Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Hi. Welcome to the House Judiciary Committee this Friday afternoon, whatever the date is. Morning. It's morning, and it's the twenty seventh. And so we are going to get kind of an introduction to H seven seventy two. Before we turn it over to representative Bartley, just to give a heads up to what other things we're gonna be trying to work on besides seven seventy two. I was just in the committee corrections to talk about h four ten. They need to look at something. So that one's being postponed. We probably are not going to be getting to eight forty nine. I do hope to still vote seven forty four at some point, so we can say we voted something this week. But we'll go to seven seventy two, thank you for being here.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Thanks for having me.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So just identify yourself in the record and tell us the big picture on 772.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Great. Well, for the record, Ashley Bartlett. I represent Fairfax and majority of Georgia. I'm the vice chair of general and housing, so I am stepping in for our chair today as he is currently on a plane. So 772 is, for all intents and purposes, a rental reform bill. And let's step out of your jurisdiction for a quick second into mine. Housing is something that we deal a majority of. And I think for the last several years, several bienniums, the conversation has been about growing units. It's been about making sure that units are affordable, which is all really great. It's something I'm passionate about. But part of the issue was we were missing a very large subset of the housing crisis. And so that's, you know, it's a relationship idea between landlords and tenants. We've heard dozens of witnesses either in our committee, we've had dozens of people write in constituents. I know our committee has done a really good job of sharing. My constituent wrote in to me about this, in both landlord and tenant. And one of the things that just has continuously been said, it should be of no surprise to this committee, is that the status quo is not working, that landlords are starting to move away from wanting to do long term rentals, moving into short term rentals in the state because they feel that they are protecting their assets, their buildings, and tenants just want a safe, healthy place to live. And so the chair really worked hard over the summer at kind of this idea of a grand bargain. Not everybody is going to get exactly what they want, but both sides of the coin are going to get something in hopes of shortening the process and just strengthening, again, the relationship between landlords and tenants. So again, this was a really difficult effort given by our committee. We've heard from advocates, those who lived experiences, we've heard just absolutely awful, grotesque testimony. But really just want to take a second and thank the advocates who came in, who work in this world, and really shared their experience and their thoughts. So again, it started this summer with a meeting between Legal Aid, the chair, and then the Landlords Association, just saying, what do you need? What isn't working and why? And that's kind of the premise of how seven seventy two came to be. At the time, we had four or five different landlord tenant bills, all went one way or the other. And it was this effort to try and kind of put everything in one bill in one place. So I will give you kind of the overview. Karen Wood will be in here, I believe, at one today to give the minute details, as he does so well. But really, what the onset of this bill, again, is that relationship between landlord and tenant. So one of the things we really focus on, and I just want to note, is we purposely left out terms like just cause, good cause or no cause, because they tend to be really loaded terms. They're riddled with exemptions and current law, and we just wanted to focus on the actual material what needs to change. So I just kind of want to separate things into kind of two buckets, kind of what did the landlords get? What did the tenants get? Because I think that's going to be most helpful. Again, the 33 page bill. So I just want to start with provisions that kind of take that are applicable in all cases. So in all cases, security deposit is limited to two months rent. So we heard testimony that sometimes security deposits would be upwards of six months rent. Again, a security deposit is meant to be a deposit. The landlord is not supposed to spend it elsewhere. It's supposed to be held and given back to the tenant. And in all cases, rent may not be increased more than once per twelve months. Originally there were some rent caps still. We took that out. We didn't feel it was tenable for landlords, let alone tenants to We were concerned about how many times a landlord might try to raise the rent. So that's how we chose once per twelve month. In all cases, eviction processes remain confidential unless and until judgment for the landlord. In all cases, major code violations are an absolute defense to eviction. So what that means is if a landlord is breaking fire code, the tenant can withhold payment and they cannot get evicted for that. So I wanted to go over those briefly because that's kind of in all cases, that's what's covered. But of course, we're talking about how people live in their space. We're all different. Each landlord's different. There are some really great landlords out there. There are some really great tenants. So that kind of gets down to what the problem is. So starting off, this bill addresses tenant actions that endanger the safety or health of other tenants, the landlord or landlord's agent. So this has become major issues, I'm sure you are all aware, where landlords, specifically we've heard from nonprofit entities such as the Champlain Housing Trust, who are the largest landlords in the state, who really needed some sort of stipulation like this, are finding it almost impossible to deal with drug dealers either as tenants or using the apartments of tenants