Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will the senate please come to order? We'll observe a moment of silence in lieu of a devotional. Thank you. Are there any announcements? Seeing none, orders of the day. We have five forty two h five forty two for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Page five forty two, an act relating termin relating to terminating testing of schools in Vermont for polychlorinated biphenyls.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Ayes have it. We've passed h five forty two. We now have h seven ten for third reading. Are there any amendments to be offered prior to third reading? Seeing none, listen to the third reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H seven ten, an act relating to defining electricity generating facilities.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. No. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. We passed eight seven ten. We have on the calendar for action h two ninety four introduced on 02/20/2025. It was referred to the committee on institutions, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H two ninety four, an act relating to telecommunications services and wages in correctional facilities.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windsor, senator Major, for the report of the committee on institutions.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. H two ninety four act relating to telecommunication services and wages in correctional facilities. At its core, this legislation is about rehabilitation, public safety, and strengthening the human connections that help individuals successfully return to our communities. The bill begins by clearly stating the intent of the general assembly to create conditions beginning to incarcerate an incarceration that encourages rehabilitation, reduces unnecessary barriers to communication with loved ones, and divest Vermont from resilience for on the for profit prison industry and ensure future correctional policy decisions are guided by data and careful analysis. H two ninety four does not immediately mandate sweeping operational changes. Instead, it directs the the Department of Corrections to conduct thorough evaluations and provide detailed reports to the legislature so that future decisions are informed, fiscally responsible, and transparent. Under section two, the Department of Corrections is tasked with evaluating options for providing no cost telecommunication services to incarcerated Vermonters. The report due by 12/01/2026 will examine the state's current telecommunication model, include cost, usage rates, and existing contracts. We'll also evaluate alternatives such as nonprofit service providers or regulated utility systems. Importantly, the department must analyze both the fiscal and operational implications of these alternatives. The this act that will include startup transitions costs, ongoing operational expenses, impacts on the department's budget, and potential changes in usage volume. The evaluation must also examine broader impacts on institutional behavior, facility safety and security, and an incarcerated incarceration incarcerated individual's ability to maintain critical support systems outside of prison walls. The bill must also require broad stakeholder engagement in this process. The department is directed to consult with the Public Utility Commission, the Joint Fiscal Office, nonprofit providers, correctional experts, reentry organizations, families of incarcerated Vermonters, formerly incarcerated individuals, and other relevant stakeholders. Draft reports will additionally be reviewed by the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee to ensure legislative oversight and input throughout the process. Section three addresses inmate wages and directs the department to evaluate the impacts of current compensation levels within correctional facilities. This report will collect and analyze existing wage structures and identify labor labor currently performed by inmates that would otherwise require state employees or private contractors. The department must also evaluate how different wage scenarios could affect outcomes such as maintaining family relationships, meeting restitution and support obligations, and successfully reentry into society, and participating in work programs. In addition, the report will assess relationships between inmate wages and the ability to afford telecommunication services and commissary items. Mister president, this legislation recognizes a simple but important truth. Maintaining family and community connections reduces isolation, improves rehabilitation outcomes, and ultimately contributes to a safer community. It also acknowledges that if we expect incarcerated individuals to prepare for successful reentry, we must examine whether the systems we have put in place support that goal. H two ninety four is deliberate, measured, and data driven. It does not presume conclusions before the a analysis is complete. Instead, it asks the state to carefully evaluate costs, operational reality, and long term outcomes before making future policy decisions. I would like to thank the members of my committee, the institution committee, the Department of Corrections, advocacy organizations, and all stakeholders who contributed to the testimony and expertise throughout this development of this legislation. That is to include the CEO of Emilio, a telecommunication act, the legislative council, the presenter of the bill, Department of Corrections as well. The voting committee was five zero zero, and mister president, I respectfully ask the senate support h two ninety four.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, mister president. May I inquire of the presenter of the bill?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Presenter is interrogated.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: Thank you, Mr. President. I noticed in the list of stakeholders for communications listed as Core Civic, one of the largest for profit prison entities in the country. And to my knowledge, we only have state run facilities, so I'm a little confused why Core Civic would be asked to consult in our system.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Windsor)]: I think it's important to get all stakeholders, even though they're not currently in our they they may know something that we have not thought of. So all stakeholders and all prison systems, I think, are important, even though they are not in this current prison system.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Chittenden Central)]: I thank the presenter. I am fairly concerned. CoreCivic's goal is to make a profit, and I I don't think that we should be engaging in making profit off of locking people up. So it is a little concerning to me that we are including them in in discussion of anything related to incarceration. I may connect with the committee in in the interim to talk a little bit more about it, though. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Franklin.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. May I interrogate the presenters as well?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Presenters interrogated.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Mister president,

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I see that they took testimony from DOC. I was just curious on page four where it says collects and analyzes online through the current wage levels for inmate. Was there any testimony offered as to what they are presently making? Is this the

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: same throughout the state or

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I guess I'm just curious about that.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Windsor)]: We we did take testimony and and I would have to get back to you with third reading to find out what exactly that was because I I don't have that with him, but we did take take that testimony with the air exactly making it is standard throughout the state.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: I thank you, senator. I I would like to have a third reading list. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I'll make

