Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Welcome, everybody, to House Committee on General Housing. It is Friday, 03/27/2026, and we're in session for about a half an hour to consider amendments that have been offered for July where we have to make straw polls. I want to tell the committee what my intention is here for any comments that people would want to make. The first amendment that we will consider is Tom Stevens' proposed amendment, and I propose to have three straw polls. Okay? We're not used to doing this, but I'm going to do it here. We just haven't done it. Remember, a strawpull has no legal effect. It's just a way for people to express their opinion, and we can have people, like for example, Leonora isn't here, I know, she told me, you know, where she is, you can't do that with a regular blah blah blah, with a straw poll, you can't. Okay. I want to do a straw poll on the whole amendment. Okay? The amendment, Tom's amendment, essentially contains two parts, if you will. The first part, I'm not going just by, the first and the third amendment sections, instances, essentially push back the effective date of the bill for almost all purposes until one year later. That's the first, it pushes the whole, the effective date of the whole bill back a year. The second is it expands the existing tenant representation pilot program to go from two counties to all of Vermont. It does not contain funding, but it continues the program, extends the states, etcetera. So, I'm going to do a straw poll on where the whole bill is. A. I'm going to do a straw poll, we're talking about Steven Smith.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Okay, I was in the office. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're going do a straw poll on the whole bill. Yeah. Now I'm gonna divide it into two. I'm gonna ask the you guys what your opinion is on pushing the date back of the effective date of the whole ordinance for a year, and I'm gonna ask for a straw poll on the pilot program. That's what we're gonna do with amendment. Okay? Yeah. You with me so far? The Logan amendment is a it's a little more complex, but what the Logan amendment does is the second, third, and fourth instances of her amendment simply take the charters of three cities that were submitted to the legislature on just cause and approves them. That's one thing it does. In other words, Burlington, Winooski, South Burlington? No. Montpelier. Montpelier, each adopted What's the third then?

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Essex. Essex. Sorry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, Essex.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Oh, Montpelier Each was

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: of those adopted an ordinance, excuse me, not an ordinance. It's they adopted a chart a proposed charter amendment. Since charter amendments, when they take effect, if you will preempt state law, all charter amendments are submitted to the legislature, and the legislature has to approve them. Each of those charter amendments have been submitted to the legislature, but they have not been approved. The effect of the Logan Amendment would be to approve the three charter amendments. That's part of what the Logan The second part of the Logan Amendment, is in the first instance, is one that allows towns or municipalities to adopt ordinances governing security deposits, and it specifies what that ordinance may include and may not include. It's not, it's a matter of interpretation whether or not it's consistent with our bill. I think it certainly goes beyond our bill. It's much it says it's supplemental and not inconsistent with the minimum protections of this section. Alright. My opinion is that with respect to possibly the whole bill, but certainly with respect to the approval of the charters, that belongs firmly in Govox. And Govox has met They're meeting meeting, they're acting. I think they're acting on this whole bill. Whether they act on all of it, I assume they're going to act on all of it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: The bill or an amendment?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The amendment. The the proposed Logan amendment. I think they're going to act on I talked to Betsy Ann. We don't have to act on it. I feel that as to the approval of the charters, it probably wouldn't be it wouldn't come to us. You know, if it was a bill, it wouldn't be assigned to us. It would be assigned to gov ops. It does deal with our bill and it does so if people want as a it's up to you guys. If the committee wants to vote on it, we can vote on it. It's up to us. You know, so there it is. So, I just wanted to give you guys the lay of the land.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: One other thing

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: to add. Please. And then, I'm not sure if the committee saw an email from Representative Tina.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tina, we have the Tina amendment.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: But we also have to make time for the Tina amendment. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Before we go to floor. Alright. So, council? Hello. Good morning. Morning. I've you wanna maybe you should just sit down there and then we'll just move on this. I'm going to summarize, Cameron, with respect to Tom's amendment, Tom Stevens amendment, Yes. I've said that we're gonna take three straw polls. K. One on the overall amendment, one on the first and third instance, has to do the with the date effective dates, and once on the second, which has to do with the pilot. Then I said with respect to the Logan amendment, I thought it was within the jurisdiction of GovOps, and GovOps have met. Did they act?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: They were discussing Okay. I is instance of the the Logan amendment that is more security deposit related.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Which so I took the position that the first instance of amendment on the security deposit could be within our jurisdiction and that we could press it. I thought that the second, all the charter approvals were not, but that's the end. It's made it clear that there's absolutely it's so flexible if the commit it's up to the committee if they wish to take us all they can take us. So let's do the Stevens event. Alright. So I'm going to ask you if people would like to say anything, they can. But if otherwise, when when you want, if you have questions, yes. If you have statements, go ahead. Mindful of the time, but I'm just gonna ask for a thumbs up or thumbs down. Yes, Debbie, you have a question?

