Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Alright. We are live. Alright, everyone. Thank you. Back from lunch. Apologies for a little bit of delay. There was a lot of, lunch hour meeting activity. So thank you for your patience, and thank you for your patience, attorney Brown. So we are doing an introduction, a walkthrough, and some witness testimony on h four sixty two, an act relating to the approval of an amendment to the charter of the city of Burlington concerning just cause eviction. And we'll start off with representative Hooper of Burlington who is the stockholder of the proposal. Representative, you may shift your chair.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Bob Hooper Bellington here on four two. Bill with a mouthful of statutes. Four six two seeks to amend the charter of the city of Burlington to allow the city council to place things in the ordinance to govern how landlords interact and with tenants. Second page where most of the just cause provision stuff starts. I'm gonna leave a lot of this since it's definitions and fine points to our attorney to elaborate on. But this was part of bill that this passed last found fairly favorably. I have the numbers here in my desk, but I didn't get to pull them out.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I've got to say that those are cataloged on the. I mean, we presented this. Yeah, the shared folder that we have that exists per the warehousing of council.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Printed it off.

[Unidentified Committee Member(s) (diarization overlap)]: 6534. Say that one more time. 6534. And that's a percentage? Yes. Okay.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That sounds like a low vocal hurdle. Yep.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: That was a it was a cold day in Burlington. So that's the essence of it. It's, I think, controversial to some degree. We'll hear that from council,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I suppose. We'll we'll, you know, we'll hear from the city attorney next, and get a little bit more, like, background on that, and then we'll talk to council about the, like, the words on the page.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: That's it. Okay. Pretty straightforward. Do remember?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: How are you doing today?

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: I am well. Jessica Brown, Burlington City Attorney, thank you for inviting us to provide some testimony on this item.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yes. No, the table is yours. Please go ahead.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Okay, great. Thank you. So I want to start by emphasizing, that the proposed charter language passed by Burlington voters in 2021 would give the Burlington City Council the authority to draft just cause eviction related ordinances. The charter language does not on its own bring just cause eviction protections to Burlington. A full ordinance process will still be required, including community engagement and public comment, and ultimately a city council vote. I do want to take this opportunity to identify a few contextual factors that, I think make just cause eviction protections especially needed in Burlington, which is why I think, voters supported this charter language. First, Burlington's housing market is structurally in need of just cause eviction protections, given that we have very low vacancy rates, high renter population, concentrated student and workforce housing, and rapid, we've seen rapid rent escalation over the past several years. There are not a lot of policy levers in state law currently to address the social, economic, and equity impacts of the high eviction rates that we're seeing. Right now, Burlington's housing policy can influence how much housing gets built, but we have very limited authority over how secure people are once they are in housing. So just cause eviction protections would give the city a tool to align two sides of its housing strategy, production and stability, a need that currently statewide landlord tenant rules do not fulfill, given the nature of Burlington's housing market. Second, just cause eviction protections complement Mayor Mulvaney Stanick's housing strategy in Burlington by making the city's broader housing goals more robust and equitable. Just cause eviction protections complement supply side strategies and ensure housing stability as production increases. So the mayor's housing strategy focuses heavily on increasing housing production, but while increasing supply is crucial to lowering costs, it's not sufficient on its own to address our housing crisis in Burlington. Just Cause eviction protections help ensure that once housing exists, people can stay in it, right? That's our goal. Just Cause eviction protections work in tandem with new construction by ensuring that current residents are not displaced before new units can relieve the pressure on our housing market. This will help stabilize the housing market, making supply gains more durable and long lasting for residents. Just Cause eviction protections also advance equity consistent with the people centered goals of Burlington's housing strategy. Mayor Mulvaney Stanick's strategy emphasizes people centered and equitable housing policy, not just more units, but housing that serves the community's needs. Just Cause eviction protections directly support that equity focus by reducing arbitrary displacements of low income renters, protecting long term residents who contribute to Burlington social and economic fabric, and mitigating the harm of rent driven moves that disproportionately affect seniors, families, and students. This complements the city's production oriented goals by protecting community members while the city builds more affordable options. Third, just cause eviction protections build community trust and participation in Burlington's housing policy. The mayor's housing strategy stresses community engagement and democratic participation in shaping housing policy. Just Cause eviction protections reflect a democratic choice made by Burlington voters and can build trust that the city's housing policies aren't solely focused on market outcomes. This contributes to a shared sense that housing policy is designed with residents, with residents, like in working with residents and with residents in mind, not just for development purposes. And this will strengthen buy in for other parts of the strategy. So together, these pieces make Burlington's housing approach more balanced, aiming not just to create housing, but again, to keep people securely housed as the city grows. And just cause eviction protections are not redundant. They make Mayor Mulaney Stanick's broader housing investments more effective. One final contextual factor that I want to point out is that just cause eviction protections reduce avoidable displacement into homelessness. Given the historic rates of homelessness we are currently seeing in Burlington and across the state, keeping people housed has taken on a new level of urgency. Just cause eviction protections prevent people from losing housing for no stated reason in Burlington's already very low vacancy market. So in a city where shelter capacity and supportive housing resources are strained, to say the least right now, keeping people stably housed is more effective and less costly than rehousing them after eviction. So by narrowing evictions to defined legitimate causes, just cause eviction protections function as an upstream homelessness prevention tool that supports broader efforts to stabilize the housing system. Vermont has a strong tradition of town meeting governance and municipal authority. Just Cause eviction protections are widely supported by Burlington voters receiving, I think close to 64% voter approval when passed in 2021, and reflect the democratic will of Burlington residents. So short of any constitutional or state law conflicts, we hope that the general assembly will honor the decision of Burlington voters. Thank you for letting me make a statement, and I'm happy to try to answer any questions.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No. No. No. Thank you. That was great context to, you know, how we got here with the proposal and committee. And so I guess one of my questions right now, and I speak housing market well, So with, like, the jargon and whatnot, what currently, what is the, vacancy rate in Burlington, as far as rental apartments? Because it's always been, like, low like, very low single digits from anything I've ever tracked.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Yeah. So I have information that is a few years old. I do not have Okay. 2026 data, but I believe based on a memo that was written in support of this resolution, the the city council resolution back in 2021, that it was around 4% at that time. I'm just trying to find that memo. And I can certainly I can certainly try to get you more current data.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah. I was just curious about, like, what the vacancy rate is right now. I mean, I understand that the rent increases have been very, very notable as a percentage. I mean, that's been an active statewide conversation too. And I myself being from like the Chittenden County, Greater Burlington area, like, I'm very well aware of the stress on housing stock. So I was trying to bring that up just for context for the committee who doesn't have a lot of experience in and around housing policy.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: 4% is the number that I've heard. We also