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: it, Christopher.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. You've ordered third reading of h two ninety four. We have on the calendar for action h five sixty seven introduced on 01/06/2026. It was referred to the committee on government operations, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence affecting the revenues of the state. The bill was referred to the committee on finance, which recommends that it ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as found in today's calendar on page forty four twenty two. Affecting the appropriations of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence without proposal of amendment as offered by the committee on finance. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H five sixty seven, an act relating to unclaimed property, state retirement systems, and capital debt.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator White, for the report of the committee on government operations.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Unclaimed property. An exciting thing to hear that you have because that means you potentially are owed money that is rightfully yours that you are getting information about from the treasurer's office. That could be a windfall, that could be a small amount of pocket change, whatever it is, if you're interested in the topic of unclaimed property, retirement in OPEB, the Vermont Saves Project program, or our capital debt affordability advisory committee, then I would recommend you listen closely to my bill presentation of h five six seven. I'm gonna go through a narrative of those four major themed programs, and then I'll do a brief section by section. This is the treasurer's omnibus bill, and it came to us largely directly from the treasurer. We as the Senate Government Operations Committee did not articulate any changes, and you will see in subsequent reports a little back and forth on if that's the right call with different amendments. But let's start first with that unclaimed property I noted at the beginning. The bill five sixty seven raises the threshold for various processes related to returning unclaimed property to account for inflation. These changes will make it easier for Vermonters to claim their unclaimed property, especially in cases where the original owner is deceased or where the unclaimed property is a medical insurance payment. The other piece to this bill includes the retirement and OPEB system, if you know that acronym. This bill takes two important steps to strengthen the retirement system, and it includes two more, like I'd say, administrative changes as well. First, it establishes a pension and benefits funding task force to review funding and amortization policies from the pension and OPEB systems. As the state approaches full funding of these systems in 2038, thanks to us and laws we passed in the past, the risk of volatility in annual state payments that increases. This task force will examine options for mitigating that volatility and look at best practices in the systems nationwide. It will not consider benefit levels or contribution rates. So if you're worried about that, don't worry. And the recommendations will be presented before the start of the next biennium. Second, this bill moves the responsibility for the investment of other post employment benefits, that OPEB acronym, and funds from the treasurer's office to VPIC. So if you're following along, we're talking retirement and pensions. These funds, which primarily go to fund retiree health insurance benefits, have grown dramatically since the state began prefunding them through act one fourteen of 2022. This change follows fiduciary best practices by establishing a commission rather than a single individual as the investment fiduciary. It also aligns the investments of OPEB OPEB assets with the pension assets, leveraging VPIC's expertise and the economies of scale to provide overall benefit for both funds. So win win win for everybody. And finally, this bill makes two smaller changes, those administrative changes I noted. It aligns the enforcement language for entities that fail to pay the employer share of pension costs across all our pension systems. This language was currently absent in the state system, which despite its name includes a small number of towns and also sheriff's offices. It also allows for members of the teachers and municipal systems to purchase service for time spent as president of a bargaining unit with full release from service. So that's an important piece. You can probably all think of that exact person in your life who does that right now in your community. They work on a board after retirement. Service purchases are calculated by actuarially neutral, are calculated to be actuarially neutral to the systems, so there's no cost to the state. So we've covered unclaimed property, we've covered the retirement piece. Another section to this bill that you'll see is the Vermont Saves work. So we know three years ago, the legislature established Vermont Saves. If you weren't here then or you don't remember your vote, that's a public retirement savings options for Vermonters who employers for whose employers do not offer retirement benefits. I know that this has personally benefited so many of my constituents who did not have access to retirement benefits, but were noticing over time that they were not able to privately save or find an alternative private market solution. So instead of investing, they weren't investing and they had no retirement savings. So this program is extremely beneficial. And the program has been a success with over 6,000 Vermonters collectively saving more than $7,000,000 to date. That's $7,000,000 more than we're being saved towards Vermonters retirement, helping us both as a state and those people as individuals. The program was initially funded with a much smaller appropriation than similar programs in other states and has not yet reached the point of being fully self funded. This bill includes a provision to support the program until it becomes fully self funded by FY '33. The proposal will not impact the general fund, will not impact the general fund, and will boost funding to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund, all while supporting the Vermont Saves Program to the point of self sustainability. To achieve this, the bill would allow the treasurer to expand an existing unclaimed property transfer that currently goes to the Higher Education Endowment Trust Fund and temporarily, temporarily divert a portion of that larger transfer to fund Vermont Saves. As a result, the Vermont Saves program will continue and the Higher Ed Endowment Trust Fund will see an increase in revenue over the duration of the provision. The last portion of this bill is related to our Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, CDAC, which we've actually heard on the floor recently about. This bill contains some minor technical changes to the CDAC statute, and these changes do not represent a policy shift, but align statutory language with the CDAC committee's recommendations. Your committee on government operations voted this out favorable with a five zero zero vote. Our witness list included the treasurer's office, members of the benefit pension the benefit the pension and benefits task force, VPIC, and legislative counsel. I'm going to spare you the section by section, and I will thank you for your interest in this bill, and ideally, will vote for it alongside the committee on senate government operations. And if you want more information, I have with me multiple presentations that we've received with the hard numbers to explain the points I made. So if you want the hard numbers on how we're keeping those funds sustainably funded or you want more specific information, can provide to you that that information, but it's pretty detailed. So I didn't wanna hand out multiple OPEB reports to everyone. So thank you for listening, I have that documentation here if folks have questions.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Addison, senator Hardy, for the report of the committee on finance.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. And could I have a brief recess, please?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: We will take a brief recess. Will the senate please come to order? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I appreciate the time to sort out our situation here, but I'm going to give the finance committee report. The senator from Windsor did such an excellent job with the report on the bill that I don't have to add that much, but the finance committee did look at the impact on the revenues of the state, particularly with the increase from $100 to $150 as unclaimed property amounts that would be deposited into the Higher Education Trust Fund and then transferred to a fund to help support the, Vermont Saves program. This would redirect up to $300,000 annually from the Trust Fund to the Retirement Security Fund beginning in fiscal year twenty seven until January 2040. The trust fund may still receive contributions from this funding source provided that no more than 300,000 in total is transferred to the two funds combined. It is expected that over time the trust fund will receive more contributions from unclaimed property than under current law because of the increase from 100 to 150 because 150 is more than 100. And the and also the treasurer expects that the Vermont Saves program will scale up to be financially sufficient from the program fees by fiscal year 2033. And that is all about the fiscal impact. The finance committee was fine with that. We felt like that was a reasonable compromise between the two funds and the amount of of the transfer. We also included an amendment, mister president, about the Higher Education Trust Fund. The body may recall conversations earlier in the session about the use of this fund, and so the Finance Committee thought it was important to provide a report about the use of the fund, including mechanisms. And this report would be done by the state treasurer, and the treasurer would be required to consult with the members of the trust fund themselves, which are the presidents of the institutions whose students receive the scholarships, so UVM, the Vermont State Colleges, VSAC. They would also, the treasurer would also be required to consult with the student organizations in those institutions to to make sure that the students are are involved in the conversation about the report and the use of the funds since they themselves are the beneficiaries of the scholarships from the Vermont Higher Education Trust Fund. And then the treasurer make recommendations on mechanisms, including requiring consultation with the Vermont Higher Education Trust Fund Council for ensuring appropriate fiduciary oversight of the use of the trust fund to ensure that the endowed funds, including principal and interest earnings, are available for the intended purpose of providing scholarship to Vermont students. Also, to expand or modify the membership of the Council to include student representatives of the recipients of institutions of higher education, and how to expand the scope of scholarship awards, including award amounts, types of degrees covered, and the institutions of higher education included in the scholarship program. Again, the treasurer would be required to consult with the council and the student organizations. And this is just to make sure that this endowed fund is preserved for scholarships for students in the wake of all of these maneuverings around to try to use the fund for different purposes. So the committee voted unanimously to accept this amendment to the bill requiring this report. However, Mr. President,

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: at

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: this time I would actually like to withdraw the amendment of the finance committee. This report is going to be combined with another report from the other body in the big bill, so it is no longer needed in this this bill. So without objection, mister president, I would like to withdraw the finance report.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Without objection, we will consider it withdrawn. Senator from Washington for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. Thanks for the finance committee for making that kinda last minute change, but this will help us to grease the skids to get to adjournment just a little bit quicker. We can just pass it without an amendment to the house version since that study was the only difference from the house study. We are gonna add that, combine that with the other study that's in the big bill coming over from the other body, which deals with higher trust funds. The two studies were similar but different, so we're going to combine the two for a more comprehensive study. There are some fiscal impacts to this that affect the general fund despite the assurances from the center from Windsor and the assurances from the treasurer. He kept saying this, so the treasurer's office kept saying that. In particular, the unclaimed property moving the money to the Vermont Saves program, which we support and want to see successful. Because any unclaimed property after a certain time goes to the general fund. It reverts to the general fund. So if there's less money in the unclaimed property fund because it's going to this Vermont Saves, that's gonna be less money coming to the general fund. So there is an indirect impact on the general fund. However, there's been more money going into the unkind property fund. They they think it's going to be increasing. On on net, it might not be a difference, but there is going to be an impact for the next few years where they're gonna be taking this to the Vermont saves. This $300,000 a year could end up in the general fund. So we had a lot of discussions about that. In the end, we we were okay with it, passed it. I think it was unanimous. I didn't I forgot to look at that vote. But the other two things in the bill that you already heard about in the other two reports, the pensions and benefits funding task force, that's about $75,000 in in costs that the treasurer's office anticipated for that task force. We have that money is not in the bill, it's in the budget. So that the treasurer will have money to account for the administrative costs of the task force. And the third one is the OPEB change that you had. There is a there is a cost that's gonna be borne by the pension fund. It's about $270,000 a year per position and other admin costs to move it over. There's some savings in the treasurer's office because the treasurer's office is doing this work now, but they didn't have a full time position. But given the increase of the the amount of money in the OPEB fund and the importance, it made more sense to have a professional staff person doing that. So we thought it was money well spent. So that's the appropriations report. I did get a note that it was a seven zero vote. On the bill. Thanks.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So the question is, shall the bill be read a third time? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. If I may interrogate the presenter of the bill from government operations.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenter is interrogated.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: So first, I'd to show appreciation for the good work of the government operations committee. Vermont saves great concept, 100% supportive of of of the program. The key to personal self sufficiency really is savings, so this is it reinforces that, that notion. But my question is, we started the program roughly in 2023. We're looking according to the reporters, comments, we appear to be heading towards self sufficiency somewhere around 2033. Ms. President, would that be

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: correct? Yes.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Okay. So my question really is, Miss President is, is the ten year ramp up to self sufficiency for Vermont saves, was that the original plan? Was that the original, concept and timeline for self sufficiency?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I thank the I thank you for that question. I I think the question is pertaining to a previous bill that we passed on asking what the construction was within that bill, and I don't remember if we described in the original creation when we signed it, but I do have the funding for the Vermont Saves Program self sufficiency projections, which do show us hitting it just barely at around

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: 2,032.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: We only have a $10,000 difference between being self sufficient and 2032. So if folks want to kind of see how that ramp up occurs, I'm not sure if we had set the date of 2033, knowing the exact numbers that were supposed to go in each year.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Good. Thank you, Mr. President. And and I believe not quite done yet. Thank you. I believe that the reporter outlined that the fund currently contains or has roughly participants that sum up to about $7,000,000. Would that be correct, mister president?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Yes. Vermonters have so far utilized the program to save $7,000,000, And that's around 6,000 people.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Okay. Thank you, mister president. And and I'm wondering if if if we're experiencing a longer ramp up because we're having an enrollment problem and if there's any kind of feedback that the reporter could give on what we're doing to try to increase enrollment in the project in Vermont SAVE such that we get to self sufficiency either on time as originally outlined or accelerating the current experience to hit self sufficiency prior to 2032?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: Yes, we did hear some testimony from the treasurer's office related to the success of the program and if they were not seeing the uptake that they expected and that would be inaccurate. They are seeing the type of uptake that we expected. The program is not failing or not gaining enough people. That's not the reason for the lack of self sufficiency. The program is not doing unwell because there's not enough participants, which I think is kind of the underlying concern you may be raising in your question. So I would just say that that's not what's driving this. It's been extremely successful. The second part of your question I think is can we up the timeline to get to self sufficiency sooner by even going beyond that by getting more people to participate? And I don't recall what the treasurer's office described to us relate to any marketing efforts or kind of internal promotion, but I'm happy to get back to the senator on third reading if there's like a marketing budget or how that all is promoted in the treasurer's budget.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, Mr. President. One last question if I could. I'm wondering what the cost per year for the program while we ramp up towards self sufficiency?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: The VT saves revenue is around did you say for this year?

