Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Dear life. We are. Picture yourself. See you in your life. It's Friday, May 8, and happy May 8. Happy Friday. Today is our deadline day, and the Pro Tem has really asked us to make concerted efforts to get our work and our response to the initial bills that have come to us from the House out today, and I'm gonna work as a team, gonna try and honor that. So we have three bills that are the last three bills that are kind of what I would call the crossover bills. The other bills that we still have to look at, S two thirty, S three twenty eight, S three twenty seven, speak up all our bills that could be have some time we have next week to look at. If we can get the last three remaining bills voted out of this committee today, that would be great. And we have first our landlord tenant bill, which has come to us from senate judiciary, and our alleged counsel's gonna go through what was accomplished by Senate judiciary. And I think we have one patch that Chris Dondra's gonna talk with us about, and we're gonna try things. So, Cameron, when you are ready, we are yours. So, Kesha, I had said our deadline today is we're trying to get all the build the crossover builds out. We have three remaining landlord tenant manufactured homes and the housing, the rural financing housing. So those are the three we're gonna try and get out today. Then hopefully we have time for Rick to we can hopefully land to eleven the date of Bunkerville and because we're close to finishing that and then really look at '71, as '71 with the Connecticut updates. So that'll that's the objective today by 11:25. Oh, I thought

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we're gonna look at them.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're gonna begin. '71 is a big bill. Okay. And we haven't touched it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I just can't imagine we'd get to that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hey. You know what? I'm gonna live in hope. Am Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Not required to get to that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're really being asked to get the first three out. Yeah. So that is the objective. Good morning, everybody. Good to see all these advocates and our Cameron. Cameron, if you would be kind enough to share with us what judiciary did. Yes, ma'am. And I think that Chris is gonna explain the thing that was missed that not or agrees with. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll get to that when we get there.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So we're here. So let's see. So you

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have in front of you draft 5.1 up from judiciary of seven seven two.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am. So this is the for the record Let me take care. For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Council would have as as mentioned draft 5.1. This is the report of the senate judiciary committee with their recommended proposal of amendment to h seven seven two. I'll start to walk through the the language. But before I get there, the judiciary committee, made some amendments throughout, small amendments throughout to accomplish the primary. It's a primary. The the the most substantive change they made was they took out the changes to the termination notice periods in title nine. So if you all remember when we did the initial walk through, you have the requirement to terminate the rental agreement first, and the landlord has to provide a certain notice period. And depending on the reason you're terminating a rental agreement, there is a different notice period. There was that breakdown chart that I gave you all. Separate from that, if the individual tenant remains in the property after the period after the the termination of the rentals, then you have to bring an ejectment action in court to get a rid of possession to remove that individual. There were changes in the bill as proposed by the house to both of those aspects of the ejectment process, shortening in some instances, lengthening in other instances, the termination notice period, and then creating new ejectment sub chapter for certain ejectment reason for certain termination reasons. All of that has been pulled out of the bill. So the changes to the termination notice periods, all of that has been removed. And then

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Including just for a substantive discussion, all the dangerous tenant, the violent tenant that benefited from our testimony and what we heard in here that benefited both landlords and tenants. That has all been scrapped.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The shortening of the notice period for the breach of the material terms of the rental agreement or for criminal activity, acts of violence, etcetera, that was removed. And it's been put in

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the study that the courts were asking the court to do.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the expedited process, the ejectment side, that was removed, and it's been put into part of a a study or a report back from the judiciary about how to create a dedicated housing docket to be able to address ejectment cases within all of them within 90. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it hasn't disappeared. It's just Right. Gone into Yep. The work of the court in conjunction with all the stakeholders.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So now I'm gonna run through what you have remainder here.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And and if I could just say it's there's so much that's still substantive on the landlord tenant side. We'll have to walk through each No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The no trespass. Well, there are just three things that are left. The no trespass and the good Samaritans.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: If I'm am I reading draft 5.1? There's security deposits. There's rent increases.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: There's I know. Cameron's gonna go through it. Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I I just don't know that. Yeah. But the three things done with this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Those are the three things. Hour.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there's a lot of pieces here that still address changes in the residential rental agreement chapter, and the judiciary committee left them for you all as to, you know, whether or not to amend. They made certain technical amendments that I'll mention, but but what is remaining here is the judiciary committee wanted to leave for this committee. So first thing, definitions. There was a definition of immediate family that's been removed because they removed the, as I mentioned a second ago, the termination notice section, the periods. There was an expansion to allow a landlord if they needed to repurpose the property or they wanted to allow an immediate family member to rent the property because that's been removed. You no longer need the definition of immediate family, so that's been struck. Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Those those are not in the definitions in in sexual