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. Just add

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: So yes, I did find my notes. And actually, this is more recent information. I believe this was in 2023. And it was 0.4%, if that's possible?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That's definitely possible. I mean, I felt like there was a number somewhere around one or 2%, but I mean, have heard horrifyingly like low vacancy rates of under 1% from other municipalities.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Yeah. So it looks like, and I believe these notes are from 2023 when this bill had a different number at the time, but was introduced by then representative Emma Morgan. And that was the number that she had at that time, 0.4% vacancy rate.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Yeah, I totally believe that number is like absolutely absurd as it sounds, to have less than half of a percent of the available stock open for rent. Yeah, definitely tracks from what I've heard. Any questions from the committee? So the conversations about some of this stuff within the statewide policy is going on with our housing committees right now, but I wanted to, like, have this conversation with you because I think it is very relevant to that conversation as well. And so if you Do you have any questions being a veteran of the housing committee? Don't Do to put you on the spot?

[Unidentified Committee Member (veteran of Housing Committee)]: No, because we've had this discussion a lot in years past, and it seems like nothing has changed. The facts of the very low vacancy rate are still there. The facts that we have the second oldest housing stock in the nation are still there. And the fact that tenants have a lot of challenges, they're still there. But also, on the flip side, landlords have a lot of challenges. So this definitely will take some thought. But I appreciate you coming in and meeting with us. I hope the housing committee is doing a real deep dive into this, because I'd be interested in their perspective on this.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Thank you.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I have one more question for you and it's just sort of like on the development trajectory. So there have been a fair amount of units going online in Burlington, but that doesn't seem to have like offset the vacancy rate, right? Like it's and obviously that increase, I'm not trying to set this up, it's like a leading question with commentary, but with the amount of units that have gone online probably since 2023, right? That was kind of like how we all have seen like the exit from COVID sort of benchmark year. And now that we're two ish years out, that the number of units that have gone online, new builds, whatnot, hasn't really done much to, like, offset the pressure.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Yeah, so I think what I'd like to offer is that the one person I didn't consult with today in preparation for this hearing was our director of city planning. And so what I would like to offer is that I would be happy to get some specific numbers from our planning department about sort of the rate of development, the current trajectory for our development rate, and more units coming online, and what our most current vacancy rate is, and if the development that we've had in the past two to three years has moved the needle on our vacancy rate at all, and if so, how much. So I'd be happy to get that, a short memo written and submitted to the committee as soon as possible.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: No, that would be very helpful. Yeah, yeah. Whatever you can find and sort of delineate for us for a memo on what the current situation looks like would be helpful.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Absolutely.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Any