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Well, I mean, I just have a statement. Go ahead. I would say based on all the testimony that we heard, and especially from the judiciary committee who talked about how confused the lawyers are gonna be if we change things up, and the fact that Northeast Kingdom Community Action can give it, We have written testimony, can give an answer if they can help somebody, and there's other resources to help people. Know, the push I don't think it's necessary to push back the date. And I would say just based on all our testimony, I I can't support this. Okay. So any other statement before we vote?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Joe. Joe?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yes. Mine would be absolutely nothing about that issue, but it would be just pure policy wise of passing programs without funding, knowing it has no funding. It's not even asking for funding. It doesn't even have the language that comes out of appropriations all the time of if this is funded. I just don't think that's I mean, I I'm happy to vote on it either way, but I think it should at least have if we're gonna say that we should be doing this, I think we should be saying we're doing this with no money. I think we should have a dollar amount attached to it. And I think that's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: any other comments? Yeah. Gonna run for

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: a response.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And I was just gonna say just just remember the the representation program was provided two years of funding in Right. And they

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: still have some funding. Okay. I I I I am under the impression they still have some funding or can get some private, and they want to be able to use it outside of the two counties.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It is in North America.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Run out of funding.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yesterday or not. So yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Yes. Any other Tom?

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: The only portion of the amendment that I considering voting yes for is the representation part. It is helpful to have somebody that knows how to navigate the system for a tenant who may never had to deal with any legal language at all. My concern is that DLA has a combative reputation. And I'm not sure that as they walk into the room and say, hi, we're here to help, that that is the general impression, certainly from the landlords, and I don't mind representation, but they need to work on their public image. Because what works, being asserted in a courtroom, does not work for advocacy. And it's two skill sets.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. And I'm sensing one. Okay, if I appear to

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: be rushing, it's because Yes. I'm I would like to echo both what Joe and Tom have said. I think we've seen how legal aid has come in here and treated many of us, many others in the building. That being set aside completely, I've worked over the summer and I'm currently working right now with tenants who are actually in those two districts who aren't getting represented from legal aid because legal aid is not even returning their phone calls when they said they would help because they don't have the capacity. So my concern really strictly is, okay, we said the pilot is going to be these, they chose these two counties very specifically, and we're hearing that they don't have the capacity. So what's that going to mean for those who are in the counties who relied on, who could rely on these services? Are they just now not going to receive them for somebody else? So, I mean, I'll be a no on all three. Debbie,

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Very it's quick, it's like legal aid, I mean, they were saying the numbers they were putting out that there's lawyers on the other side, on the landlord side that's being representative. We have what all these nonprofits that have lawyers on board, the little mom and pop do not have lawyers on board and they have to navigate the system and they're gonna go up against legal aid, which I have no problem with at all because the system is in place, you can just read the law, you know what to do. But I'm just saying the mom and pop, they don't have the resources. And so to say, Oh, well, the landlord has representation, they're gonna come up with a lawyer. They're not, the little mom and pop is not, and that was the purpose of this bill, was to bring more balance so the mom and pop landlords can bring housing onto the market.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Last ones. I think Elizabeth, oh, you got it.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I am a co sponsor on this bill, I feel that at least somebody should speak up in favor of it. And I will remind the committee that this was a pilot program. It has been a successful investment, and this is simply creating a legal pathway for it to continue to exist. Mary, did

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you have something? I'm sorry. Didn't mean to cut

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you off. Didn't see her.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes, I'm sure legal aid has their hands full with clients, but they have been successful. I think it gives the tenants an opportunity to have representation and everyone should be able to have representation. So I would be voting yes on that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, all right, so I'm gonna start. Let me start. What's your opinion Oh, I'm sorry, Saudia, go ahead. I just Sorry.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: No worries. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You look pretty cool. You look pretty cool in your car.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: I'm not driving.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. Good.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Yeah. So I just wanted to reiterate. I'm also a cosponsor of the amendment. And as we said, when we heard testimony on this, this is a pilot that exists. The funding is there. And what we heard from them is that there is a requirement process. And so the people who are not being serviced, there is a qualification. And so that may be a barrier, but that doesn't mean that the services are not needed, are not working and are not helping Vermonters. And so as such, since the funding is there and they want to be able to help folks in other counties within the timeframe of the funding, I suggest we move forward and pass this and say, let's see if it works. Because guess what? If it doesn't, we're not attaching funding to this. And it is a pilot and we're just expanding the districts of which that can be serviced. So in the event that it is not successful, no harm, no foul. However, why would we wanna stop people from being able to get help as opposed to saying, you know what? We're gonna just keep it in these two districts because that's where the money is and that's what the pilot was for. So I'm obviously a yes. It doesn't There's no harm in expanding and allowing them to expand their services. Let's help as many Vermonters as we can, as we are countering and, you know, in with some other legislation that we just passed and making it a little bit more challenging. Let's give them the tools and resources they have to be able to get what they need.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We're gonna have to be late. So Okay. If we have time

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: to I just have

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: a really quick question. Is a landlord eligible

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: for legal aid? Generally, almost never. I mean, it's conceivable that an individual, it's 120% of median, so it's conceivable.