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It was removed. The definition of immediate family is no longer there. So what you have left is the definition of domestic abuse, protective tenant, sexual assault, and stalking, and this is all related to the bifurcation of the rental agreement for victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. That's been slightly tweaked based on the judiciary committee report, and I'll get to that in a second. So we get to page two, Rent increases. This has not been changed. This is where the landlord cannot the landlord cannot increase rent more than once in a twelve month period unless the landlord has purchased the building in which case that limitation would not apply. This change from what was proposed from the house. And so I'm just gonna keep going, knowing that you all may want to continue to work through, but in a bit of time, I'm just gonna keep moving forward. Okay. So then you get to residential rental application. This is the bottom of page two. This is where there's a Subdivision 2 being added to provide a definition for what an application fee is, any fee charge or costs, then you move to the top of page three. Now you have a few subdivisions here, 34, Subsection C. This is where the House is proposing to put in that a landlord may charge for a credit check or a background check.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Can I

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: sorry? Can I go back to the rent increase piece? The the greatest concern I've heard around multiple rent increases in a year has come from senior living facilities. Does the date does the definition of landlord cover that?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Senior housing? Yeah. I assume it covers any landlord.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just wanted to double check

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: to see exclusions here.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, do you know or Gene? Yeah,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: looking at exclusions, there's a section within title nine that specifically excludes certain type of, you know, housing arrangements, if you will. I'm just doing a quick search for the definitions or for the word seen here. I'm not seeing it, so I just I don't wanna answer something on the fly. Not gonna say I have to double check. Okay. But we have to go back.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So let's give you some time to double check it, if you can,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: when

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we, well, whenever we have a moment, but let's finish with these because I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Great. Circling back to the application. So, as I was mentioning here on page three, it allows for charging of a credit check or a background check. It has to be actual costs unless the tenant provides a current credit report, in which case the landlord cannot charge. Credit report is defined as something within the past ninety days. And then if charging, you have to provide a copy of the credit or the background check to the tenants. And then subsection c says a violation of this section is an unfair practice in Congress. So a few quick things about this. Initially, the judiciary committee removed this language right here on the top of page 12, the c, the four, and the subsection c. So you can the three, the four, and subsection c. Initially, it was removed. At the very last day, yesterday morning, they put it back in because they felt it probably was more for the purview of this committee to review. So I'm just letting you know that the committee initially had what appeared to be consensus on removing it. And then the last thing, real quick, Senator, the last thing I'm gonna mention is my recommendation to you would be to remove subsection C at a minimum because there are court cases where the courts have determined that violations of the residential rental agreement chapter are or can be violations of consumer protection. And so I think if you added this in, you would potentially be having unintended consequence by signaling to the court that only this section should be a violation of consumer protection as opposed to any violation of the entire chapter. So based on further research and information coming subsequent to this being approved by the house, my recommendation would be to remove that subsection c.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I believe this is the section Chris is gonna be testifying, to us about as soon as you're done.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I'd like to raise a concern about this section.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. That's they they are good.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think we can strip this section.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. So so Okay. That's what I believe Chris will be proposing. Glad glad to elaborate. Let's Yeah. Short.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So it's out the form out this morning. We're gonna voice objection as we move through or

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, it's a good question. Our time is limited, and I'd really like to move this bill out today if we can because I'm gonna be proposing that we concur with the senate judiciary committee with a further proposal amendment, which is to, I believe, Chris, if I'm correct, strip this section three.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Chris Donnelly, Chittenden, not the trust. Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So both three, four, and c. Correct. Correct. So the proposal is to strip that. Chris is proposing to strip that. I am that just so as we go through this, that is a proposal, and he's gonna speak to it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. And if each section, we could at least flag, like, if we would strip the section because we don't feel comfortable voting on it today.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I really would like to vote on this today.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. I'm saying I will I will probably only be comfortable voting if there's certain sections that are stripped. It may not just be that one. No. Well, we'll see. There's a lot of other votes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The rest of us too. So, Chris, if we're trying to check off sections so that we are really being time efficient, I think, so far, I'm fine with everything. If anyone else fine with everything okay so far? Yep.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That was so far. Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So page two, rent increases every twelve months. We had this conversation about utilities already included or not. We see a fuel cost doubling. So I'm not in favor of that. HP to the lining. I'm not sure again how we're gonna approach it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So your rent doesn't go up depending on fuel increase. Those are set