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: further questions from the table? Seeing no hands. All right. Thank you for your time.

[Jessica Brown (Burlington City Attorney)]: Thank you for having me and I'll submit additional information as soon as possible. Thanks so much. Have a good afternoon.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: You as well.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Council.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Good afternoon, Government Operations. For the record, Tucker Andersen Legislative Counsel, you have in front of you H four sixty two, which contains a proposal of amendment for the city of Burlington Charter. You will notice in section one, in the, boilerplate approval language that I typically skip for you, that these were charter proposals that were approved by the voters on 03/02/2021. As a bit of history before jumping into this, h seven zero eight of 2021 was passed by the house and the senate containing similar language to this with some amendments from the then House government operations, no military affairs committee, and the bill was subsequently vetoed and failed on a veto override vote. So you have the language as passed by the voters in h four sixty two in front of you. H four sixty two proposes to amend the Burlington City Charter in section 48 related to the powers of the city council to add a new subdivision 67 related to just cause eviction. In 67 sub a, the bill states that city council shall have the power to provide by ordinance protections for residential tenants as defined in nine VSA chapter one thirty seven. So there is a definition for residential tenancy in that chapter From eviction without just cause where just cause shall include. And recall that whenever the general assembly uses an inclusive clause in a bill, that means that we are going into a list of things that is non exhaustive. So it could be more than this, but at minimum, you'll have this list. A tenant's material breach of a written rental agreement. A tenant's violation of state statutes regulating tenant obligations in residential rental agreements, non payment of rent, and a tenant's failure to accept written reasonable good faith renewal terms. So those are the four sole facies that are articulated in the inclusive list, for the ordinance defining just cause under these procedures. Subdivision b, an express excluded exclusion from just cause. The ordinance shall exclude from just cause the expiration of a rental agreement as the sole grounds for the termination of tenancy. In addition to the exemptions in chapter one thirty seven of title nine, the ordinance shall exempt from this provision subject to mitigation provisions, sublets and in unit rentals as well as the following properties. I would recommend it's been in there every time this bill has been introduced and reintroduced, but not limited to be struck because it is unnecessary and it is not drafted in accordance with the drafting unit. Alright. Roman at one. Owner occupied duplexes, triplexes. Those being withdrawn from the rental market, including properties to be occupied by the owner or an immediate family member. And those in need of substantial renovations that preclude occupancy. In Subdivision C, the ordinance shall include provisions that mitigate potential negative impacts on tenants and property owners, including requirements of adequate notice and reasonable relocation expenses, provide for a reasonable probationary period after initial occupancy, and limit unreasonable rent increases to prevent de facto evictions or nonrenewals, Although this shall not be construed to limit rents beyond the purpose of preventing individual evictions. Finally, the ordinance shall define what is reasonable and adequate notice in defining just cause and require that landlords provide notice of just cause and other legal requirements as part of the rental agreement. Now, for purposes of that last subdivision, the discretion that is being delegated within the four corners of the bill is to allow the city council to define those two terms wherever they are used within the procedures of just cause. So that would be the probationary period after initial occupancy. And we are assuming by implication, what constitutes unreasonable rent increase?