who are powerless to stop them. So we have it's kind of been coded as the Decker Tower incident where people are getting invited in. There's really no way of getting them out. So we address the dangerous or violent tenant through a special show cause process that is faster and simpler. It includes provisions from other bills that we had had that address the dangerous tenant by expanding trust test laws that I think originally in here, and we've heard it, we took testimony, and we just included that language. So nonpayment of rent is the most common. I think we heard from legal aid that 70% of evictions come from non payment of rent. And really, it's socially the most difficult one, especially in this economy. How can somebody It doesn't take that far to fall into poverty these days when a lot of our residents in Vermont are actually already at that line. There's solution because of two realities, in The The US Of a good social safety net and the reality that our society chooses to provide a fundamental human need housing through private businesses that must function financially. So in a lot of other countries, we see that this is a social good that is provided by the government, which we don't have in The US and Vermont. So what this does, there's a faster eviction process. So currently, Vermont's eviction process is likely expensive and complex. We are an outlier amongst, I think, most or all states. It can take upwards of six months or longer for a no pause eviction. Or sorry, not no pause, for a nonpayment of rent. So this bill proposes that it takes approximately sixty to seventy days from filing, As Karen later today goes through the bill, something he provided for us was a timeline. He had set it up through the five different bills that we were looking at, but it was really helpful to understand what we are looking at in current law. So I'm sure he can help answer questions regarding specific timelines. This bill does fund various programs to assist tenants. So we find there's an appropriations for the Vermont State Housing Authority's Rental Arrayers Assistance Fund. So that is a program. It's not a new program. It's something that's already funded. It's already working. And it's something that obviously we are providing relief for tenants there, but it's also helping our landlords in return as they're actually getting paid. They're actually getting that back rent that they might be out of. Funding for CDOEO for a statewide tenant and landlord classes. So this bill asked them to put together a course of how to be the landlord, how to be a good tenant. I always said, my husband's grandmother is the sweetest woman in the world. And she lives in a large house. She rents out half of the She has an apartment. She doesn't know what she's doing. She has met somebody in the grocery store who's looking for a house. She's like, oh, I a unit, which is great. But also it's going to give individuals like that, our small landlords, some kind of best practices. Funding for a statewide positive rental payment credit reporting program. Currently, rent is not included in the credit reports. This is something that would go through the treasurer's department. And currently the Champaign Housing Trust already has a very small form of this program. And then funding rental omnibus persons in cap agencies. So really, again, helping those who might be at a point where they're about to get evicted. They just need some assistance of maybe they don't understand the process of eviction. I got a notice to quit. What do I do now? So again, a lot of it is about learning, it's about education. So understanding that a lot of this would feel like we're giving a lot to the landlords, We wanted to make sure we're also providing for tenants. So we kind of had this idea of landlord initiated situations. That's going to include landlord decisions, so not to renew a lease, to convert the building for their own family use, to remodel the building, to convert to condominiums or sell the building. None of that is prevented in this bill. However, landlords must give three months notice to allow tenant more time to find alternative housing. So right now, our housing market is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: So the three month thing is you had a list of three or four things with one of selling condos. Yes.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: And again, I will be very candid. I don't think anybody in our committee was like, This is the best bill we have ever passed. I think it's a bill that we all have things we like. We all have things we would change. The idea behind this is if I, as a landlord, decide not to renew your lease, or if I'm going to sell the building to somebody else, what it would do is you have to provide ninety days or three months to a tenant saying, this is what's going to happen. And that's because right now we heard testimony that somebody saw or posted a unit and two hours later it was filled. That is not an anomaly in the state of Vermont right now. We just don't have the inventory for rental units, let alone regular single family. And I think that's what's exacerbating this issue. And so it's like this idea of things that the landlord can control. I personally would have loved to see some sort of stipulation of like, is the landlord We heard somebody was sick. Does the landlord have to sell a building to pay for medical treatment? Or they're now moving to Florida to care for somebody where you can't necessarily give those three months. Again, I'm grateful that it's going over to the Senate. Hopefully, there's more work to be done. Security deposits must be returned before termination rather than current leave where return occurs after the termination date. Currently, a landlord has fourteen days to return a security deposit. If on May 15 that security deposit is not returned, the landlord has to pay double the security deposit. The idea behind this is so that the tenant can use the deposit for their next rental, because most likely they're also going to have to pay an additional security deposit there. So granted, one of the things I'll just kind of go over really briefly what is not included in this, of course.