Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: And I don't know if want to add a note. We're live.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, everybody, in the committee on general housing. We are doing straw polls on amendments to seven seventy two. In some cases, we're re voting just because everybody's in the room now and there was some proxy voting, so we're all together. So, on Stevens, overall, the Stevens amendment, those who favor the Stevens amendment, the Stevens Stevens Amendment amendment, as a whole, those who are opposed to the Stevens Amendment as a whole. Opposed? Wait. Can
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I suggest, are going over the Stevens Amendment, you would like to divide it up?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I want to start with it, what I was going to do is, the Stevens Amendment has two pieces. One is a legal aid thing, but the other is to delay the effect of the entire bill by a year. I am going to do, first of all, if we just I have been advised if Stevens does not if he himself does not divide the matter, I'm just going to report the overall. If he divides the matter, I will report on the division.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay,
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: so I'm starting off. And we don't have
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to wait for him to
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: come. No. If the vote is just on the whole Stevens amendment with both,
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: who is favorable? Just raise your hand. One, two. And don't forget, Saudia LaMont's are on the bill.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right, I understand,
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: but we were talking about problems. She
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: was here for the entire debate. Anyway, okay, so You don't think that
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: it's implied by the fact that she's a sponsor in the bill?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay. Those who are opposed, give me a thumbs down or a hand. 12345678. Okay, now, on the portion of the Stevens Amendment that is dealing with legal aid, and the legal aid extension, geographic and time extension. All those in favor, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. All those on the sixth? Opposed? 12345.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Gayle is a no.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. For the, okay, so the portion of the amendment that would push back the bill by a full year. What? We don't have, do we have to do it? I don't even know, we don't have to do it, do we? No. Is there anybody who wants to push the whole thing?
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Don't think both of us are sponsored by the bill probably.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. People who want to push the whole thing back by a beer, how many? One, two, okay.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: You don't?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Now, on the Logan Amendment, we are only voting I have been asked to just redo the vote we did, which was whether on the first instance of amendment, which is an amendment which says that local towns can enact their own provisions, any town can act their own provisions on security deposit. Okay? That's what the first section says. Wait,
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I thought it was I thought the first section was on allowing the charter changes that have already been That's the second, third, fourth section. So the does the first section say that a town may change by ordinance Yes. The deposit, or does it say that those ordinances that have already been passed?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. It says that a town may change by ordinance. Hold on just a second. I will read Not including? It says that a town or municipality may adopt an ordinance governing security deposits on drugs. Sure. Yes. And also, does it say that the ordinances that have already passed are No. No, just says the ordinance shall Can
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: we let legislative counsel?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You want me to jump? Sure.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Cameron.
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. You look at the first instance of the that's being offered by Representative Logan. Currently there is a statutory section in the section governing security deposit. The language does that a town or municipality may adopt an ordinance governing security deposits on dwellings, current statute. So some municipalities have done that. It then goes on to say the ordinance shall be supplemental to and not inconsistent with the minimum protections of the provision of this section, that's current law. So you have municipalities that have inactive ordinances regarding security deposits. The question has come up. There are towns that have ordinances regarding the total amount that can be charged for a security deposit. You all in this bill are putting in a state provision that applies statewide that says that a landlord can only charge up to two months rent in addition to the first month paid. And the question has come up is, will that invalidate municipal ordinances that exist that may have a lower limit on what a landlord can charge, okay. And the legal question is the provision that's
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: in there
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: says the ordinance has to be supplemental and cannot be inconsistent. I can't guarantee you that a court would look at that and say a municipal ordinance that requires a smaller amount is consistent with what you're putting in statute. So there is an open question whether the municipal ordinance that currently exists would be able to remain.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is everybody following? My only question is I thought state statute trumps any local ordinance, that therefore any local ordinance, the question would simply be is it if we pass seven seventy two and seven seventy two becomes law, and the law says up to two months' rent. What you're saying is up to two months means that some city could adopt an ordinance with one month and it would be deemed consistent.