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Okay. So, probably, I haven't looked at language like this in a long time, so apologies. Provide a reasonable probationary period after initial occupancy. So, I guess what in concept, right? So, that would just sort of be maybe like ninety days in, like a reevaluation kind of thing? Is how we're reading it? Okay. Yes.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: The first time this bill moved through, was a lot of discussion about that, what that what that reasonable period would be and whether to constrain the ordinance authority there. And, my recollection is that in the discussion in drafts that that iteration of the government operations committee in the house went through, it it was everything from ninety days to one year. Ultimately, it went back to the voter approved language of a reasonable probationary period. I did note for you that h seven zero eight had some updates when it moved through the House from what the voters passed. I can send that to you. The Government Operations Committee added additional bases and exclusions. It added some, I don't want to qualify it, but I'll use the term protection because I think that's what the bill used protections for small landlords. So if the committee is curious about the previous work of the general assembly, I can send that along. I would also recommend that if you're committing this for that you have some of the landlord tenant experts in our office come in to talk about the underlying landlord tenant law in Vermont, and in particular some of the provisions around the expiration of rental agreements and the way that that operates now. With the exclusion of that part of large part of the discussion of H-seven zero eight, you have pulled over tenants as an inevitable result, which is a tenant that no longer has a written rental agreement with the landlord who has the right to stay in a rental unit if there are no other bases for eviction.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I understand. Do you have a question? Yeah. Reputation.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization overlap)]: Forget where I heard this, but my understanding is that Vermont already has pretty much just caused eviction really, statewide, and that what Burlington is asking for is no cause eviction, which is even more restrictive on landlords. I was wondering if you could talk about the difference, or if that's just a way of talking about it.

[Tucker Anderson (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, it sounds more like a way that someone else has qualified the state of the law related to landlord tenant law in Vermont Title IX, but I'd be happy to connect you with Cameron Wood or Jonathan Gray or to provide you with some legal research on the state of eviction in Vermont. Also, there are five proposals around landlord tenant updates in Vermont law, and Cameron did create a side by side chart that for the House General Committee of all five landlord tenant proposals and their eviction procedures as they're proposed in the four corners of those bills. So if you're curious about what is on the table, so to speak, for a statewide policy, you could take a look at that chart. Very proud of Attorney Wood for putting that together so quickly.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Just as a housing policy nerd myself, I would very much appreciate just seeing that document. I don't think getting an analysis on that other stuff is necessary right now. But if you have an existing document that was generated for another committee, please share.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Logical, right? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (landlord)]: So, and

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I mean, I don't want to get too hung up on the words right now because we're just doing like an introduction and a walkthrough with a little bit of testimony. I'm just putting my brain into a committee. I don't sit in anymore. So, we don't need to do that now. Representative Hooper? The

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: comment does speak to the idea of us doing something for a metropolitan area and somebody else doing something statewide, and that's the duplication of effort and consistent for citizens moving place to place.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: That was yeah, I part of the reason I wanted to do this today was we just hadn't done this with this bill. And also with the conversation that's going on in the housing committees right now, I want to do anything that's like, duplicative, but I think it was like, I felt it was a wise idea to look at this right now with the proposal because it is something that is in our room, it has been a conversation within the community of the building, but also to give us a little bit of acknowledgement that the subject matter is those other policies float around. So I felt like it's this doing this now felt felt like it served a couple of purposes.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: We did have a lot of discussion on your fair and everywhere.

[Unidentified Committee Member (veteran of Housing Committee)]: Yeah, I do. I agree with you Bob, but I do feel like there are a lot of new people, so it's good to have the conversation again five I years

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: agree, because we shouldn't just brush over.

[Unidentified Committee Member (landlord)]: I guess I would just add that I don't understand why town council would want to get involved in landlord tenant disputes. As a landlord myself, my property. But the city to tell me that I've got to follow certain ordinances to, I don't know, I just not sold on.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: Yeah.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Any other questions for counsel or commentary on this? Pretty good at all.

[Robert "Bob" Hooper (Member)]: All right.

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: Well, that's all we have for formal meeting testimony today. We'll just go back into that bucket where there's a plenty of plenty of work moving around with multiple bills right now. So we will break for the colloquial study hall until the floor, and then we will be back here tomorrow, 9AM, where we are going to take up eight sixty seven, and do some work on our accountability bill. For the floor. No, no, no. We are a study hall until the floor.

[Unidentified Committee Member (landlord)]: Tomorrow. Yeah. Oh,

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. Friday. I thought tomorrow is Thursday. Bye, Tucker. Alright. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization overlap)]: Go ahead

[Matthew Birong (Chair)]: and take us off. Yeah. No. I misspoke on that one. It'll be after the floor.