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: About fourteen days, if they moved out of state or something like that, is that a postmark date or is that it's going to be in hand?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: So one of the things the bill does, that's a great question, is it defined actual notice. Again, Legg Council will be great at explaining all of this in much more detail. But that being said, actual notice is defined kind of throughout this out this bill, which is either hand delivered, delivered by sheriff service, mailed to the last known address or the address provided in the residential rental agreement emailed to an email address included in the lease agreement and mailed as described to the last if the last address is unknown, there is a TAC order that's allowed. And there is created a beautiful presumption that the notice was received in five days. So currently, right now, my understanding is it's fourteen days postal with the way our our postal system is. We're trying to figure that one out. But it it has been if your postal code is fourteen days.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: And not that you're anguish or anything like this, but a lot of times, by the time you get a contract, if there's you have a a a tenant that does serious damage, like, I know that so it's it's it's right now. You don't know what you're getting into and and to get a contractor or somebody in there to to work on it to fix it or anything like that. It's way past fourteen days.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Yeah. So we've talked about that. You, as a landlord, are still able to do your walk through. It's gonna be very clear that there is damage. So an receipt is needed regardless currently in law of what has to be done. And that's taken out of the security deposit. If there is damage, that is kind of depending on if the landlord gonna eat it or are they gonna bring it to court. That's an a separate a separate issue.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I do.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: That is a very high level version of what this bill does or does not do.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Appreciate that. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. I'll look into some of the details this afternoon. We have Kevin Coach Christie in one. I guess a question for committee before we break, whether folks are ready to vote on a couple of bills now before we break for lunch or if that's not going work for you. It's going to take a couple of minutes. All right. So why don't we do that, and then we'll start a little bit later. We'll start quarter after month instead. We'll start with $44.08 744. I'll explain it. Get us refocused on this because it's been a little it's been a good while. This is where we had in the joint judicial rules, there was a proposal, I'll call it the Treadwell proposal, but even if Hughes just happens to be the head of the Criminal Rules Committee, came forward with this change to rule three, which would require after hours if there's an arrest. The court has to determine if there's a new bail, hold without bail, or conditions of release. And this rule would require the state's attorney to provide the charges that they are likely to put forward for that individual for all those cases. As current practices, some judges do that, require that. Other judges have some arrangements with state's attorneys if they have certain crimes where they're not gonna be concerned. It's straightforward enough that you don't have to have the state's attorney provide the charge right then. Others, I think they have a long established relationship probably with the law enforcement who are coming to the court and they defer, you know, they understand from law enforcement. So there are lots of other ways that's happening now throughout the state. So we took over tech rule because it was very controversial, and we wanted to hear it in here. And I think the bottom line is what we heard is that things are working fine as it is now. And and the proposal that we had in July would essentially codify what is happening. The rule that had been proposed by the civil the criminal rules, many of the courts would have been a mandate, it would have been a lot more than what current practice is. We decided that we've I thought made it very clear that this was very much the preference of this committee, and other people commented and that it was working and we would just be codifying. It ends up that the current rules committee went ahead and promulgated a rule which would become effective July 1, which has the language which was kind of, was the part that was very controversial. So I would like to proceed because we are able to, this is within our jurisdiction and certainly particularly with rule three, we often do changes in the legislature that I think that we should resolve this by essentially codifying current practice. So are there any questions on that review? Did I miss anything? Did I miss anything? Did I cover that? We had a number of witnesses that came in on that day as well, some time ago. And and what day would ours go into effect? July 2. Just to make sure if if this rule does go ahead by the criminal rules committee, it will go it will be effective July 1. This would supersede it. I don't know, maybe it will become short circuited in that process, but we wanna make sure. Any questions? I take a motion. Is this, let me see, this is an amendment, isn't it? So there's one change from what we looked at and that's at the second page says that after passage, the title of the bill amended to read an act relating to procedures for release after arrest. It's just that the title of the bill didn't compart with what the bill was doing. So this is an amendment. So I will just move on finding the amendment favorable. All those in favor of hand Seven forty four is still right? Just 7 yeah. 744 is the amendment. I'm looking to make sure I've