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on As the the levels

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: have the real possibility of fueling over a period of time. The notion that the landlord can't recover that is, I think, unacceptable.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, then they could include it in their rent increase for the next year.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, know the we even

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: be there.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Some rental agreement bonds on utilities, right? So, because they can't split it because it's serving multiple units, so I agree.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, I have already flagged this as a section because we had a question about whether it includes senior landlords.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I would make it just for senior living if we would otherwise strip it only because that's where I heard this concern raised the most. I mean, of course, people raise concerns about multiple rent increases, but if we're trying to start with where we agree, the biggest concern I have is when this happens to senior seniors in facilities that keep getting bought and sold.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I have it for all in Vermont because you accept and sign a contract with one notion of that. It's gonna be your rent. And if your contract says it's a year long contract, then it shouldn't be changed. Obviously, if you're printing month a month, it's a different thing.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well So So that would be a breach of contract if they had assigned it. Right.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I think would be an incentive to raise the amount charged for rent starting out, to start out. Right. If there's no ability to recover major cost increases. We have no agreement on this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't It's already put

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: that in my business.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would say that's already clear. Okay, let's keep going. Section three, four, and C have already been proposed to be eliminated. Is that agreement with everybody, David? And Randy, are

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: you okay with that? I'm not necessarily okay with it, but, again, it's not a major issue. It's So it's why you can't cover it. Not covered. It

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, would you like to speak to this? If we're gonna try and approve Or if you're

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: applying for local apartments at once, you have to pay $50 or $100 each time for a background check, it feels like a forecast.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: A four times, it feels like entering into a rental agreement and someone needs to check your credit. Whether you're looking at two or three or five, it doesn't matter. If there's a credit analysis required for the rental That's a choice.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Right, that's the choice of the property owner to actually pull that. So I think it's really, property owners will spread that cost over the rent over the twelve months. So the charge though just for the entry the real, it's the barrier

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for folks.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: That's just, know, I hear you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's sort of the cost of doing business.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I feel like just a few years ago, we stopped allowing them to charge.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: You cannot charge for an application.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. Can't charge for is clarifying that I'm

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: not charging for these other items. It's on page two.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As far as on page three.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, anyways, I think this would be way too big to take on right now.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, at the moment it's proposed, would be stripped, and it could certainly be, I mean, think all things are fair game in the in the work that the court is going be looking at.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: If we did keep it, the notion that unless the tenant provides a credit report, would not include that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, okay. I not

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: include that because how do I know it's about a credit report or what is online, you know, on the credit report ordering site?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm fine with permissive language and allowing landlords to accept a current credit report from the landlord, but I don't wanna require it because how do you know it's true? I mean, it has to be validated.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: It's not really gonna use it. It's being that way.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. This is just usually its own bit.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: gotta do

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: that today. Check something.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, we talked about it. Okay. So I think we're all agreed. This section is out at the moment. So let's move to security deposits. Madam Chair,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my apologies. And you've gone the entire section out for two new

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: ones. I think the proposal in front of us, and I think I hear agreement around the table, is that we pull three, four, and see. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: this so this does say no applications being charged. Correct. Great.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I thought, like you, I thought we'd already vote that So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not too running the waters here for you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You ought to feel free to jump in. I'm trying to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do my job. The current statutory section is what's in a on the bottom of page two. You can't charge an application fee. Right. Okay? That doesn't have a definition, and so the my understanding from the, you know, the initial sponsors here and other bills that I've worked on, the first step here was to say, okay. Let's add a definition so we can be very clear what an application fee means. Is it a fee at the time that you submit the initial application, or is it a fee subsequent to that if you're gonna charge your credit report to move forward? As you all know, think about this analogist to the whole band of box, right? You can't ask the question on the application, but then when you start to screen applicants afterward, you get to ask the question. So that's how I look at this when you're talking about whether or not a credit, whether or not the landlord's charging for a credit check. I'm not making you submit the fee when you submit the application, but I'm telling you that if I'm going to consider your application, then you're going to have to pay for a credit check. The statute is silent to this, and I'm not aware of any court that has said that charging for a credit check is somehow a violation of this section. So, you have the definition, that's what the definition was being added to provide for clarity. Initially, the definition included the words credit check and background check to make it explicitly clear that a landlord cannot charge for a credit or a background check. I'm simply raising this to say, if you remove three, four, and c on the next page, and you keep two, I think you still leave open the question of whether a landlord can charge or not for a creditor or background check. And maybe that's fine because I think that that question certainly exists.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Clarifying language in a new three would be a landlord may not charge for