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Per year. Cost per year until we gain self sufficiency. What is the cost of the state?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: I would be happy to put forward the chart because it changes every year based on the Vermont State Saves program revenue and the unclaimed property amount as proposed in the bill. And if I'm understanding correctly, you want to understand what the breakout is over that time. So I can read you the numbers, but they don't totally, like they're easier to see on the chart, but in 2027, there's $300,000 of projected money for the savings program, 2 and 42,369 of that comes from, in this proposal, unclaimed property, and then $57,631 comes from Vermont SAFES program revenue. So I guess it's I can go through each of those. It's like a pink chart at the top and then a little green chart, and then over time, more green.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. Perhaps if a reporter could could copy and distribute the charge you prefer to it at some point in the future, it'd be appreciated. And I I I thank you, senator, and I I thank mister president. I good program. Just curious about this ramp up towards self sufficiency. I didn't know it had such a a long tail to it. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I can just add a little bit of information because I have the fiscal note, which I'm happy to share with the senator from Rutland after. The act 43, which we passed in 2023, provided an initial, appropriation for one time startup funds of $750,000, that was for FY24, to start, start up the program, and it hasn't received any appropriations since then. The the as as has been said, the proposed shift of unclean property funds would support it as it continues to scale up. It does this does have the pink and green chart that the senator, from Windsor mentioned, in, FY '27, there's about $50,000 in revenue from program and then $242,000 of unclaimed property revenue, and then the Vermont Saves revenue increases to about $110,000 and then up to $189,000 and $257,000 So I can show the senator this chart, but it does show the ramp up of revenue from the Vermont Saves program versus what would be coming from the unclaimed property revenue. So it does look like by 2032, it's basically, fully funded. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Question is shall the bill be read a third time? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The ayes have it, and you have ordered third reading of h six, five sixty seven. I have a conference committee on h nine fifty five to announce senator Bongartz, senator Hardy, and senator Mattos. We have on the calendar senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. I would note that we have two fairly loud blowers on either side of the chamber. I mean, I hope you're lucky enough to have one. We have one here. It's well, it's great for circulating the air. It also means that we have to use our diaphragms and really speak up because we all need to hear each other, and we have no amplification. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor, are you able to hear me?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Yes.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Excellent. I've not usually been told I'm quiet, so thank you. We have on the calendar for action h seven seven two, which was passed by the house on 04/01/2026, was referred to the committee on judiciary, which reports it is considered the bill and recommends that the senate propose to the house that the bill be amended as it appears starting on page forty four twenty four of today's calendar, and that with such proposal of amendment, the bill ought to pass. The bill was then referred to the Committee on Economic Development, Housing, and General Affairs, which reports that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committee on judiciary, with further proposal of amendment as found in today's calendar on page forty four thirty six. Affecting the expenditures of the state, the bill was referred to the committee on appropriations, which recommends that the bill ought to pass in concurrence with proposal of amendment as recommended by the committees on judiciary and economic development. Listen to the second reading of the bill.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: H seven seventy two, an act relating to residential rental agreements, eviction procedures, and the creation of the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot program.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Windham, senator Hashim, the report of the committee on judiciary.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. So So like, most things in my life, this is going to be mildly confusing and unusual, but I'm going to try and, mitigate that as much as I can. So h seven seventy two came to us from the other body as an expansive bill with about a dozen different sections. Some sections of the bill would be considered economic development policies and others would be considered judiciary policies. Our committee worked on the policies related to the judiciary with a particular focus on the trespass and ejectment sections. Through our committee process the bill was narrowed down substantially to just four judiciary related policies with the economic development policies left untouched. Senate judiciary was then relieved of the bill and it was committed to economic development. As you'll hear in the next report all of those all of the economic development policies were removed, of the judiciary policies were removed, and the remaining two judiciary policies were modified. After that, there'll be an appropriations report followed by a substitute amendment presented from myself. For purpose, actually, mister president, may I speak to the report and the subsequent substitute amendment?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: You may.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: So the purpose of the substitute amendment will be to restore two of the judiciary policies and to incorporate some of the language proposed from economic development. It's my understanding that this is a compromise between the committees, but this is the roadmap that I wanted to lay out for folks, before this all starts. So for the judiciary report, the bill we received from the other body initially contains sections related to policies such as how often a landlord could raise rent, serving termination notices through email, protections against retaliatory conduct, being able to charge application fees, and a list a long list of other policies. And I'm not planning to describe policies that were not in our committee's jurisdiction. Our committee's work focused again primarily on notices against trespass, Good Good Samaritan language, rental agreement bifurcation, and expedited ejecting. I'm going to focus on explaining these policies because everything else has either been struck from the bill or is not in our jurisdiction or both. So section one includes definitions and what's known as the Good Samaritan language. The definitions are on page 4,424 of today's calendar and the Good Samaritan language starts on page 4,427. This section prohibits a landlord from terminating a rental agreement due to a tenant seeking medical assistance from a drug overdose in the dwelling unit or being the subject of a good faith request for medical assistance due to an overdose or being present at the scene of an overdose. We've had similar language in law since 2013 that protects an individual from criminal charges if nine one one is called for medical services due to an overdose, and this underlying policy, has been endorsed by law enforcement. Mister president, may I read a quote from the colonel of the Vermont State Police?

