Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: All right, we are on the next steps. All right, everyone. Welcome back. That break extended a little bit further than planned, but here we are picking up work on, the conversations in around the, town of Bennington charters. We have a range of them, and we have with us, Jackie Matz, who is a member of the Bennington Select Board. She's joining us via Zoom. Hey, Jackie. How are you?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Hi. Good afternoon.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: So, it is my understanding, you were also on the, committee for the charters itself?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: That's right. I chaired the Charter Review Committee, and then I was subsequently elected to the Select Board.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Right. So what I was thinking was, we got them listed on our, committee page, and I'm just pulling that up right now, to sort of go through them one by one and just hear a little bit about the, like, process. Now just a reminder for the committee, like, we do have that, charter packet that gets, updated by legislative council. So that is where we have all those, all the votes warehoused and whatnot. So that's in there to reference. If you're curious about the voting spreads and things of that nature, we do have all that on hand it can't be directly spoken to through this through this witness testimony. So, yeah, why don't we start off on h six ninety three? And this one is pertaining the, Suise Dubarque.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. I'm happy to. So briefly, maybe before we begin, I have them here in order, but I'll share that, Bennington has a five year review cycle for our charter. So this was part of that standard process. Our select board developed a charge with four areas of focus from community input. The the charter review committee met for about four months weekly, received 24 written comments, interviewed 30 stakeholders, held two public hearings, and then two public forums. And out of the six proposals that we put on the ballot, we'll discuss for today. So h six ninety three, I I I sent in, the tally sheet, as well earlier today, but I'll just remind you that the vote on that was 1,477 in favor, 588 against. This amendment proposes to grant authority to the town select board to delegate its role as the town review board to one of its subordinate subcommittees. Specifically, the motivation is to allow the community police advisory review board to review documents and footage related to a complaint investigation of officer misconduct and to advise the select board in its understanding of those materials. The Community Police Advisory Review Board was established to provide recommendations like this to the select board on various trainings, analysis of anonymized data, and civilian perspectives related to how law enforcement engages with the community at large. Members of the CPA or B are appointed to three year terms. Those terms are staggered. The seven members must have a connection to Bennington. They either live or work here, and they must pass an FBI background check. They receive extensive training to understand the nuance of police policy and procedure. They participate in ride alongs. They receive educational presentations on new equipment. They hold regular forums for the public to promote awareness of public safety topics. I think we're really fortunate here in Bennington that the CPA or b enjoys a very collegial relationship with our police department and is trusted by our community members. So when I when I look at this situation, I think of it in the context of other, subcommittees, other committees and boards that the select board has created, such as the planning commission, historic preservation commission, that are full of appointed individuals that are passionate in in these areas. So for example, the the planning commission has a great interest. They spend much more time on on this particular area of focus than the select board does, and they're better equipped to evaluate topics in their area of expertise. I believe the the community police advisory review board is similar. They receive extensive training. They're passionate about this topic area. And if the select board were were faced with a situation where we thought there was a need to review footage or or documents related to a complaint investigation, I think the input from the community police adviser review board would be invaluable to us.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any questions on this one? Hi,

[Unknown Committee Member]: nice to see you again, Jackie. I think I met you last year

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: or the year before. Yes. I I chatted you on the Statehouse. It's nice to see you again.