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to just clarify. You could add it into the definition of under self two. I'm not telling you that you need to. I'm simply saying that if you're removing three, four, and sub c on the next page, the question still remains an open question, but that's how it currently is now.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would add a to the board as

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: it is. Or it could be as simple as the fact that a landlord could add the cost of the credit check to cover the rent just as he adds all other things that are part of the operation of the building to the rent in his consideration. He doesn't have to specify anything.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But does

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: that need to be called? Unless he's gonna charge extra for it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I'm also confused about the including any third party processing payment because when I came to the city of Burlington, I always they they explicitly call out the processing payment because otherwise you could put a check-in or whatever. Like, I I didn't know if I can vote for anything in this bill, but the no trespass. Like, I'm just saying that now as we go through this because because these are huge changes to landlord tenant law, and they would all usually be an individual bill, and we have, like, an hour. They wouldn't all use it in one bill. We've done big housing bills. We have not done a big landlord tenant bill. Right. That was not a good

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This When have we done a

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: big landlord tenant bill? Because I've been doing this for Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have. That's the whole attempt in this bill is to get some of these things that have not been resolved or addressed for a long time addressed. We're beginning from I an I We have the morning until 11:30. I think we need to take what we need to take on this because this is an important bill.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I would strike this whole section too including the application fee thing because Right. I have no I I can't change the status quo based on no testimony. I can't do that. Well, we have delegated this. This was in senate judiciary. You they have done the testimony on this. If you wanna look at the testimony My understanding is they wouldn't have touched this. Did they

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They did. Touched this. It's their change.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Is that correct?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This this left it in This is as it came over from the Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I thought it was underlined. It was stuff added by senate judiciary.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senate judiciary initially struck the sub three four and section c on page three, but they left sub two on I page thought this

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is one part of their addition.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But then they added it back then because they left it for this committee to make the decision, like, distribute it.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: And to Cameron's point, I if we wanna keep talking about it, I'd be comfortable with making it clear that landlords have the right to charge for a credit before we accept a presented credit report for somebody else, but I'd be just as soon happy to strip all this.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm I am gonna propose that we just look at the no trust trap and move the no trust trap.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would like to finish walking through the changes that the senate judiciary made. So they didn't change any of this. I'm sorry. My understanding is the trust was stopped. Well, they did. They readdance. Okay. When was the

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: last time you Okay. Had a I mean, should we have the chair

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of senate judiciary? No. He's represented by the legislative council, and he has he is fine with this bill. It voted out of his committee, and he is fine with the change Chris just proposed, which we just took out.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Madam chair. Yes. I believe Cameron did state that they originally had removed all this, but representative And then they added it back. Just for us to debate, but I I don't think they were necessarily enthusiastic about this language. They just wanted us to have the discussion. Right. That's correct.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Had it, and it appears we are striking three, four, and c, and the question in front of us at the moment appears to be whether to strike two as well.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Great. Any indication of how the bill came out of this sharing why both sides?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Lot enthusiastic part of meeting. Sorry. Okay. You all can continue to noodle on that section. I'm gonna move you to security deposits, which is gonna be on page three, the bottom of page three. So, this section would put a cap on the amount that a landlord may charge for a security deposit at an amount equal to two months rent. And then you get to the top of page four, which says that the landlord can charge a separate security deposit for allowing. There is no cap on that amount. And then the judiciary committee made two changes here that I would point out. First, in the House version, there was language that required a landlord to provide half of the security deposit back to Oh, right. The tenants if there was a no cause eviction, but because the changes to the no cause eviction timelines were removed from the bill, the judiciary committee removed that requirement as well because it didn't work anymore because of the timelines that were built in. So that was removed. And then the judiciary committee also added this change in subsection g on the bottom of page four, the top of page five, to make it clear that if you're putting in that a landlord cannot charge more than two months rent for a security deposit, there are some municipalities that have ordinances that say a landlord can only charge one month's rent for a security deposit, and so this change in subsection G right there on the top of page five is intended to allow those municipal ordinances to remain in effect.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: A? Yes, sir. Limits you out of here?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so if you look at the bottom of page four, so you look at sub G, so it's a town or municipality may adopt an ordinance, that's current statute. The ordinance