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can't guarantee you that it would be deemed consistent. No. I'm telling you that a court may look at that and say a court could look at it and say, we feel it's consistent because you as the state have said it's up to two. A municipality is saying, we're going to limit it to one. Inconsistent with the minimum protections of the statute? I think argument could be made that it is because you're saying the minimum should be up to two. I don't know what a court is going to say. That's where I'm saying there's an argument that can be made on either side of that. Okay. What I can tell you is there are some municipal ordinances that have gone above what's required in that section and have been upheld. There was a court case where a municipality required notice of the security deposit. There's a requirement that the security deposit and deductions have to be, I believe it's mailed to the party. And municipal ordinance said that it had to be certified mail and the court upheld that. I would argue that that's somewhat inconsistent. The court did not determine that. So my point is a court may say that the minimum is two, municipality wants to go above that, less than two isn't inconsistent. Clearly, a municipality saying a landlord could charge three months rent would be inconsistent because the state statute says you can only charge two. The question is going in the opposite direction. Having one, is that inconsistent with the minimum of two? Somebody can make that argument. And so what the amendment is doing is adding in a section that says the ordinance may provide greater protection. And what I was commenting this morning was it is greater, it says greater protection because the statute currently says minimum protection. So in theory, providing greater protection to the tenant would be permissible under the amendment.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So in sum, this would allow an ordinance that said three months.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: No, No, no, says greater protection.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So it would allow an ordinance that says one month. Right, okay. Not three. Right.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So, here's how I feel about this. My opinion is I support this and the intent, but I am concerned about the fact that we whether that's right or wrong, we have not taken any testimony on this at all. I don't know what consequences could happen. While it might be ripe for Burlington, you know, I have a lot of questions about this. And like I said, I support for Burlington's wishes and understand why this was brought forward. And I wish that we had this came to us during the process, or I had, I mean, I don't know. So, I'm uncomfortable with not having a bunch of questions I have answered. I've been approached, since, from multiple different organizations and on different sides, like with different information. So I just don't have the accurate information on this for me personally. I think that this is a perfect thing that could be discussed in the Senate when it goes there and has time to discuss it. I will be going to the Senate at some point to talk to them since I'm the reporter of the bill, and I will ask and bring it up in my opinion. But today, I just personally, have a lot more questions for the state to I I sometimes struggle when and and I can ask this now, but I think we're taking too much time even. Like, what other munis like, I'd like to see what other municipalities, Like, that's not a time for right now, though. But, like, I know Burlington's position, but I don't know about all these other municipalities and if they have it or they don't have it. So I just think that this needs some investigation, but I absolutely support the intent of this and would support this if we get more information in the bill.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Anything else before we vote?
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I get the concern. I think that this is a case of like the I think that a a a city that that you know, when when we had the language in our bill I I'm just gonna say, I support the amendment because I think that otherwise, our bill, the way that it is written as laid out by our alleged counsel, seems to me to be undermining something that is already a regime under current law. And if we are going to change the law and invalidate something that was already in place, then it seems like, and we have the opportunity to fix it now, then I think it makes sense to do that.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't personally like doing legislation based on information about one community, though. That concerns me that if we're doing something for the entire state that we've only heard from one city.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any other comment? I would just say I will be voting no. I am voting no for a very simple reason. This whole bill, seven seventy two, was this crazy balancing act. I felt like we're on this sort of edge of a razor. One of the issues came up was how big should this security deposit be? One month, two months, three months? We decided on two. I feel like I don't want to pull out one element of this and just say, well, it's up to the local without, I mean, it's just too closely balanced for me, but I respect, absolutely respect everybody's opinion. So all those in favor of the first instance amendment, that is in favor of what the first instance says, please raise your hands. One, two, three. Okay. Those opposed?
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I just want to say again, I'm not opposed to this. I'm opposed to how
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: this There's a reason it's going to a second body.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I think that And I will absolutely, on the record, advocate to work on this in the Senate and to approach my two senators who are on the committee to get this figured out, because I support the intent, but I just there's too many questions in ten minutes to figure out.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. The next bill is the the next amendment is representative Chittenden's amendment. Does anyone know where
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: you are? We only voted on the first part.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, no. We're not voting on the rest.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Why not?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because it belongs in GovOps. We don't have jurisdiction over charters.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Does anyone know where Brian is?
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, you wanna present the China amendment to you?
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm interested if you have it.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We do. Oh, okay.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's been sent out by Nigel.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. If you were Oh, that's why you were looking so poor. You didn't know. Yes. Oh,
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: what, Gina amendment? Yeah, right. Yes.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Our boy. He sent it out at 09:21 this morning. Good job.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: There he is. All right. Here you are. Go sit up there. Come on, pull your chair up.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh, that's incredible. I'm so sorry.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, go ahead. I'll tell you what, Brian, do you wanna make a statement and then he'll Do give us a walk you have anything you wanna add to it? Perfect.
[Rep. Brian Cina]: Current language of the bill creates a procedure for an affidavit that's out of line with the existing code of procedure in the judicial system. The way that it frames it as the landlord's reasoning without asking for further detail or evidence creates an injustice in the judiciary system. So I'm hoping you will correct it so that the affidavit required for such
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: a
[Rep. Brian Cina]: serious action on the well-being of a person would at least be in line with existing judicial procedures. Counsel?
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was trying to
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I just have one clarifying question. This part of the amendment is not for the LaLonde portion, it's our jurisdiction because we have an overall bill.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Martin, I don't know whether Martin feels he has to hear it or not. Yes?
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: I have a question also because if it's a
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: landlord that only has one tenant.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I can't hear. Sorry. Sorry, Gayle, go ahead.