[Unknown Committee Member]: I was just wondering if you could talk a little bit about it seemed like you alluded to this a little bit, but is this a way to divide up the workload in terms of reviewing the the central complaints, or is it more of a policy decision?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: I I mean, I I certainly think it it it would it would help divide up the workload, but I think it would also provide a a more informed perspective. I'm I'm certainly not an expert in in policing matters. You know? And I I think other folks on the select board would would feel maybe a little out of their depth, And and this is why we create subordinate bodies of of the select board to have, you know, a a more well informed perspective on on some of these issues. And so, you know, I I don't think I don't think it's likely that the select board would grant access to these materials on a wholesale basis. But I I think it's more likely that if a particular situation arose, we would grant it on a a per case or a per complaint basis.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I guess my question is, the law enforcement in the area that would fall under this review process, what was their feedback on this charter proposal?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. They they've worked really hard to establish a good rapport with with this board, and and they've only ever expressed willingness to to facilitate whatever whatever needs they might have in terms of data requests, certainly within the scope of what's allowable by law. So I think when when the community police advisory review board was first formed, I think it was always the intention that they evolve into a body that would have the necessary background to look at these materials and and to provide a sort of a civilian perspective on on how the police are engaging with the community. But at the time, our town council shared that that that would either require change at state law level or or in our charter. And so I I think it was good that that the board had a few years to to grow and develop, and and now we're here talking about a charter change that was sort of a planned part of this process.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So, essentially, what I'm hearing is, like, it was sort of known that it was gonna evolve in this direction over time?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. I don't think that's surprising to anyone. No.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. To them. I guess I was just asking that question for my own clarity. Yeah. Sure. Yeah. Any other questions from members on this piece. So up next, we have six nine four. This is amendments of the town of Bennington concerning the town manager. Yeah.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. Thank you. And so, again, I'll just remind you that the the vote here was 1,231 in favor, 799 against. So the Bennington town charter currently allows the select board to remove the town manager without cause following ninety days written notice and a public hearing. During the charter review process, we were sort of contemplating a time when Bennington would need to hire and possibly recruit a new town manager. I don't know if any of you may know may have known Stu Heard. He was our town manager for about three decades before he passed away this last fall. So a charter provision allowing specifically for the removal without cause, albeit after notice period, is a little unusual. I I think it's actually unique to Bennington. It doesn't appear in other town charters that that I've seen. I did go looking for that. I the Charter Review Committee consulted with town council. And and after that, we concluded that the town may actually require cause to dismiss a town manager if it were not for this provision. It's a little unclear. I I heard the last time you discussed this amendment in your committee. Your legislative counsel discussed sort of the difference between an officer and an employee, and so there was some vagaries there for our committee as well. What our committee contemplated was that the existing charter provision allowing for removal, might be off putting to a potential candidate seeking employment, and we saw that the ability to offer different terms might strengthen the town's bargaining position during these kinds of hiring negotiations. And so we think we probably had the ability to override the existing charter clause with the contract, which we, in fact, have done most recently as we hired a replacement town manager a town manager to replace Stu Heard, but we wanted to just clarify that in our charter.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I think I understand this one pretty crisply, but any questions from the committee? Repairs, no. Did we say what the vote is? Believe so. But, yes, could you remind us of the vote?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. It was 1231 in favor and 799 against.

[Unknown Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Sure.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other hints? Okay. Alright. Run to the next one on the list. Have why these are in the bear corner? Age six ninety five. And, yes, we have an act relating to approving the amendments for the charter of the town of Bennington concerning local option tax and court term. I hope it's

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. Yep. So h six nine five, the vote totals for that again were 1,338 in favor and 749 against. So this proposal is part of a broader strategy to address housing needs in our community from multiple angles. We'll see that again in the next discussion. This was intended to be a 1% local options tax on rental fees, not on the property value. I know that was a question that came up last time. Currently, Bennington does not apply the local options tax in any of the eligible categories. The last, session that I listened to, it sounded like there was some confusion about that. Bennington does not apply any of the local options taxes currently. So this would allow the town to impose the local options tax on non owner occupied short term rentals as a distinct class of lodging separate from owner occupied short term rentals where somebody maybe has an ADU in their backyard, and and they're using that to supplement their rent versus and also separate from a hotel or a motel, a a place that's sort of designed with short term stays in mind and is less suitable for long term occupancy. Currently, we do not have a registry for short term rentals. But according to the VHFA, there are 88 whole house short term rentals in Bennington. So 88, that's out of a total housing stock of 6,675. So it's a very small percentage. It's it's less than 2% of our housing stock that's being used in this way. I will say that Bennington has been seeing increased investor activity in recent years. This activity hasn't necessarily focused on short term rentals yet, but this local option tax would allow the town a greater ability to implement municipal tax policy that supports development goals such as those that appear in our town plan. So from this frame, this this request is less about revenue generation and and a little more about sort of guided development.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So I I spent a couple of turns in our housing committee, so familiar with, like, the different, like, buckets of how housing is broken up within this conversation. So I guess you were my first question is you cited seeing increased investor activity. Is that just through, like, the title transfers coming in, or how are you tracking that?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: I I I was referring more anecdotally, but but we do have a number of large development projects, significant construction going on in Bennington, including you're probably aware of the Ben High property, which will add significant housing to our downtown. As well, the old Energizer building has been purchased, and and there are plans to put over a 100 units of housing there. There's also some activity with Everett Mansion, the old Southern Vermont College estate that that I think is is likely to be redeveloped soon into sort of a resort style space. And and there's a few others. I I won't list them all, but but we're seeing a lot of this kind of development around town. And and so we we think that there is a chance that that could increase demand for these these sorts of short term rentals.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: K. And so on the owner occupied, I understand that's like one bucket, but you're how would and then, of course, like lodging licenses would apply to the hotels, Airbnb, the be it, excuse me, the BNBs, not the Airbnb's. And how would the non owner occupied STRs that would fall into this tax liability, how would you folks identify those?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: I I it it's likely that we would if if we recommended this local options tax to voters, it would be part of a a larger strategy that would include a registry, that that, we would certainly look to to other state statute to to define these different classes of housing.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. No. Thank you. That helps. Any other questions? What classifies a short term rental? I don't know. Not familiar. Is it like less than three months? Is it big gains? Is it Oh god, I would actually take a look at like the direct definition of that. There's a lot of different variables too, because you have the under occupied, Which is, you know, you're living on your property, like was referenced earlier for an eight view or even just a room in your home. Right? So there's there's different variables. I forget exactly what qualifies it outside of a traditional lease structure where it's identified that way.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Yeah. I'm I'm remembering some language around I I less than than fourteen day stays or something or less than thirty days, but I I would have to refresh my memory as well.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Represent. Hango.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: It might be in the definitions section of statute under rental. Short term rental means a furnished house, condominium, or other dwelling room or self contained dwelling unit rented to the transient traveling or vacationing public for a period of fewer than thirty consecutive days and for more than fourteen days per calendar year. I can send you that statute right now if you want to look at it.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, so it's like no more than a thirty day period. The thirty day period for one rental period. One qualifying check and then more than fourteen days total in a calendar year. If you broke it up into singles or doubles or what have you, once you cross that threshold of 14, then it falls into the STR. Thank you. So many memories just cancel. Yeah. Okay. So do we have any other questions on this piece?