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: may Build the ship,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: may do Well, but then look at the three. That's just because may not limit is not how the statute should read. Right. If it's a requirement, it should be a shall. So then you look at the three, the ordinance may. You get to the subdivision a on top of page five, so the municipal ordinance may limit the amounts that a landlord may charge to an amount less than two months rent.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Thanks.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Are there municipalities that currently have more stringent policies on how a security policy is held?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Think there are.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we're saying they can't do that anymore?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The statute currently says they can't do that. And statute says they may not.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we're just enforcing it to be a shall go?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I have concerns with this, but I don't know enough about the existing practices. My concern is I feel like the riskier tenants that we're trying to get their footing again, maybe the landlord in order to accept that risk at the outset, considering that might want to charge for security deposit to assuage that risk. So I don't know how common it is that landlords are asking for three month rent or an additional compensatory risk, but if there's somebody that's going to vouch for the person, don't know if I want to hobble the landlord's ability to take on risk with tools like this. So this gives me pause. So if you got a riskier tenant that you're thinking about renting to, but you're still capped at just two months rent, but you currently maybe you could do three months rent just for an additional peace of mind. I don't know if I want to take away that. You do take

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I have the opposite concern, but would also take this section out, which is most landlords have never dreamed of charging first, last, and security. That's a huge burden. And I worry this section says that's a reasonable standard. I don't think we should change the status quo.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They shall not charge more than 200. So, I mean

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I know what okay with this situation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Current it's current law that they can charge what is current law is they can charge whatever they want. Right. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I would need a long debate for on the opposite side, which is I wouldn't want them to charge more than maybe, like I mean, personally, a security clause usually is usually equivalent to one month's rent, and then you could charge a pet fee or whatever on top of that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But Okay. So we're getting rid of the pet fee.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I wouldn't ever go to two months as a standard. I just wouldn't touch this until we have a long debate about We don't have time for long debate. We're So, going to take section

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, you're a landlord. Peter, you represent landlords. I mean, and Angela Zekowski may or may not be listening. Landlords in the room. Do we have a notion of what on average landlords, what do you require for

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: a security deposit? Just a month. And I think in some communities, like Burlington, maybe Brownboro, it's limited at a month. I don't know what the common practice is, but I can't imagine people are charging more than two months for security. Right. I mean, it's commonly said, people think of first and last month. Last month is serious. Right.

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Peter. Great. Hi, good morning. Peter Parker from Vermont Association of Realtors, who have many landlords in our membership.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Russia, so

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: glad that. So when Brian Armstrong testified in House General, he said, Look, know, I generally charge one or two months depending on needs, so two months was sufficient.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So two months would cover the risk, think, since

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we've been using different terms right now, he would charge a one month equivalent security deposit and then ask for another two months in some cases. He would ask for the equivalent of three months. That this is bigger than what he said he would ask It

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: was com that was comfortable. Know? Two months max.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. David. David has a thought. Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Madam Chair, you but I I worry that you're confusing the conversation more. The no one has said that they generally charge three months, a one month equivalent security deposit and two additional months.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's not what

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're talking about.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That is what is in this language.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're talking about

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: two months. We're talking about two months plus a one month security deposit.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's not what I see.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We don't even know what we're talking about, so I suggest No. Take the section out.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Cameron's gonna clarify. The language allows for a two month security deposit. It gets confusing because it also clarifies that that is on top of the first month's rent. So it could be when you enter the dwelling unit, you have to come up with three months total. The first month's rent is the first month's rent. That's what you have to pay regardless in any situation. So this is saying you can charge two months for a security deposit. To the senator's point, it it it becomes three months at the time of entry, think I could pay for the first month of death. Yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Which is a huge national debate, and I would never want people to start setting that standard via statute.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: David. David McImerge here on behalf of

[David Mickenberg (City of Burlington, representing the City)]: the city of Burlington. This was a request for the of Burlington to make sure that our ordinance which allows only one month is can be can continue in light of of the language. So, was just a clarification. Appreciate that two months is the standard for the state. We said, well, Burlington is more protective. They didn't provide provided one month. We have an ordinance in place that had been in place for years, and so we asked just for the flexibility for municipalities to be,