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: You may.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: In regards to this language, the colonel stated, quote, when you are in an emergency situation, we don't hesitate or wonder whether calling 911 is the right thing to do. It is. Saving a life is the most important thing. Those of us in law enforcement want you to know that we are here to help with the health and safety of victims of a drug overdose. We want you to remember that you will not face criminal consequences and you could save your loved one's life. End quote and that is in response to the language that was the law that was passed in 2013, the Good Samaritan language from 2015. This section would also prohibit a landlord from terminating a rental agreement of a tenant who is the victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. Section one a begins on four on page four four two seven, this is the bifurcation section. This section would add into statute language governing when a landlord would be required to bifurcate a rental agreement and eject a tenant if the tenant being ejected was committing acts of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking against another victim tenant. A tenant can provide a written request to bifurcate an agreement with or without a copy of a court order. If a court order is provided, the landlord is then required to bifurcate the agreement in order to reject, remove, or terminate a rental agreement. If the tenant who requested the bifurcation is unable to pay rent, landlord must provide a reasonable opportunity for that tenant to find additional roommates or new housing. A reasonable opportunity is listed as not less than ninety days. So I'll now go on to the trespass section which begins on page four four two nine. And this is in section four, which is a purpose section stating that the intent of the new trespass language is to override a Vermont Supreme Court decision, State versus Dixon, to allow a landlord to trespass a tenant's guests, but there are conditions. This was a case based on a statutory analysis performed by the court. It was not a determination of constitutionality. Section five authorizes a landlord to issue a notice against trespass against a tenant's guest if one of the following conditions are met. The tenant consents to the notice, the guest violates the violates the terms of the rental agreement, the guest violates state or federal law while on the property, or the guest has previously been ejected from a dwelling unit on the property due to a termination under nine b s a four four six seven subsection b. This section allows this type of notice to be issued if a former tenant was ejected due to violating the agreement, failing to comply with tenant obligations, criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence. Economic development proposed two changes to this section, which I will address later on in the substitute amendment. Regarding the second condition, which I initially had a number of questions about, that second condition I described as, if a guest violates the terms of a rental agreement. So I wanna provide some additional detail. This is meant in some ways to mirror what we already have in statute under title nine d s a four four five six regarding tenant obligations. This current law requires persons on the premises with the tenant's consent to conduct themselves in a manner that will not disturb other tenants' peaceful enjoyment of the premises. It also requires the same guests to not deliberately or negligently destroy, deface, damage, or remove any part of the premises or its fixtures, mechanical systems, or furnishings. The notice against trespass must be issued on an individualized basis. This means that a landlord cannot include in their lease agreements that the tenant automatically consents to the landlord trespassing anyone they want if they're a guest of the tenant. Lastly the notice against trespass is effective for one year and may be renewed for additional one year terms. So I'm now going to move on to the housing court study report which begins on page 4,434. This originally began as an expedited court hearing process section and our committee spent considerable amounts of time discussing this. As we delve into the topic concerns arose about logistics, court staffing needs, and tenancy process rates. Ultimately, agreed to create a study on this topic and have the judiciary report back to us next year about feasibility. I just want to briefly share my own thoughts on this for a moment and mention that I've heard plenty of times from landlords that they want to be able to resolve their cases faster and that they feel that the court process moves too slowly. I understand that concern and the desire to expedite a hearing, especially when from the landlord's perspective there are significant financial and property interests involved. However this opens the door to the question of why should these types of cases move more quickly than other types of cases. There's a long list of other types of cases such as medical malpractice, business contract violations, and negligence cases that directly involve people's personal health, well-being and livelihoods. These are also urgent cases to resolve. So that for me at least was one of the challenges in opening the door to this question but I'm generally always open to, changing my mind and welcome the information that may come back from the report as to how this may work. And that report would be required to come back on 01/31/2027 to share information related to financial costs, workforce impacts, capacity, and any other relevant matters discovered by the court regarding the establishment of an expedited hearing docket. We heard from the Windham County Sheriff, the State Court Administrator, and the Chief Superior Judge, the Champlain Housing Trust, the Vermont Network against sexual and domestic violence, the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, the sponsor of the bill from the other body, Vermont Legal Aid, and Homelessness Vermont Housing and Homeless Alliance of Vermont Legislative Council, and the Vermont Landlord Association. The vote in committee was five zero zero, and I asked for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Recognize the senator from Windsor, senator Clarkson, for the report of the committee on economic development.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you, mister president. For years, the general assembly has wrestled with how to improve our landlord tenant laws. We've heard many of the same stories, tenants facing sudden displacement with little time and few resources, landlords navigating long costly processes that make it difficult to address nonpayment or dangerous behavior, all of which seemed exacerbated by the COVID pandemic. In 2024 our Senate Economic Development Committee called for a study committee whose task was to review landlord tenant laws and make recommendations for legislative action. I encourage you all to read it. It's a pretty interesting document and confirms that there are issues on both sides of this of this challenge. While they didn't get to the recommendations for action, they did do a really good job identifying the problems, and a problem clearly stated is a problem half solved. Identifying the problems recommending further investigation. What became clear is that the status quo is not working. This bill originally was designed to be a balanced bill, making meaningful progress to a system that all parties agree is falling short. The senate had less time than the house to weigh all aspects of this important work. And as a result, we have chosen to leave work to advance many of these needed changes to another session. The laws governing landlord tenant relationship are critically important to get right. These laws establish the rules that guide basic need, access to an enjoyment of shelter and housing, while balancing the need with the rights of property owners. That means thoughtful incremental approach to changes, and maybe this goes for much of what we do in this building. The reality is that there are real differences of opinions in our committee that by the time this came to us, we had real differences of opinion in our committee and among those who testified before us. Together, we agreed to minimize the changes the house had envisioned as it became clear that we were running out of time and that there was agreement on only in our committee. We had we're under serious pressure to get this bill out. We were beyond our time that the pro tem had get given the morning committees, and we were in shutdown mode and we needed to get this bill out and so we got to we got to at least agreement on two critical pieces of the bill as it was amended by the senate judiciary. And so we move forward to pass the bill out of the committee to ensure that those pieces could be put in front of you even if some members wanted more and I wanted more as well, but this is what we were able to get out in the time that we were asked to get it out. We have a big jurisdiction in our committee. These amendments to the judiciary report do two things, They more narrowly allow for circumstances when a no trespass order could be issued and clarifies what we are asking the Superior Court to study, feasibility and cost of creating a residential rental docket, not unlike our DUI dockets or our mental health dockets, this would create a rental registry a residential rental docket. And we are asking the courts to give us guidance on how to reform the process more holistically in the future. On this last point, the Senate Economic Development Committee was able to hear more specifically what the court can deliver and have adjusted the language to reflect that reality. I don't believe Senate judiciary had the court in to testify. We did and we worked with them to hone the the court study. We appreciate the limitations that the judiciary committee made on the House's version of the no trespass section, and we're further and we further restricted two sections to make sure people's ability to have guests wasn't duly in unduly infringed. We added a provision that when a guest violates a provision in a lease that they would have that they would have to have a pattern, and that means two or more in violation. So our committee was concerned that if smoking, which is a violation of smoking was a was an issue that they'd have they'd have to have established a pattern of having this problem before they moved to evict. And the second was when a guest had been a previous tenant and evicted, they would have had to have been evicted for criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or violence. Very important to us. Three years ago, our committee heard in this room about the challenges facing Decker Towers in Burlington. Tenants were intimidated, threatened, and scared by guests or formerly evicted tenants. We heard a lot of testimony about the need to support tenants, all tenants, from the impact of criminal activity and drug trafficking that is happening often with criminals preying upon our vulnerable tenants and vulnerable Vermonters. When tenants are preyed upon by others, landlords currently have few tools to support to to support them. As victims, other tenants often feel threatened and the extent that they will not and they to the extent that they will not speak up. Drug dealing enterprises especially have exploited this loophole in the law as it allows people to set up their businesses under the safety of someone else's home, which is really which is what we heard a lot about on the in the Decker Towers case. H seven seventy two allows landlords to be their tenants' advocates and rid a property of people taking advantage of them and others by adding specific conditions that allow a property owner to issue a no trespass order. This no trespass provision is equally meaningful to landlords and to tenants, and I will remind you that as we began this work on this bill, that was the objective. Let me review the sections of the bill that our committee amended and passed. So first, we did strike a lot of language from the bill as it came to us, we struck into section one entirely and that addressed a lot of things that we simply did not have the time to really address. And I'll just give you a sampling of some of the things we had to jettison. The cap limiting rent increases, adding definitions of application fee, a cap on security deposits, adding to the prohibited acts to prevent a landlord from retaliating against the tenant, protections to prevent terminating rental agreements. We had to jettison that. We didn't have time to really fully do the work on it that we needed. We also the second instance of amendment strikes section one a, which included a lot of things that I would love to have had time to really fully address. This section would have authorized the landlord to bifurcate. This is the bifurcation section. We ended up having a fairly serious disagreement about this, and we'll be able to review it again. But to get the bill out, we we had to jettison this as well. And the third instance of amendment we had to strike as well is proposing to strike section three in its entirety, and this would have removed the provisions of a technical amendment and an amendment that would have allowed a landlord to dispose of a person's personal property that we had fairly considerable disagreement about that. And the fourth, fifth, and sixth instances of amendment we propose we propose to make and we ended up sorry. So in the fourth, fifth, and sixth instances of amendment, the our committee is proposing to make changes to the sections which I have already referred to and that the previous chair has already referred to. In section five of the report, the Judiciary Committee is proposing to authorize a landlord to issue no trespass order against a tenant's guests of what for one of the if one of the following conditions are met: The tenant consents to the order, the guests violate the terms of the dwelling unit's lease agreement, the guests violate State or Federal law while on the premises, or four, the guest has previously been ejected from a dwelling unit on the premises due to terminating the rental agreement under under the statute. This is the provision of law authorizing landlord landlord to terminate a rental agreement when the tenant breaches the rental agreement by violating its terms or engaging in criminal illegal drug activity or the act or acts of violence. And we supported this. We are proposing to amend this report by requiring in the order of the no trespass order that there must be a pattern of the terms of the lease of the pattern of violation of the terms of the lease, and that must not be just one instance, but that there be a pattern of this. The fourth instance of amendment adds in the language to require a pattern of violating the terms. The fifth instance of amendment that we are proposing to that we propose to further limit when a landlord can issue a no trust order against a former tenant who has been previously ejected from a dwelling unit on the premises. The judiciary committee proposed to allow a landlord to issue this no trust order if the individual has previously been ejected. We propose that to only allow this if the individual has been previously ejected under the two, which means that a landlord could issue a no trespass order when the individual has been previously been ejected due to criminal activity, illegal drug activity, and acts of violence. And those are the changes that we that we made. The seventh instance of amendment we are proposing to remove sections seven eight nine, which were programs that were not funded in the budget. So as they were not funded in the budget, we pulled them out. The eighth instance of amendment is proposing to make changes to the report from the court administration regarding a dedicated residential rental market. First, we are proposing to add language in Subdivision A 4 And A 5. This language would require that the court include in the report that the court include in the report an examination of procedural impacts when an expedited hearing should take place. This was in the judiciary committee's report but has been moved into Subdivision A. The change would also require that the court administrator examine whether to include other matters beyond residential rental agreements within the dedicated docket. Second, the committee, is proposing to remove what what was subsection b from this report. The judiciary testified that requiring them to examine legal issues would not be appropriate given a it is a separate branch of government. They didn't want to do policy. They just wanted to examine procedure so that they we clarified that and left all their work procedural and not not related to policy. And lastly, the committee is proposing to change what what now would be subsection b. The language from the judiciary committee required the court to that the court balance the needs of external parties, and this change would instead require that the court administrator consult with external parties. Lastly, we changed the title of the bill and to rename the bill given the many sections that have been removed from the bill. I think I would add, we know that we know that these measures are first steps in a long process of improving our landlord tenant laws. We know that there are growing patterns, that there are growing problems for both tenants and landlords. These issues won't go away, and it's incumbent on us to take at least this first step forward to address the immediate safety needs of tenants and landlords and set forth a process for more systemic changes in the future. We believe h seven seven two moves us forward in a meaningful and responsible way. We heard from 23 witnesses, many of the same that we heard that the judiciary heard from. We heard from the Windham Windsor Housing Trust, the state the the state court administrator, the director of community relations of the Champlain Housing Trust, the director of policy with the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, the executive director of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, the director of Fair Housing Program and Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, the ACLU, the two representatives, the chair of house general and the reporter of the bill. We heard from tenant advocates, a retired outreach representative of housing policy, the manager of the Vermont Network, a lobbyist who lobbied for Vermont Association for Justice, a the chair of the house committee, the Vermont Legal Aid, a tenant from Windsor Windham Housing Trust, landlord lawyers two landlord lawyers and the executive director of the landlord Vermont Landlord Association, the executive director of end homelessness Vermont, the director of housing and homeless alliance of Vermont, the Vermont Realtors Association, our own terrific and very patient legislative council, and an associate with social workers and school counselors, and our own chief superior judge of the Vermont judiciary. The vote to to get move this bill was three two, and we ask the body the chamber for your support in these measures. Thank you very much.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I recognize the senator from Franklin, senator Norris, for the report of the committee on appropriations.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: Thank you, mister president. Senator appropriation review eight seven seven two.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I got that