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: Rutland? Just wondering if we take this up the language on that for the 1% tax on non owner occupied short term rentals

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: That there should be clarification in there that it's on the rental income, not the property itself. Is that what was meant?

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I think that was addressed just Right.

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: But it shouldn't be clarified in that.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: It was it it perhaps that's the cross reference above it or below it. I mean, that'd a good question for counsel how that like intersects with the other like component of law. But it seemed, do you mind reiterating that point for us?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: I the intent was that I well, I'll cover two points here. The intent was that it was 1% assessed on rental fees, not on the property tax value. And and so if if that language needs to be adjusted to reflect that, you certainly we would understand that. I also recall from the last session that there was discussion that this may be interpreted as an additional 1% on top of the rooms and meals tax that would already apply to short term rentals. I think that was not the the committee's intent here, but the intent was to be able to apply this tax without taxing all meals in Rome?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. No. No. That that part I totally understood. So yeah. To your point, Rob Coffin. Yes, we could definitely hone in that language. Yep. Because when

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: I first read it, I thought it was additional on the product.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: Because there was no clarification. And I understand from, you know, what was said, it's just we need to clarify that in in the charter itself so that somebody can, ten years down the road, interpret it differently. Mhmm.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Understood. Right. So, questions for this beyond that. All right. Oh, we got six ninety six. And that one is an act relating to the approval of the amendments of the charter out of Bennington considering, or excuse me, concerning municipal liens. And so with this yep. Abel, it's yours, Jackie.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Good. Thank you. Yeah. So h six nine six, the vote totals again for this were 1,237 in favor and 742 against. Again, this amendment is really about housing, about protecting and preserving the available housing supply in Bennington. This amendment seeks to elevate the status of judgment liens resulting from certain code violation penalties to be treated the same as taxes assessed on the grand list. This would place such liens ahead of mortgage holders in most cases. I think it's worth noting that water and sewer related liens, in addition to tax liens, are already given this elevated status. I wanna call out that this is meant to cover civil penalties, not criminal fines, resulting from violations of ordinances designed to protect the health and safety of neighboring residences and the habitability of real property. We're talking specifically in Bennington about our town land use regulations, our property maintenance ordinance, and our housing, building, and life safety ordinances. We looked at whether this type of strategy was adopted anywhere else. We can look at title 24 section twenty two ninety one twenty four, which allows municipalities to treat expenses incident to the maintenance of uninhabitable properties in the same manner as tax liens. And, again, those tax liens entitled 32 do become a first lien underlying all mortgages. So why is it appropriate to allow the municipality to treat code violation penalties in the same way? Well, first, I think the motivation is very similar. It's to ensure that property within the municipality is not neglected to the point that it becomes uninhabitable or that it poses a threat to community health and safety. Second, the existing situation actually disincentivizes the town from enforcing its legitimate interest and ensuring that properties are maintained to a minimum standard. This often occurs due to either negligent owners or on some properties because there's no clear party responsible for the maintenance of that property that's been abandoned or or something like that. Currently, the enforcement process in Bennington moves through a predictable process beginning with a phone call, a notice of complaint letter, which requests compliance within fourteen to sixty days, a notice of violation. Sometimes a formal a formal letter from our attorney's office will follow. And finally, if the situation hasn't been resolved, a motion for complaint to the court. The outcomes include in order of preference, voluntary compliance, a mediated agreement, a stipulated judgment order, or finally, a court judgment order. This process is both slow, often taking nine to eighteen months to to work through these steps, and it's resource intensive. It represents a significant expense to the town in both time and attorney's fees up to $10,000 per trial. How often does this happen? I have some statistics, some some numbers here from the past three or four years, but I'll just give you the averages from the last three years. We can dig in more if you'd like. The average of violations issued over the past three years is 34. On average, four agreements or mediations have been reached. And for each of the past three years, the town has received one judgment each year. I'll also share that over the past four to five years, the deficit between the expense of enforcement and the reimbursement received from enforcement actions is around $25,000. So that represents a deficit in our budget from from pursuing these enforcements. For us, the goal is always and only to bring the property into compliance. But when we're unable to recover even a portion of these expenses, that necessarily limits the municipality's ability to effectively enforce its ordinances. And so this charter amendment would improve the county's ability to do that. I do wanna speak briefly as well about the role of banks who may hold a mortgage lien on some of the properties in question. The Charter Review Committee did consider that elevating judgment liens to the same status of tax liens in only Bennington would fracture lending and and lien procedures in state code, and it may prejudice lenders from when they're underwriting mortgages in the municipality. I think at the same time, Bennington cannot ignore that in some instances, lenders may avoid foreclosing or otherwise assuming control of a property that they know or that they should know is in violation of health and safety ordinances, and that may or may not already be in default of the mortgage obligation. So put another way, lenders may knowingly allow a property to deteriorate as part of a strategy to avoid legal responsibility, preferring to wait until the town executes on its subordinate lien before the lender executes on its first position. And so in that way, the town is unable to recoup the expenses of its enforcement actions and and thus disincentivizes that enforcement. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Are you aware of other municipalities that have a provision like this in their charter?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: I I am not aware of that in terms of code violations, property maintenance ordinance, those types of things. Like I said, I did reference in state code that's granted to all municipalities related to uninhabitable properties. And I think the provision we're seeking for code violation is largely similar.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Hello,