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: more protected.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What this is instead of saying last month's rent, what we should see this as is you're asked to pay your first month's rent when you come in, and then you could be asked to pay double the first month's rent as a security deposit. That is a huge jump from what most people

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, because I I thought being three. Well, I appreciate that. To to balance the risk that Thomas talks about, if we if people are already charging one month security deposit for the first month's rent, would we consider limiting this to one additional month so that the total would be two?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That would be the opposite of what I was gonna speak to. But my concern is that some of the way by Peter Tucker's testimony. So the two months

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So your concern is you're okay with this.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But senator Rutland's know knows this field a lot better and is concerned with setting a standard that maybe this might set a market signal that landlord should start asking for a total

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of three months before any rent supplier and you're concerned about that. Randy's days again?

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: The scene is an upper upper boundary. Not necessarily a standard practice. Upper boundary of two months security deposit plus coercion.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I think the upper boundary in state statute influences the market.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Agree. But to Senator Chittenden's point, if you have a high risk tenant, the ability, if if you limit that to one month's security deposit plus the first month's rent

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: 2 different dollars.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I would say it's just not a good practice to say, oh, their credit score is low. They're a risk. I'm gonna charge them more money. You might say, I'm gonna ask for a cosigner, etcetera. But this is such a bad idea. I am not voting for this bill with any of this

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for hard to Jean Murray from from up legal aid. For hard to house tenants, this is a real barrier. I agree with Senator Rutland District of Hinsdale that it makes it very hard for people to get into apartments. So the tenancies that I see, and I see quite a few tenancies at the stage of eviction, most of the security deposits are one month rent. And so the other thing to think about is people who are being helped by agencies and the agencies are being funded by the legislature to help people get into housing. The cost of establishing three months rent upfront, very circular. We're paying for it. We're making it harder for people to find housing and it's being paid for by funding to the agencies that are trying to help people get into housing. So Thank you. No. I I re appreciate. Cameron, did was help just remind me. Was the two months additional added by judiciary, or was that in the original bill?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: how it came over.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is how it came over. So I appreciate the discussion. Let's put a pin on this as another one of of the ones we have to land. I hear that we have to balance it from Thomas' risk concern to Kesha's concern, and we may want to look at one month or less, maybe two months is more

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: for the

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm gonna say we take this section.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Let's put a pen

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: in it.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Randy? In your experience, is one month security deposit, in other words, month's rent for one security deposit, more or less a standard among the landlord community of youth? I think

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: that

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: many landlords do only ask for one month's security. I think that in a riskier situation, that landlords ought to have a little bit of flexibility in terms of the security that they're looking for. But a lot of that security, though, also provided by a sub sign. Could be, yeah, sure.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I say This would normally be weeks, if not months of testimony, madam chair, from asking if who put this in and when and how, I'm very concerned? I mean, with other bills we've said, we don't have time to delve into one or two issues. I'm I'm I'm telling you now, like

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate that this is a challenge for you,

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: and let's let's come back to it. Let's just go and just order back this bill. Nobody even knows where the language has come from today. Yep.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We do. This is this is the bill from the house with changes from senate judiciary.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But you're not sure what those changes are.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They're underlined. It's unclear it it's as we go through, Cameron is making clarifying that for us.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm gonna propose once again. We go with the no trespass. There is probably a couple other things we want, but

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: first, we're gonna go through the whole bill.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Okay. We're on page five. Next section. Retaliatory conduct prohibited. This remains the same as it came up within the house. This is a section that says that a landlord cannot retaliate against a tenant by either changing the terms of the agreement or bringing or threatening to bring an action against the tenant if the tenant these are the provisions that the tenant, you know, is protected from, you know, making a complaint to a government agency about health regulations, complaining to the landlord about violations, organizing as a tenant union, and then here on the top of page six, there's two additions here. If the tenant takes any legal action authorized by law against the landlord or if the tenant has contacted law enforcement to respond to an instance of domestic abuse. Adding those two to the list of protection for the benefit of retaliation report. Okay. Another question is Yeah.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: We have a situation in which the tenant has done one or more of the things, one, two, or three, would you prohibit, according to this, the landlords, bringing an action against the tenant for something else?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Mean, it seems to