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: right. And, it'd be noted that there's no fiscal note along with it. And so, we came to the conclusion that it'd be lessened to minimalist effect on our budget here in the state of Vermont. So on a vote of seven zero zero, the committee recommends that the bill ought to pass and concurrent with proposals of amendments by the committee on judiciary and economic development housing and general affairs.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I think it's present. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, would now be the correct time to provide a substitute amendment to the economic development report? Yes. Great. Thank you. So Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, this substitute amendment which is being handed out now, restores two of the policies I previously described specifically the Good Samaritan language and the Bikafian language. This is what was in section one and section one a. The amendment also maintains the deletions of sections that were mutually agreed upon by the and those deleted sections, are the ones that did not, have any real substantive presentation provided. The first instance of amendment returns the Good Samaritan policy and the bifurcation policies located on page two of the document that's being handed out. Section one a, which was included in the judiciary report that struck from the economic development report will remain, it is restored to the bill through this amendment. Section 1a contained the further details on rental agreement bifurcation. The second instance of amendment is for section three which was related to tenant property after eviction. This section remains deleted. On page three we have the third instance of amendment which is the train which is the change to the trespass section.

[Senator Robert Norris (Franklin)]: The

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: as we heard, there were two changes proposed to the trespass section. The first was the insertion of subsection two under title 13 section four four six seven b which was recommended by economic development and which senate judiciary agrees with. This is a policy that applies to notices against trespass of tenants who were previously objected for criminal or violent activity. The amendment excludes the pattern of violations language that was previously suggested by economic development. Senate judiciary disagreed with that change and so it is not included in this amendment. The fourth instance of amendment affects sections seven, eight, and nine, and is related to the positive rental payment credit reporting pilot, security deposits, transition periods, landlord tenant education, and technical assistance program, and these sections, remain deleted. The fifth instance of amendment adds the housing court study language recommended by economic development and strikes the judiciary language. Senate judiciary agreed with that change, and we heard that, correctly that we were not able to hear from the judiciary specifically regarding the court study. We did hear from them a number of times on the other topics but this study came at the very tail end of our process in judiciary. We wanted to get the bill to economic development and I appreciate the work that they were able to do and the testimony they were able to get from the judiciary to to refine the language of the group. The straw poll on senate judiciary on this substitute amendment was five zero zero and I asked for the senate support.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the recommendation of the proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development in general as substituted that is not

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Okay.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Okay. Gotcha. So the question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development be substituted as offered by the senator from Windham? Are you ready for the question? Senator from Rutland.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Thank you, mister president. If I may, related to, h seven seven two, Two questions I want to bring forward to the chamber. First is, bifurcation. So these are lease splits to protect sexually, sexual violence, victims. They fundamentally fully get it, fully support that. Ninety day protection. Okay. I get it. I understand. But the problem that we're facing now is where we have a an injured class bumping up against the reality of the landlord, who has the obligation and is not relieved from paying their mortgage, which is a monthly cost, paying their utilities, which is a monthly cost, and paying their property taxes, which is a typically quarterly cost. There's no relief for that. So we're bumping into the to the reality of how how do we keep the landlord whole while we're protecting the the the victim, and that's the rub. And for that reason, I can't support the bifurcation for the ninety days. So that that's fundamentally a problem. One problem. Two, that's bifurcation. Second problem, drug overdose protection. We're talking about drugs. We're talking about actively using and abusing illegal drugs. We're we're talking about substance abuse disorder becoming essentially a tenant protected class. This shifts the risks to the landlords. Maybe this is okay for a state subsidized housing agent because we give them they receive state treasury for construction, big dollars. Sustainment, bigger dollars. My concern is not for them. Maybe they can handle it because we're subsidizing them, and they can handle this type of social, work, recognition. My concern is for mom and pops, mom and pop landlords, and their law abiding tenants. They are not social workers, and they should not be mandated to accept this risk. So for these two reasons, while I support the well thought out economic development underlying bill, I cannot vote for the two these two measures, the bifurcation, the drug overdose protections that is in the judiciary amendment. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you, mister president. To the senator's latter point, I believe there's just going to be a difference of opinion on that topic. But to the first point regarding the ninety days, it it is incorrect to say that the landlord is unable to to to inject that individual if that's really what they want to do, after ninety days and seek payment into court for nonpayment of rent. So just wanted to clarify that point. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Mister President, I I I'm confused. I I'm wondering if this amendment went through either of the committees and if the committees supported the amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Would you like to interrogate someone?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Guess first the presenter of the amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenter of the amendment from Windham is is interrogated.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Yes. The the policies described in this amendment have gone through the committee process. The and the the goal of this is to essentially restore the judiciary policies that we passed out into this final product. So all of the policies have been discussed at great length, at least in Senate judiciary.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Okay. So the this amendment includes all of the provisions from the senate judiciary amendment. Is that correct?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Yes. It includes well, no. Not quite because there were provisions in the Senate judiciary report which included a long list of economic development policies we didn't touch Okay. But were removed by the Economic Development Committee. The Economic Development Committee also removed two judiciary policies and modified two other judiciary policies. This amendment returns those two removed judiciary policies and accepts some of the modifications for the last two judiciary policies.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I see. Okay. And so did this amendment did did your did the committee of judiciary take a straw poll on this amendment?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Yes. It was five zero zero. Okay.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: I thank the presenter, and if I may interrogate the presenter of the economic development.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The reporter of the economic development portion is interrogated.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. Did your did the committee on economic development review this amendment?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: We did not. We knew what to expect because we had discussed element these elements of the amendment at great length, and our committee was fairly divided over these elements. I'm happy to huddle with my committee, but my feeling is that I will be reporting what I in a minute or two what I would have reported right now. But I am happy to huddle with my committee in this corner to get to get a vote on that. Okay. Because we have we did not we have addressed every element of of the report during the course of our work, and we on a vote of three two, we actively support the last two sections,

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: the no

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: trespass and the court and the court study. And we were, as a committee, very divided over the Good Samaritan and the ninety day piece in the bifurcation.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Okay. I thank the reporter. Mister President, if I if I might ask for a recess, I'm very confused about this. My brain has been working on other things this week, and so I'd like to check-in with a few people on this.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: So We'll take

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: a brief recess.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Will senate please come to order? Okay. Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you, mister president. I'm still confused, but maybe slightly less confused, and I appreciated the time. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. On a straw poll of three two, the, Senate Economic Development Committee supports the amendment of the chair of senate judiciary.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development be substituted as offered by the senator from Windham? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. Division has been requested. All in favor? Roll has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Point, just point of order.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Point of inquiry?