[Unidentified Member]: And that does the asset is the asset included or just the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think this particular thing, Tom, doesn't identify yourself to say.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Representative Stevens. Legal aid generally tends not to represent tenants because they, that's Not not their to represent landlords. Landlords, mean, not their mission. Are other landlord property owner groups that can provide legal resources and advice is the Vermont Landlord Association which can provide advice to landlords and court cases and they can also offer representation for a price. Don't even think lady's mission is not to support, it is to support tenants or to support people with low income across many different things.

[Rep. Tom Stevens (Guest/Sponsor)]: They do have a tenant represented, they do have a tenant in the housing oriented bent on some of these days.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think it never happens. Even if it can happen, it doesn't. Okay.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Like to say one thing before we vote. I am supportive of the program and the work, but I just have to say, and for the record, that I've been

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: really

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: disappointed with the way that the advocacy has been on some things around this and haven't had personal conversations. It's just been a really negative and combative process. And so that does, while I'm not here to have personal feelings about that in my respect to how I'm gonna vote due to the program. I just wanna say that I've been really, really in my fourteen years in this building, it's been really disappointing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So I'm gonna start then with the pieces. What is your vote on delaying the whole the bill, except for a few parts, delaying the bill for a year? Okay. Hold on a minute. Let's count. Keep your keep your I think we have one, two, three, four yeses because I know no, three yeses, three yeses.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: No, he's counting Leonora.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh. No, Leonora didn't want it to weigh. Oh, right. Three yeses and one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, no's. Okay, just

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: a Saudia, your hand was just raised, what does that mean?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, it was a yes, she is a yes, right? Yeah, she is a yes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I just want to be confused.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, alright. Then now the question is, I'm going to ask you, how do you feel? Does everybody feel on just the pilot program? Yes or no? Saudia, I can't see anything. Don't take your hands off that's a yes. Don't take your hands off the wheel. Okay. 12344. Do I see, I see 5 if you include her. 12345, yes, 123456 yeses. Noes? Come on, get your noes. 12345. 6 to five yes for the pilot. Controversial, okay, I would vote in favor of the pilot. I'm there. Okay, now, the whole bill. Who votes yes on the whole bill? 123451, are you willing to vote on the whole bill? Are you in no No.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's the amendment.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Just the whole amendment.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: That is with everything. Amendment. Yes.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: It's not on the

[Unidentified Member]: bill. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I vote however you want to vote. Just want to make sure you're doing what you think you're doing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. I mean, I'm voting no because I was no on part of it. Okay. I'm sorry again. Sorry. Sorry to make you hold your hands up. Please do it again. All those who vote yes on the amendment. One, two, three, and no? Well, no, she Leonora did she Yeah, did too. Yeah.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And those who are no are so good. It's it's 1234567. We should strip every bill we pass like this. I

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: don't mind it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What? You don't want to clerk that vote?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: What? Very sweet.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You're more I options just now. Now we're gonna move on. Thank you, Thomas. Sure. Okay. So I will report on the floor the results of the Now The Logan Amendment. My question is, do you guys wish to express an opinion on the floor on the Logan Amendment or not? You're the my the I I under it is my understanding that the gov ops committee has met, has voted unfavorably by a vote of nine one zero.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: For the whole amendment?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How could that be? Do they have an even number of people there? Yeah. Yes.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. Person

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Was resigned. Removed. Removed. Oh, it was resigned. Resigned.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: That's correct.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: It was not unfavorable nine one.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: For the whole thing or for the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The whole whole amendment. Yes. Whole Logan amendment.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Representative Logan.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Logan. Yes.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: It was on the merits of the chart. They didn't really discuss the first instance of amendment because our belief was that it was the jurisdiction of this committee. So it was on the charter change. Okay. Well,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: certainly, opinion is we should express an opinion on the first instance. Okay. But

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: then are we going to do the whole

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We can do the whole bill.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: But they didn't.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's just do the first instance for a minute. The first instance is giving towns or municipalities the authority to adopt supplemental authority to adopt instances governing social security deposits, and they include providing greater protection than the provisions otherwise in our bills, authorizing interest, housing board a housing board of review, and that's that's essentially it. Joe?

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah. So yes, Joe? How is greater protection than provisions in section to who? From the landlord, I could say, I want protections to be able to have a larger security deposit because I just fixed this place up.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Oh, jeez.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Does it say I said

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It can say either party. This is greater protections.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Maybe we'll vote for it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: We didn't have any

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think there's no answer this no testimony. So I'm gonna ask. We're running out of time, everybody. Yeah.