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: give a tenant unusual protection that if they have done a bad thing, all they have to do to get away with is to complain to a government agency about something else that this kind of has done. And both may be that way. Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't see the section as prohibiting the landlord from moving forward for any other, you know, justifiable reasons. So for example, if the tenant makes a complaint about a habitability issue and the landlord is moving forward with a termination because you're not paying rent, I wouldn't see this as a tenant having protection or being able to claim a retaliation if the landlord has another justifiable reason for why they're they're taking action. So similarly, you know, the if if the landlord is moving forward for some other lawful reason, then they would be able to articulate that, and a court ultimately is gonna be the arbiter of whether something is retaliatory to this section.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I see that as judiciary's call, I guess, like, I would have looked they took a lot of testimony off

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of They didn't really look at

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the section. Because this is our sections.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, it's about legal retaliation.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's about court fee. It's not their section. So it's up to us to make a decision on this. I think this I I I support this because it it it further expands how they cannot be how a tenant cannot be retaliated against. I would think we would support this. I think the landlord can move on on anything else that they are as long as they have more than one of these things in place that reasons for an eviction. So I am not am not

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Did they put in a study for landlord tenant court? Are we Yeah. Yeah. So I would I'm just saying that in advance, I would leave a lot of these I would leave a lot of these provisions that have some gray area to to a landlord

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think this has a lot of gray area. It's pretty straightforward. But I think some of the other issues we've talked about, we can conceivably have

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: with the section, but we have not taken any testimony and neither did you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have. We have been taking testimony, and we have walked through this whole bill, and we have taken testimony on a lot of it. So how

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: common is it that a tenant would sue their landlord? And then if this happened right now without this protection, that landlord can say, you know what? I don't want you to live here anymore. We need to have this is this common?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, Gene, Peter. I

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: would defer to the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris, Peter, Gene, you want to start? Well, landlords have premises liability, if they have done something negligent, like neglected to repair the stairs or something, certainly there could be an action against the landlord. Mostly being at the landlord's premises insurance to to compensate somebody who got injured because I never just like a slip and fall in this department. So it's impossible. But in terms of retaliation, this is about

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: When that happens, is it often that the landlord wants then tries to retaliate? Is there examples that are motivating this language?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's what this section problem we're solving? Sure. That does happen. And

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: that's also covered under the first three sections.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's Chris.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You're right.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's mental health regulation. That's a that's automatic item.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: We would we would never retaliate against the the pending purchase in any of these actions.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That's what I've established previously. I'm not necessarily worried about you. I'm worried about other landlords. I think your your organization

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I I can't I can't speak that either.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's keep going. So we'll

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: move to the next section, which is regarding, termination notice. So this is gonna be on the bottom of page six. As I mentioned, all of the changes of termination notice period were removed from the bill, but there were a few provisions that were kept by judiciary. So judiciary made choices about this. Yes, ma'am. So when you're looking at the bottom of page six and moving to the top of page seven, there were two provisions in this section, and in particular under subsection B, to provide protections to tenants. So if you remember, we talked about what is now subdivision three, which says that a landlord cannot terminate the rental agreement under the subsection. Subsection b is for termination of breach of the rental agreement terms or for breach because of criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is this the Good Samaritan provision? Yes. These are the sections, the Good Samaritan provisions, which they

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision three is this what people refer to as Good Samaritan provision. So a landlord cannot terminate because a person is seeking medical assistance for a drug overdose, is the subject of a good faith medical request for a drug overdose, or is at the scene of a drug overdose, and then separately under four is the authorization of bifurcation of rental agreements for individuals who are the victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or stalking, right? Four says you can't terminate the rental agreement because the protected tenants, you can't terminate the rental agreement of a protected tenant because of an instance of one of those, and then you have to bifurcate the rental agreement as authorized in section four four seven. Which

