question and then Debbie. Saudia.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Sorry. I was trying to

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: get to the unmute button.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. Thanks. So you sort of just answered my question. My question is, so this is all based solely on the landlord. So if the perpetrator is related to the landlord, then that provides no protections for the tenant. And also, I've just questioned. So if two people are living together and they are roommates and one is a victim and one person is on the lease and they are the person who is the victim in the staying, they would have to go through their landlord to go through the ejectment process as opposed to them having the power to do so. Am I hearing that correctly?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I wanna make sure I'm understanding you correctly. You're saying that if the victim tenant

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: is the one on the lease

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or the abuser is the one on the lease?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Correct. If the victim is if the victim is the one on the lease

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: If the victim.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Two people are residing in the same residence.

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

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: And there is an an instance of threat or abuse of violence or danger to whomever. That victim would then have to rely on the landlord to eject that person from that property even though they are the person on the lease, they are the person paying the bills.

[Speaker 0]: They can cut the lease.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think it's gonna depend on the factual circumstance. I think the victim tenant has potentially a few options. If the individual is just staying there as their guest, I think the victim tenant could eject them at that point, could get a no trespass order against the individual. If the individual has committed some sort of criminal activity, so something to rise to a criminal event of sexual assault or abuse, then the landlord could seek the trespass order under the language that you all passed. If the individual is living there with the protected tenant and they have some sort of rental agreement arrangements, then the protected tenant could remove the individual under, I would say, the termination of a shared occupancy. It's probably if I were the victim tenant, how I would move forward because that is probably going to be the shortest time frame. Very shortest period. I do think there are a few options. I just think it's really going to depend on factually what is that relationship. Is it somebody who's just their guest, who's their partner at the time, who's living with them and then the relationship goes sour? I think the victim or tenant who's on the lease probably has a faster process of just kicking the individual out versus if there's something else to indicate that there's a If rental

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I could just respond also, this amendment is to it's not about it's about protecting victims. Not so I I I don't want it it's the intent is is not about, like, helping landlords not this the intent is to help survivors and victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have this opportunity. So I I don't like, I don't the framing around it being for landlords is not the the intent of of my amendment.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: You know, we're running short of time here, but Debbie and Joe quickly. Well, I mean, I was thinking of the opposite situation where the abuser is the only one on the lease. The other one, the victim has permission to be there. Landlord knows they're gonna be there. It's not like that situation. And then so if you're gonna give a new lease to the victim, what how does you know, the security deposit follows the lease. So for getting rid of that lease and doing a new lease, and then what if you have a year lease, technically, I don't know, there's just too much going on that I don't think you can address.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, I mean, if you have an individual who lives there and they're abuser of someone else, the landlord can remove that individual because they're committing acts of violence against people. And then they eject the person based on that scenario. And then if the landlord wants, the landlord could then turn around and rent the unit to the victim if the victim wasn't I on the agree they would need to, the landlord would probably need to do a security deposit with that person. So I agree that scenario exists.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, actually in some ways that's the simplest. In other words, if they're not on the lease, the victim, then you can just

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: There's lots of created as a new tenant.

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: And so This amendment doesn't actually really touch that back panel. Okay. Because it's really

[Speaker 0]: to protect tenants who are But it's still there.

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

[Speaker 0]: You still have the option of just ejecting now.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: If you want.

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: Yeah. It's a vague

[Speaker 0]: Joe? Yes?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Mine just comes from having to do this the following year on other bills where I just wanna make sure, I think, kind of to Gayle's point a little bit, was the should we be referring to them as alleged victims? Because, I mean, in my feeling, I think victim holds some legal weight

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could you tell her that we're behind qualifying as the victim to get these protections? You. Yeah. Wait. So she They're gonna let you become until that point. It's not something I have considered in drafting it. Thanks, sir. Okay. I will I just remember that we have a leave bill.

[Speaker 0]: No. I was gonna leave bill.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We have to take under advisement.

[Rep. David Yacovone (House Appropriations)]: Mary Okay. E.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want an answer. Yeah,

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I'm fine with that. Just want to make

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sure we're okay.

[Speaker 0]: Ladies and gentlemen, let's just

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I would to straw poll and

[Speaker 0]: find this amendment favorable. How many votes do we have? Straw poll, find this amendment favorable. One, two, three, four, five, six, Elizabeth? 789, I don't know where Leonora is. Leonora, are you still on the phone? 10, we're 10, Debbie, do you know which way you want to go? No. So ten-one-zero. Okay, that's okay.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's okay.

[Speaker 0]: Ten-one-zero. Okay, Debbie feels like it's too quick. That's fine. Ten-one-zero. Thank you so much. You're going to stand up.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. He's on a second.

[Speaker 0]: You're all set.

[Rep. Ian (House Judiciary, surname unknown)]: Yes. I will be presenting the amendment.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: He's on he has a lot to do today. Yeah. We're we're still on live. Thanks, everyone.