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Yes. This is an entity for you because we had an interrogation on the floor regarding whether or not a municipality has an ordinance in place that requires a smaller security deposit. So in Burlington, only up to two months total rent. So it is allowed as a security deposit. And there was some discussion about how, oh, as long as that's in the Charter, then it's totally fine. It's not in It's the an ordinance because we were allowed to have an ordinance like that under prior law. It is very unclear if we'll be able to maintain our same standards for security deposits in Burlington if this bill passes. And we're asking for the authority to continue to do the way that we have been doing them, which is better for Burlington, especially in a city where rent makes up over 50% of people's incomes for over half of renters.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I would

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: like to say something. I do support that, but only because I personally pay attention to a lot of what goes on in my surrounding communities. I'm uncomfortable

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: with the fact that

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: we haven't had testimony on it, I'm wondering if that's something that might be able to be worked on in the Senate and the reason for why without testimony like, again, if we do end up voting, I am supportive just but only because I personally have experience and knowledge of how Burlington works because it's my surrounding community. However, I am on a point that we haven't had any testimony on this and there are Yes. There are many questions about this and it's not really fair to the committee to rush through not knowing about it. And I'm wondering if this is something where And there's also people who represent Burlington on the Senate Committee that could maybe know more about it. That's my opinion based on how this building is.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: My opinion is it's confusing to tenants. Because we have tenant supply, and they're like, you can't charge that, you can't charge that, and we have to know Burlington law as well as the law for everyone else, and it's like, that's in Burlington. Burlington can't do that. So it's just confusing to tenants what's allowed.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Does the bill make two months, the maximum anyway? The bill currently

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Can we not have sideline conversations?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'll tell you what, we've got a vote, I'm just going to say the underlying bill, seven seventy two, limits security deposits to no more than two months. It could be less, it can be no more than two, to the extent the Burling if seven seventy two becomes law, to the extent that the Burlingame ordinance is consistent with it, it may be enforced to the extent that it's inconsistent, the state law would trump. So am I wrong, counsel? Okay. So I'm asking, on the issue of the rent, this one's first instance, how many people do we have in favor? We have two who just left. Saudia, are you still with us? I think Saudia is

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: You can

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: ask her. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. So we have I don't know. Do you know where she is?

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: We did not know.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We didn't ask her.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: We did. It's not we don't like that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. 3 yes. No's? 12345.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I had a yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You had a yes? Oh, no. Hold on. 20 you are here.

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: She didn't even hear it though.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. 12345. Are you on this amendment, are you a yes or a no? I'm a yes. Okay, five nos. On the amendment and you are a yes?

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Yes, but I don't like the process for transparency at all.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. But you're still a yes?

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: Only because I happen to know about Arlington's laws and ordinances.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Is this for the whole amendment?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. No. Just the security I deposit recorded you correctly, I believe, with respect to Tom's amendment. This is the amendment. All of the charter approvals have been dealt with quite that often, because we want protection. The section that says that any town or municipality can adopt an ordinance which is essentially protection without defining that that response and provides for interest and or can provide for interest and provide for a review and appeal.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Right. And my community had a charter arranged request. So what did

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: your vote be on that?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: So I I would want

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: to give the towns the right

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to Okay. So that's yeses then are five, do I count right? Five yeses. And noes, five noes, one, I'm two, so uncomfortable with how, like

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: not having enough information. Think it seems I really guess I

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: just don't understand why we're doing all of these straw polls. It's one amendment. I think we should vote on said amendment.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: That's just me. Well Six chances, Marc.

[Unidentified Member]: One, two, three, four, five, six.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, Is there

[Unidentified Member (likely Ashley Bartley, Vice Chair)]: I'm not comfortable. I'm really not comfortable with this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So you're going to change your vote? You want to vote on the whole matter? We can do that? Okay, I am going to, while I explain this, I'm going to explain the ambiguity here, but do you want to vote on the whole thing? Do you think we should vote on the whole thing?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I think that's how I have never split up an amendment in this building in the last four years. We've never split up an amendment and did a frothole. I think by standing on the floor saying, here's the amendment, we split it up one, two, three ways, that's just gonna confuse people. I don't think it helps. I think we need to remember that we have another body who's gonna be working on this and let these amendments be brought to there. Like that is the process.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. I'm gonna

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: Well, thank you.

[Joseph Parsons (Member)]: The last note on the entire amendment as of They voted on the entire amendment.

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Bye Cameron. Thanks for being here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Wait. About the China amendment. We'll have

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to get leave of the house to hear it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We'll get leave of the house, yeah. Okay. Alright. Okay, everybody.