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: The point of inquiry.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: What is your point of inquiry?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Windsor)]: So we voted on it so we can call for a division, but we can call for a roll call as a revote.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: A roll call always trumps a division.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Right. Oh. Question.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Yes. Senator Pat? No. Senator Penson? No. Senator Bongart? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Brock? No. Senator Chittenden? Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Senator Clarkson? Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Caledonia? No. Senator Cummings?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Yes. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Watson. Yes.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Weeks. No. Senator Westman. No. Senator White? Yes. Senator

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: Williams? No.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Mattos?

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Got it.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Those voting yes, 17. Those voting no, 12, and the amendment passes. Question now is, shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development and General Affairs as substituted by the senator from Windham. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister President, I believe we are now, the question before us is about the substitute amendment from the committee on judiciary, and I have a further proposal of amendment I would like to present, to that substituted amendment. I I asked my colleagues to bear with me on what might be a slightly lengthier explanation than this particular amendment would tend to bear out. I think you heard a little bit of the push and pull, on what constitutes good balanced landlord tenant law. And I think that really is the crux of where this amendment comes from and where your committee of jurisdiction on landlord tenant law remains divided. Mr. President, we are talking a lot about balance and whether or not there's been balance in this bill for landlords and tenants, whether or not that can be achieved. And I would say we've had landlord tenant bills or even study reports that come back that in some cases, seem tipped in favor of tenants in the past. And we have not frankly taken up, those recommendations from past study committees. We now have a bill that I will speak for myself. You know, I feel had a lot more voice and testimony from our landlord community and particularly a lot of folks had in mind some really intense situations that we've talked about in other public safety contexts that tend to erupt more often or be more prominent with our affordable housing providers, our large affordable housing providers. I'm extremely sympathetic to what all housing providers go through in this context. I do want to remind the chamber that our affordable housing providers make up about 15% of who is covered under landlord tenant law. 85% or a vast majority of landlord tenant law centers around much smaller, more private, you know, more person to person situations. People may have less knowledge of their rights. They may not be income eligible for legal support. There is a balance of power that's really important to visualize and protect. In this case where one person is at risk of losing their housing and the other person is at risk of losing financial remuneration or losing some kind of financial benefit that they receive from the other person's tenancy. Those are imbalances that are extremely hard to correct. Mr. President, I have said all along with this bill that I didn't want to get up and speak and I didn't want to be vocal on this bill, because I do think it's a bad penny and I do think this amendment shines it up a little bit but people look at maybe my last name or my relationship to my spouse who is a property manager in Burlington for his family's business and they make an assumption about why I would be silent on landlord tenant law. But Mr. President, for my entire existence as a legislator and a human being, I've tried to hold the balance of what it means to be on the other side of that agreement, deep, deep in my heart. Mr. President, if you in this chamber, if my colleagues in this chamber, have not experienced eviction foreclosure, or watching their parents sleep in a car, during their childhood, it's extremely hard to fully imagine what it can feel like to be on the other end of an agreement where somebody controls your housing. Mr. President, my father, also had a disability and he faced, unstable housing eviction and the threat of eviction, many, many times. If anyone is speaking to you today, it's somebody who spent a childhood dealing a lot with the instability of housing and dealing with that instability as it relates to people in my life who have disabilities. Mr. President, when we look at who ends up homeless, when we look at who ends up unable to defend their rights in a court of law more often than not, or accept some kind of document because they don't have the financial or other wherewithal to fight that notice. The preponderance, the majority of folks in that situation, are people with disabilities. So Mr. President, while we've heard that there was an attempt to balance landlord and tenant considerations throughout this bill, I would just underscore that you can't give something to landlords in the eviction process and something to tenants in the security deposit process and called that balance. That is actually just not how the balance of landlord tenant law works. And we heard a characterization, for example, that we had to jettison a cap on rent prices increases, or what can be charged for rent upfront, a cap on security I would characterize that differently. What came over to us from the house was a cap on charging an initial deposit from a tenant of three times their rent, their first month's rent, their last month's rent and their security deposit. Mr. President, that is almost non existent in practice right now because that constitutes an incredible barrier for people to, access housing. And if you also haven't faced eviction or foreclosure, you might also not have faced the, what feels like a growingly insurmountable barrier of even putting that much deposit down or saving up to one day become a homeowner, continually out of reach for folks. So this was not a cap on rent security deposits. What came to us felt like permission to charge three times the first one's rent in order to access housing. A lot of these things were already unlivable, for some of us in the bill who've been doing landlord tenant law for a long time. Time. Mr. President, you you also heard, I believe that, we had to rush through something because, the landlord tenant committee of jurisdiction, your Senate Economic Development Housing and General Affairs Committee was the second to receive this bill. And I, agree with that decision. And I agree that a majority of the jurisdiction around this is it rests with the judiciary committee. And I believe that Mr. President, any of us who've been working on landlord tenant law for a long time, very strongly that we have needed a landlord tenant court, what some might call a housing docket, or an eviction diversion program where people are explained their rights and responsibilities before they lose one of the most critical elements of their life and livelihood to survive, which is their housing. We have municipalities that have smaller landlord tenant tribunals or panels that deal with security deposit law, etcetera. And each case is extremely unique and each case rests on figuring out what the right balance of power is in that situation, what the costs, benefits and risks are in that situation. So I'm extremely supportive of, a housing docket moving forward. I think what we've seen, we've talked about the appropriation for this being de minimis. I think in the future, if we are going to get this right, we're going to need to fund our larger affordable housing providers better to provide security, comfort, and safety to all of their tenants. And we're going to need to give more money to the court to do this part of their job. I think when we look at how have these problems erupted, they are not a problem that inherent to landlord tenant agreements. They are not about the letter of the law. They are about a court system that is overwhelmed where these situations simply do not rise to the same level of threat, as many other matters before them. And we've seen in Chittenden County what can happen when you add additional dockets and expedite cases, you get better public safety. What you get with some of the elements of this bill that might carry forward in spirit, unfortunately, Mr. President, is that a dangerous person or somebody who is vulnerable, is simply more likely to be back out on the street. And your housing committee also has to think about that. That that person might be unduly terrorizing or causing threats to health and safety of other people in that building, but they are still our community members. They are still our Vermonters. And if they get ejected or evicted, from one unit, we still do, have some obligation, responsibility, and financial commitment to making sure they do not threaten the health and safety of others out in public, as well as some commitment to their own well-being and ability to be rehabilitated. So Mr. President, the actual amendment, I believe, is a simple and important one to improve, the protections for tenants who require an accommodation, request an accommodation, and have a disability, in the section of law that was largely touched by the house that deals with a termination, of a rental agreement. And I'm going to use the informal language of midcourse. Landlords reserve their rights to non renew at this time and in every municipality in the state. But this is specific to a termination of the rental agreement before the rental agreement period has ended. And Mr. President, the reason I'm bringing this forward as it relates to things that are still in the bill or no longer in the bill, is because we may agree that of many landlords, many housing providers are left with no other choice but to no trespass, somebody's guests due to patterns of breaching the otherwise the tenants rental agreement, and, particularly due to criminal activity or threats to the health and safety of other tenants. What we should be very careful about Mr. President is that that kind of additional power that a landlord has, does allow them more control in a imbalanced power situation or over who is allowed to come in and out of their premises over who is allowed to be in that person's primary dwelling unit. And it very likely allows the landlord to have more access to that person's dwelling unit if they have now the ability to, remove somebody from that person's private premises. And so if they have that new right, Mr. President, it is not far fetched at all to say often people with disabilities end up being the victim of others who might use their property and use, their vulnerability for gain, and cause them to be in danger of losing their lease agreement, cause them to be seen as the ones breaching their lease, maybe having caused damage in their apartment, due to their disability. And, that is a new exposure that they will face, that I believe needs to be remedied at least in a very specific instance of those who are most vulnerable, not only to the exploitation of others using their apartment, but vulnerable to homelessness and to, having their rights go unmet. So Mr. President, we've heard that we want to streamline, our processes. We want to maybe move to evict people faster, certainly giving the courts the resources, to engage in a very individualized understanding of what's happening in a particular landlord tenant relationship and, giving them more resources to make those decisions more quickly, is in order. But we have to be very careful when we talk about the idea of overall streamlining evictions, streamlining objections, streamlining landlord tenant agreement. I mentioned, when we discussed our housing bill yesterday that faster eviction processes, more rights for landlords often invite more capital investment, more private equity, more of a view that this is a resource that can be exploited rather than someone's very fundamental need to remain housed. So Mr. President, in this termination section regarding mid course, termination of breach of rental agreement, The language, simply, focuses on those who have a disability and, what it already exists to some extent in fair housing law, though the federal government is now moving to dissolve some of the protections, related to disability and the ADA in, housing law in general. So this becomes more important, that the landlord offer that tenant a reasonable accommodation in the case of B1 of what we've been discussing, which is more the damage, the disturbance of the piece that does not result in the threat to health and safety. And the second part, I think some might see as more clarity, that your disability does not protect you. And your request for accommodation does not protect you when there has been violence, criminal activity, or the threat to the health and safety of others that we should really look separately at those because people with disabilities are not only vulnerable, we heard stories in committee that some thought should get that person ejected or evicted, that involved noise disturbances and, things like that. And we should be really careful about that, Mr. President. We have not looked at the majority of scenarios in landlord tenant law in this chamber in order to make careful decisions on that front. And so I ask for the small bit of of protection should this bill, advance to the governor's signature. Thank you, Mr. President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. We will need to review this amendment which has changed a bit. And so I would ask that we take a brief recess. Apologies, everybody. And Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs and anyone else is welcome to come and listen to our legislative council explain the implication of this amendment in the cloakroom. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Thank you for your recess.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you very much. I appreciate the senator from Chittenden Southeast efforts to continue to work and hone this issue. I think we feel I think that the majority the the committee just voted three two to not support this amendment. I I I have great empathy for the need for us to settle this concern, but we do not have the time to do a thoughtful job on this at this moment. This is why we had to jettison these sections of the bill to do a really good, thoughtful, and balanced job on this. We are gonna need more time, And I would encourage this to be readdressed next year in next year's session. We have so I think that is all I will say on this at this moment. To have a balanced proposal next year, I think, would be the ideal. And right now, this is one piece at the last minute without a full vetting. So I would ask you to not support this amendment.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for questions? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Mister president, may I interrogate the presenter of the amendment?