[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: If it's a landlord that only has one tenant or two tenants opposed to a building that has a bunch of tenants, who's going to you're asking for validation or something else besides the landlord's word. Correct?
[Rep. Brian Cina]: No. I'm asking for the landlord to describe specific evidence that Cameron can share it in the amendment, that the landlord would provide particular detail in the Okay. Yeah, it could still be their word, it might be their word and some photos, It might be their word some Yeah. Specific Documentation perhaps. Okay. So
[Unidentified Committee Member]: are you anticipating that asking them at the very end of the amendment, you're asking about the nature of it's something that effective not necessarily the name of who might have provided the Describe the source. Describe the source. So if you have two other tenants and you say, oh, well, the source is another tenant, and you're dealing with a drug dealer, that's a hazard for the other tenants. So I feel like some of the things that we took out were for the protection of other tenants.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Why don't we just take a moment and look at the language, and then if there's discussion, we should have
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Are we back at 01:30 or
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's come back at forty, I would say. Okay.
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So quickly, this is the language that was in the bill as it came out of this committee. This was part of your report. It states that it was the actual notice required under subsection B shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth particular facts and the basis thereof and support of a termination with sufficient details to inform the tenant of the reasoning behind the termination. That's what the language that is being struck in this amendment. Okay? Is that 4.5%? Technically, this is from the Krasnow, Hornizer Good Now amendment.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Ah, that explains it. Okay, go on.
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because that was the quickest way I could get to the language. So that's what the language says.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Wait, wait, wait, wait, sorry.
[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: Before you go on. Yes.
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: This is in regards to like an immediate like danger, correct?
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is for if you remember in sub B, termination for breach of the rental terms, it could be because the late payment of rental for that, that has twenty one days notice. And then under B2 it is because of an activity that threatens the health or safety of residents. So either of those, there has to be an affidavit supporting the termination. So obviously depending on the reason you're terminating will depend on what type of detail is going to need
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to be provided. Great, thank you.
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's what the language was, that's what's being struck, that's what I wanted to start with so you're aware of what B3 is And then this is the language that it would replace. The actual notice required in the subsection shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth specific act or acts that justify the termination, including the date, time and place the act or acts occurred to inform the tenant of the reasoning behind the termination. So the language is a little different there. The affidavit shall indicate for each described act whether the affiant, the person who's doing the sworn statement, was witness to the act justifying the termination or whether the affiant is relying on information from another source. If relying on information from another source, the affidavit shall identify when the information was received and describe the source of the information. That is what is being proposed to replace what we walked through first. Debbie?
[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I think the things that we discussed during that time was that maybe other 10, if it's a bigger place, maybe other tenants wouldn't want to be identified for fear of retaliation. And we also described a situation where, so maybe somebody, I think you're dealing drugs because people are going old hours of the night and they're picking up little packages and they're only there for ten minutes. So I think they're dealing drugs, but so I bring this forward and then, well, actually they're just giving out muffins out of their place and people work all hours and they're just coming in getting muffins.
[Rep. Brian Cina]: Yeah, can I speak
[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: to this? So in terms
[Rep. Brian Cina]: of protecting a tenant from retaliation, I hear that. I would just like to give you an example. There was a house in my neighborhood, down the block from me, that was selling crack and dope, which could be anything, but it's mostly fentanyl. And it was a nuisance in the neighborhood, and the police were doing nothing about it, nor was the landlord, nor was anyone. The neighbors started filming the house, and at some point, the neighbors, by filming the house, provided the police and their own landlords with enough evidence for action to be taken. So similarly, the landlord could put up a camera and catch something if they worried about protecting the other tenants. Like, there's ways around that. Okay, last discussion before we Straw poll.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Straw poll.
[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I I have videotapes of what I thought was drug dealing in our our apartment that did get a drug bust at it, and the police
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. It came. Yeah.
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So, Let's draw a
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: poll. I'm just gonna say my view, I'm gonna vote no. And the reason is I think that existing language is fine. It says the actual notice required shall be accompanied by an affidavit setting forth the particular facts and the basis thereof in support of the termination with sufficient detail to inform the tenant of the reasoning behind the termination, and then the tenant has a chance for a submit their own affidavit or their own affirmative testimony, and the judge has to rule. If the landlord doesn't provide sufficient detail, they'll lose. Also, I'm a little concerned because that language, B, I don't know who mentioned Martin's committee, they wrote this language. Is, this language was a revision to our language from judiciary, and I am reluctant to change, which, know, consulting Yeah. With just
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They did not revise that language. Are you sure? Yes, sir.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This was our language?
[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sir.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, all right, I take it back. All
[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: right, let's do the straw poll.
[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Let's do the straw poll, unless other people want to talk. All those in favor of the amendment raise your hand. All those opposed raise your hand. One, two, three. Eight, two, okay, thank you. We're done, you can have lunch everybody.