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: it's Chea. Hi, how are you?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Hi, Chea. Good. How are you?

[Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Great. Thank you. So, can you give me some examples of what these types of violations would be and and how they're they're causing that deficit in town funds?

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Sure. I mean, I don't I one example, there's property perhaps that has accumulated significant amounts of refuse and debris and trash in the yard and around the property that is creating a habitat for rodents, mice, and other forms of wildlife like that that then impact neighboring properties. We've also seen a similar situation with chemicals, oil being sort of leaking out. So there's potentially an environmental component. It's these types of things that that will send code enforcement officers out. And, in in many cases, they are addressed, but but in some cases, it proceeds through the enforcement process that I outlined earlier.

[Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Questions from anyone else at the table? Just

[Unknown Committee Member]: making sure that I'm understanding what is happening. It sounds like the bank is able to use the town's structure to recoup the costs. But the town, because of where it falls on the lien or in priority, is not able to recover any of those costs. So that's what you're kind of hoping to address here.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: That's exactly right. And and often, I I think what we see is that because the property has been allowed to sit and deteriorate for so long, the the residual value of of the property, what what the bank is able to recover in their cost, is often less than than what they're owed on the mortgage. So even at a a second position, there's still no opportunity for the town to recover any of its expenses.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions from the table? Okay. I think that covers everything I have for this slug at the moment. I'm just looking back at my notes real quick here with me. I think I got that's all I have for you. Thank you for join oh, I'm sorry. I was

[VL "Rob" Coffin IV (Member)]: trying to figure out how to word this. No. Hey. Word away. Just and not to for excessive details, but how many times has Bennington been through this already where the the property has been taken by the bank and these fees haven't been paid? How many does it happen once a year, twice a year,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: every

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: few years? I I don't have those numbers before me. I I I can certainly try to find them and get them to you. I I only learned yesterday that I would be testifying today, so I I put a lot of this together pretty quickly. But I'm I'm happy to try to get you those answers.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Thank you. Anything else from our guests from Bennington? Tout of. All right. Thank you very much for your time. You know, I think the committee has the intention of continuing work on this. So, we'll definitely, be in touch, to take this stuff back up again, maybe find some other witnesses or stakeholders, offer us inputs. But thank you very much for running through that from your community's perspective. Appreciate it.

[Jackie Matz (Bennington Select Board; Chair, Charter Review Committee)]: Great. Thank you very much for the time today. Really glad to be here. I'll follow-up, and happy to come back if there's additional questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Really appreciate that. Thank you. Alright. That's kind of wrapping us a little bit ahead of schedule. But like I said, in the last block of time where we were a little bit ahead of schedule, that doesn't mean we don't have age and I don't have things to work on as individuals. So, we will go offline until we are back here tomorrow morning at 9AM to hear from our Human Rights Commission on Disability Advocacy Day. So, alright.