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Presenters interrogated.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you. Mister president, did the committee receive any testimony regarding this language or similar language?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Yes, mister president. I I would characterize this as a a vetted section with a lot of work on the wording coming from the coalition to end homelessness, Vermont legal aid, peripherally the Vermont Peninsula Inc which is called something else now at CDOEO and the Human Rights Commission all had some hand in drafting the language before you and, in many different iterations this was, reviewed in the your committee on economic development housing and general affairs.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Thank you and I I believe earlier in the presentation, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was a reference to, fair housing law and aspects of it that are being dismantled. Could the senator please describe a bit further as to what they were referring to and how this amendment would or wouldn't be related to what is being dismantled?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you for the question, mister president. It's something that I tried to absorb in the last twenty four hours. So I'm happy to expand on this more and grateful to alert my colleagues to this issue through this line of questioning. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Trump administration has a lot of authority it's taking within aspects of the ADA and as it applies to subsidized housing, so programs like Section eight, housing vouchers, etcetera, the jurisdiction of HUD. They are looking for example, at disallowing service animals as an accommodation for ADA. One of the examples we heard as to oppose this language was somebody who has an anxiety disorder and who makes a lot of noise. I don't want to be too identifying in how I describe this, but they make a lot of noise, because of their anxiety disorder. I'm surmising, but for a lot of folks whose disability is related to, mental health and anxiety, the removal of service animals from their rights is something that could be likely to cause them to exhibit their symptoms and their anxiety in a way that disturbs the peace of others and could likely, get them evicted from their housing.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: I thank you, senator.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Excuse me, senator from Windham. Several during the break, several, senators and others expressed that they're having trouble hearing you. So if you could please speak up so everyone could hear you.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Noted. Thank you. Mister president, I'm going to maintain an open mind and see how the rest of the conversation goes, and I will decide how I'm going to vote when we get to that moment in the procedure. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank you, mister president. If I might inquire of the presenter of the amendment.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The presenters interrogated.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: So I in in mind with what the chair of economic development said about process and, this coming at the last moment, I I find that as I read through, the first paragraph here, I do have questions about what various things would mean in practice but I will ask first Mr. President, in sentence number one of the first paragraph it says a landlord shall not terminate a tenancy under subdivision one of this subsection if the actions giving reason for the termination are directly related to a tenant's disability. But then in the last sentence of that paragraph it says if the termination is due in whole or in part to disability related actions that at least on its face seems like saying two different things, and I'm wondering if the senator can help resolve that for me.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president, I think this if I'm understanding the senator's question, I feel like it was a bit incomplete only because if they are sending a notice of termination due in whole or in part to disability, they have to describe the efforts to grant reasonable accommodations that then did not result in a satisfactory outcome for the parties involved that would allow them to keep their housing?

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: Thank the reporter for that, but the question is really in that first sentence, it makes it clear that this would only reply to actions that are directly related but then later on it seems as though a notice of termination could be based on in whole or in part to disability related actions. So it seems as though the parallel in the second sentence would be based wholly on disability related actions or or alternately in the first sentence saying directly or indirectly related. As it is now it seems contradictory to me, the way the language reads.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister president, this is language that that has been looked at in many fora by our fair housing law expert in the state or the person we turn to who has investigatory power in Fair Housing, which is the executive director of the Human Rights Commission. This was, I want to, if I haven't already, give a lot of thanks to our legislative counsel. Landlord tenant law involves a lot of areas of the law, and it's hard to get up to speed on. So this was vetted with multiple attorneys. If the the Senator would like clarification on if those are somehow contradictory, I would either need to provide that on third reading or take a brief recess.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: I thank the senator. Mr. President I I'm not sure that a third reading will satisfy the questions that I have that being one of them so I would I would be seeing this mostly as the chair of economic development saw it. I think it has good intentions behind it but that paragraph has at least three or four places where it seems to me there's possibility for confusion in the process. So I will vote no on this with the hope that there will be more sustained, testimony and action next session. Thank you Mr. President.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. I would like to, support the, pro tem's comments about voting no on this for a number of reasons, and I very much understand and concur with the chair of economic development. There's not time for everything that's embedded within this short piece. ADA requirements, two forty eight rule requirements, Department of Aging and Independent Living will certainly want to weigh in on this as will those folks who declare what is or is not a disability. We're using the the word here. I I would think we're wanting to define it as someone who has been affirmed to have a disability and has, support from state and federal government. It's disability in the homeless bill that we passed. The homeless continuing bill was much broader and much different. We don't want to infer or imply that that definition remains in this as well. So I think there is a lot in this small proposal. Yes. There may be a problem we're trying to solve, but I think it requires the full committee committee process and perhaps more than one committee to evaluate what is actually here. So understood, folks with disabilities are at a disadvantage. No question about it. Many folks with disabilities have certain behavioral expressions that are confusing and also uncomfortable. But this proposal amendment is at the wrong time, and I would hope that we could go back with some broader testimony in the future on it. So I will also not support this proposal at this time. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Essex.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Thank you, mister president. I feel a lot like what the senior senator Addison said, confused with a lot of this that's going on. There's just a lot of stuff swirling around. I also feel for the chair of housing of the ones that are bringing this bill forward that maybe they ran out of time and with no disrespect, I kind of wonder if maybe that a lot of this has started coming out premature and maybe it should go back to committee so that it could work out because there seems to be a lot of emotions and division within the committee in itself. And I was wondering if maybe they couldn't take it back in and work out some of their differences. And I get that there's probably some work in here that would really wanna get going for this legislative cycle. I just wanna make some points out though as far as what we're talking about with tenant rights. We have a system that works very, very well already. It's called mortgages. And if you have a mortgage and and you're there and, you know, a lot of this doesn't come into play. I don't know why it needs to be so much different. I don't know why landlords need to be, guidance counselors and psychologists if they're providing a place of, of safety and comfort and doing all the things that they need to do, providing a place of safe haven for folks to stay. Why somebody's emotional or economic or other problems would become their burden. So I have a real hard I have a real hard time understanding it because we don't have that in the mortgage type system where, you know, basically, if you pay each day, if you don't, you won't. It's no wonder that Airbnb's have been coming, and more popular, throughout because we just don't need to go through all of this emotional standoffs where people for whatever reason don't have the ability to pay, but do expect that they need to stay there and put the burdens on landlords and themselves. So I would just like to see people be responsible for themselves knowing full well that people do suffer. But there are a lot of people who are disabled that are in the mortgage systems, and they just don't seem to have these problems at all. I don't know why it needs to be the fault of the landlords for people to be suffering and then come up with excuses for not why they should pay their obligations to somebody who is, providing all the services that they were asked to do, but yet, there's folks that feel like they shouldn't be compensated for what they have. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator Perchinden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I'd just like to say, there are certain relationships outside of parental relationships or mother child relationships that are some of the oldest in society. Landlord tenant, doctor patient, teacher student, most of the other relationships in society are what have made society itself. They are the hallmarks of how we take care of each other and how we treat each other in what we consider a civilized society. So I'd like to, also, Mr. President, go back to a more careful reading I was able to do of the language and would stand by, my my earlier remarks, Mr. President, that this is actually pretty careful drafting and you need both end of sentences after the comma of both statements to have them make full sense per ADA, per accommodation law. Number one, Mr. President, the actions giving reason for the termination are directly related to the tenant's disability. We have to very carefully say directly related, which has some subjectivity built into it. But it's clear to say that there is a direct relationship. These are things that a court of law would be looking at. And the reason there has to be some direct relationship is because then the landlord has to engage in what is clarified in disability law as an interactive process with the tenant, deciding for them what is related to their disability or not, also not deciding for them what a reasonable accommodation is, but something that's interactive that would enable the tenant to remain housed. Mr. President, it is a separate concept that the termination be due in whole or in part to the disability. That if any part of the termination is due to the disability, that the person has, has conveyed, has communicated that then the termination notice has to describe the efforts to grant reasonable accommodations. Mr. President, all of these are things that end up being litigated or discussed in our judicial branch because this area of law is so sensitive and it is built upon the other most sensitive area of our law someone's right to housing and life liberty and the pursuit of cleanliness. So I see them as very carefully crafted to match the second half of each of those statements. And I just wanted to clarify that now that I've had a chance to sit and read it a little more closely again.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Washington.