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: got my so, coach, are

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: you there? Do you wanna vote on that? Hello, coach? You wanna unmute yourself? Hello? If he's not go

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: ahead. We want it open if he if he we Since

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Alicia is not here, I'd like to postpone. Yeah, that's fine. We wanted Alicia to go around. That's correct as well. Well, on this one I could hold the vote for it then. We'll then do the other one with us. Alicia Malay.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: But we're not?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Rule Yeah. Follow-up. Here? Is Yeah. I texted her. So we can get the preliminary stuff done now and then you can vote later. So on 07:44. Yeah. Think The preliminary stuff's done, so I Yeah, mean I did that. I mean, I don't know if there's more discussion on it or not. We can take a motion to I'm looking for my I have it here. We'll to get back in because he was having trouble, which is completely possible. Alright. This gives me a chance to find my little voting thing, which I thought I had to make sure I'm asking for the right votes. Okay.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Alright, Arsenault. That

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: works. He approved the First Amendment. Did you see Zach? No. Okay. I

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: didn't look for him either. I was just in that No. No.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: I'll be there for you. He'll be alright, Brad.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: We're doing Okay. What's the capital? See the text because I was on a phone call, and I just didn't. So I apologize.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're we're good.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: We are live. Just letting you know.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: We're live.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Did you think I was gonna start cursing? No. I just feel like, oh, good to know.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: No, We're looking at $7.44, and we just had a straw poll to approve bill as amended or to approve the amendment. The only amendment was changing the day of what the bill is called.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Very nice. Very

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: nice. Nice for a movie. That's what I was thinking. We can work on the script. Alright. So and and we had a straw poll on however many. Cannabis. But now I would move that we report page seven forty four favorable with amendment. I take a motion. So moved. Or second? Second. Is there any discussion? Ian?

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: Yeah, I think best legislative practice is just to renew my disclosure that I'm a deputy state's attorney, that this rule change does impact my job directly, but it's not a conflict of interest in any way for me to vote on it, and I've just confirmed that. And I think Martin has done a good job of explaining that this just codifies what is best practice and what's happening right now in counties across the state. And the proposed other change would really could really drastically change how things are being done for on call deputy state's attorneys in a way that I think would not be serving Vermonters the best way possible. And if you can tell I'm kind of tired, it's because I'm on call right now, and we got Doctor. Bell's last night. So so I just appreciate the committee's work on this, and I think that this is the right direction to go with it. Okay.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: All right. So Coach, are you with us? Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: All right. There you go. Happy to

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: have you. Happy to have clerk can vote so did you catch what we're voting on, coach? 8744. Yes. I did.

[Kevin "Coach" Christie (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Alright. So the clerk can call alright. So who who brought it and who

[Zachary Harvey (Member)]: I made it and Barbara second. Barbara second.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Arsenault?

[Angela Arsenault (Member)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Roland? Yes. Goodnow? Yes. I'll sign yes. Harvey? Yes. Roy?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Oliver? Yes. Rachelson? Christie? Yes. Perfect. Yes. Go on.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: And I guess I will report that one. So let's move on to H849 before we lose everybody. This is the deprivation of constitutional Civil action. We've looked in a number of witnesses. I do understand that this is subject to challenge in court. I do understand that there are headwinds on whether it would be upheld relative to federal officials. I mean, we heard from the attorney general's office some challenges, but we also heard some other witnesses that explained that there are good, there are very solid arguments. And we certainly have gone ahead with bills in the past, as Tom and I were just talking yesterday, on bills that would be challenged, but we felt they had good arguments. And in fact, some of those bills we've availed on in the past. So that's kind of just the basic, the big issue I think came over. The second big issue I think has been, is this going what's gonna be the impact on state officials? And it is my understanding, particularly as we look at the language on page two at the suggestion of Tucker Jones, that I believe addresses that, that essentially this is not going to have a very This is not going to change for state officials because they are already subject to federal section nineteen eighty three law. And the only difference really is that this can be brought in state court. But it will follow the jurisprudence. And that's what the section c and d do on page two. It's a basic third. It follows the jurisprudence under section nineteen eighty three. So it really doesn't change much except where the form that a case can be brought against state officials. It definitely is a change that this would be a right of action against federal officials for a violation of constitutional rights if they're acting under a color of law, is also defined here. Anyway, I could take a motion, then we can have discussion, or do people want have discussion first? Either? Tom? No, I'm ready to go. All right. So I will take let me see. Is this this is an exact date. Amendment. So I will take a motion to approve amendment draft number 3.1 H849 dated 02/26 at 05:30PM. Is there a second? Second. Let's say this is just this is just for the amendment, then we'll have a motion on whether we can report it out. So this is just a All straw those in favor can raise their hand. Folks, are you raising your hand? Is a straw poll. Okay, the coach said yes. All those opposed raise their hand. Okay, six-five on that. And I will take a motion that we report H849 favorable with amendment. Second. Second. Any discussion? Alright, good work with all the other.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: I catch up here. Oh, sorry. Arsenault?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair, House Committee on General and Housing)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Dolan? Yes. Goodnow? Yes. Boeslant, no. Harvey? No. No. Oliver, no. Rachelson? Yes. Christie?

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Yes.

[Kenneth Goslant (Clerk)]: Perfect. No.

[Martin LaLonde (Chair)]: Long? Yes. And I guess I'll report too. All right, so thank you everybody for just working through those. And I do appreciate the folks on those, but we'll look ahead. And so at 01:15, we will get a walk through. And I apologize that we're right before break, but we have this is five days left to get the work done in