[Senator Ann Cummings (Washington)]: Thank you, mister president. I think this discussion points out why there is a long tradition in this chamber of not passing floor amendments, even if they sound like something we would like to support because these are complicated issues, they involve balancing of rights. I am still wondering that if I suffer from PTSD or anxiety disorder, and in order to cope with that, I have developed a substance abuse disorder, which is connected to my disability, but I am also providing a very unpleasant atmosphere for landlords and other tenants. I don't know those act you know, those answers. Those are the things that the committee has to have time to weigh and, you know, to come to a decision on. These are very complex issues, and I am just personally not comfortable making a decision up or down when I don't know what the ramifications might be.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall the report of the committee on economic development as substituted be amended as offered by the senator from Chittenden Southeast? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. Aye. The nays have it, and the amendment has failed. The question now is shall the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development, housing, general affairs as substituted. Are you ready for the question?

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Roll call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Are you ready for the question? If so, secretary shall call the roll.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Mister president.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Essex)]: Oh, shoot.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Okay. Senator from Addison.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Thank you. Could you just repeat the question? Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: I certainly can. Shall a recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary be amended as recommended by the committee on economic development, housing, and general affairs as substituted by the senator from Winds Windham. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Point of inquiry, mister president. I as we get to this time of year, I I wonder if there is a second reading vote after this or if this is the second reading vote. Shall the bill be read at

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: their There are several more questions, senator.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Okay. If I may withdraw my motion for a roll call then. We

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: will consider it withdrawn. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. No. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it, and you've amended the recommendation of proposal of amendment of the committee on judiciary as recommend yep. As recommended. The question now is, shall the senate propose to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended. Are you ready for the question? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. I as you heard my remarks earlier today, I think this makes meaningful progress on behalf of a very thorny issue, as you now know. I think this adds some important pieces that are that are reasonably balanced. The no trespass is, I think, very important. I think the court work on creating a residential rental docket is very important. I think Good Samaritan people cannot be punished for calling for help and trying to save their own lives. I think these are important sections and move us, and protect our tenants and help our landlords. And I would really encourage us all to help, as you can see, this rather challenging subject of better balancing landlord tenant law, this helps move us forward in some ways that are quite important. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The question is, shall the senate post to the house to amend the bill as recommended by the committee on judiciary as amended? Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed, nay.

[Senator David Weeks (Rutland)]: No. Nay.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. And you've proposed to the house to amend the bill as proposed by the committee on judiciary as amended. The question now is, shall the bill be read a third time?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Roll call.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Call has been requested, and when the vote is taken, it shall be by roll. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: Mister president,

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: I feel like I have to say something on this. I am gonna vote no on this bill, and I just wanna say why. This bill, as I think I caught the pro tem yesterday, is a mess. I don't blame us. I just think that the bill started in the wrong place. I believe, in the other chamber and also when it came over here, this bill started by trying to weigh the rights of disparate groups and completely unrelated circumstances against the rights of completely different groups of tenants and also completely different circumstances. It is a false moral equivalence lead to say that since we're gonna give tenants that have to move because the landlord's gonna sell the building ninety days, that it's okay to have tenants that are evicted for one reason or another only five days as opposed to fifteen days, and simultaneously have when the writ of possession occurs, the the landlord can then eject all of their belongings to the curb immediately. There were multiple aspects of this bill that just didn't feel right. They didn't feel right to me, and it felt really wrong to be presented as a giving this group of tenants, taking away from this completely other group of tenants is somehow gonna be okay. I just think this was the wrong way to approach this very complex and thorny topic of landlord tenant law, and I hope that the next legislature takes these things on merit for each individual thing you're considering. Is this the right thing? Does this make sense for that group? And recognizing that you can't weigh the balance of giving up rights for these tenants just because you're giving rights to completely separate tenants elsewhere. So I'm a no on this bill, and I hope the next legislature does take a different approach from the start on tackling this topic. Thank you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are you ready for the question? Thank you. Senator from Windham.

[Senator Nader Hashim (Windham)]: Just going to clarify that there's nothing in the bill as amended that leads to a landlord just placing, all of a person's property on the side of the road. As I've mentioned earlier, a lot was taken out of this bill. Very good. We focus on several narrow provisions that do provide protections to tenants and the no trespass which could be advantageous to both landlords and other tenants who may be getting impacted by some of the challenges that we're hearing about. So I'll be voting yes on this.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: Mister President, just want to completely state clearly that part of what we stripped out of this bill did have a writ of possession occur so that the possessions could be ejected to the curb much more quickly. My point is there's still the opportunity for a committee of conference and for that language to come back. And so even then, that's why I'm still in no on this bill because I think too much of this bill is is a mess. And it was just the wrong approach from the beginning. So that's what I'd say, mister president. Are

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: you ready for the question? If so, the secretary shall call the roll.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Ruth? Yes. Senator Fats? No. Senator Benson? No. Senator Bongartz? Yes. Senator Brennan? No. Senator Chittenden?

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: No.

[John H. Bloomer Jr., Secretary of the Senate]: Senator Norris? No. Senator Perchlik? Yes. Senator Plunkett? Yes. Senator Ron Hinsdale? No. Senator Bahoski? No. Senator Watson? Yes. Senator Weeks? No. Senator I voted yes, mister Biden.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Chittenden Southeast)]: What'd get? That's What what I got. Can't Tommy.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: So those voting in favor, 15. Those voting against 15, and the lieutenant governor votes no. Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Philip Baruth (Chittenden Central), President Pro Tempore]: I believe our actions are complete on that bill Mr. President. Yes. With that said, I would ask that pending announcements Senate stand in adjournment until 02:30 this afternoon. Are

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: there any announcements? Senator from Windham.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president.

[Senator Ruth Hardy (Addison)]: Senate institutions will meet up once.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Senator from Chittenden.

[Senator Virginia "Ginny" Lyons (Chittenden)]: Thank you, mister president. Senate health and welfare will meet at the fall of the gavel after the next session at 02:30. We'll see what time we have. Thank

[Senator Andrew Perchlik (Washington)]: you, mister president.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Senator from Windsor.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Windsor)]: Thank you. The conference committee on H 639 will meet at 12:30. Get your lunch and come join us in Senate Economic Development. Thank you.

[Lt. Governor David Zuckerman (President of the Senate)]: Are there any further announcements? Seeing none, the senator from Chittenden Central has moved that the senate stand on adjournment until 02:30 this afternoon. Are you ready for the question? If so, all in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed, nay. The ayes have it. We'll stand in adjournment until 02:30 this afternoon.