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: protects going through this challenge. Let's say if you're in a domestic violence situation, you can bifurcate the lease so that the protected person who's being abused can stay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And very quickly, on the next section, section 1A, this is where the new section is being added in regarding bifurcation, and there's some language change here, what Before move on.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I have a little trouble with the page six line eighteen nineteen. If the if the landlord has a tenant who's experiencing drug overdoses and the landlord is trying to move the tenant out, evict them, this seems to cause that to pause, to feel that that's not grounds for ejection or what have you. But it certainly is an indicator of tenant risk that if there is a pattern of drug overdose, this seems to really put everything in the favor of the person who's experiencing the overdoses done it. Because if the landlord sees that he's got a tenant, drug overdose one, repeated patterns, whether they're seeking, whether they're trying to get, they're seeking help for their condition. I think this is out of balance between the landlord and the tenant's rights. I paused on this way back when we first went over this, back in February, and I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: still hold that same recognition. So, you, so you may have somebody who has a substance abuse disorder who pays the rent, who has a good job, who is actually paying rent and being a good tenant. So in one circumstance, that circumstance, this is saying you were We're talking about drug overdose. Right. There might be. I think your concern is repeated drug overdose. Is that what I'm hearing you say? And I don't know if they're paying the rent. If they're paying rent on time, I I it's, you know, it's a a tough it's a tough one.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I don't care if they're paying the rent. Got, say a multi tenant dwelling, got drug overdoses one time, multiple times, it's an indicator of future risk. Landlord should have the opportunity to take that.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That's what I think you were saying that I agree landlords should have some rights in these cases I also agree and some municipalities should have some authority Cameron would this for example the city of Burlington be able to enact this type of restriction that they so desire in current construct without us putting it in the state statute?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. I had a different suggestion. What I I I actually think we need to, like, infringing on the private enjoyment of the premises of a tenant is a very serious matter for landlords. So we go like, we shouldn't gloss over the that we we should have weeks of testimony on the retaliatory conduct section because if people wanna go back to page five, lines 10 through 13, a landlord may not retaliate by establishing or changing the terms of a rental agreement or by bringing or threatening to bring an action against a tenant who landlords should take that very seriously that they're talking about then the the next items in this section. You know, we've we've debated one through three very heavily in in past years, the four four and five are pretty complex and messy. If you have a domestic violence situation and somebody kicks in a door or and the, you know, the landlord says that's part of your security deposit, and the tenant says, no. It was domestic violence. This actually makes things pretty unclear and imbalanced without taking any testimony. And then you're saying, okay. You also don't have the right to terminate the lease. I think termination of a lease is a is a very final and serious matter, and we should put more language in here about, you know, you can't terminate a lease because of the the chaos of criminal activity that the person might be a victim of. And I would add to the termination the the Samaritan section accommodation for a disability if it's not in the underlying language. But we're making it really I I don't think people are appreciating how much all of these sections affect each other at all, basically. Like, I I think this is, like, a very So untethered pursuit of changes. This is part of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the on the good so

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I meant you've the good Samaritan piece, but you can't leave the retaliatory conduct section alone. I mean, you can't you can't add to that of the same things you're talking about in the termination of lease. You're you're re like, you're re what

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're saying in one is you cannot retaliate for these reasons. You not only can

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you not retaliate. I need you to understand it says threatened. Any actions taken for

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: 10AM. Conditional actions sub authorized by law against the landlord or No.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Go back to law. Age five. A landlord may not retaliate by establishing or changing terms of rental agreement or by bringing or threatening to bring an action against a tenant. Well before a rental agreement is terminated, you would then be taking a landlord's rights away to even say to somebody, this is getting really problematic that things keep getting broken and, you know, you're you're doing this or that. There's drug overdoses, etcetera.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This is current law. The page Go the unmitigatory.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Within Four four six five. We're changing current law on With four and five. And these things are very similar to what we're saying, you then can't terminate a rental agreement below. I'm asking everyone to appreciate that these two sections are highly related. If a landlord and tenant are in disputes and they're going back and forth in court about other things or the or the landlord is sent, this is a lot of breaches of your existing lease. You've made it very difficult for them to have that conversation with the tenant in the retali retaliation section because we take very seriously what is considered retaliation. And then we're saying they also can't terminate the agreement. I'm in favor of saying they can't terminate the agreement for some of these things. It's very difficult to then say, you also can't even talk about it with

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the Well, it doesn't say you can't talk about it. It just says you can't take No. I agree. Action. David? No. I'm just

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. Agreeing. Threatening to bring action is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Is a huge conversation.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: It's not a

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And and landlords take that very seriously with these other provisions. It is considered kind of tenant harassment. If you say like, hey, I saw a bike outside, and I wanna talk to you about it, this, and this, and this. You really have to be very careful in this section. And now you're saying you also can't talk to them if they are have a legal action against you. You also can't talk to them if there might be an instance of domestic abuse that's causing a lot of damage or criminal activity on the premises. And then you also can't terminate their their lease for such related thing. Think it is very serious to terminate a lease without Right. A landlord tenant court or a judicial process around these matters. But you're saying before that you can't even talk to them about it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Or or address, yeah, address it.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The And this is why I would So this

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is why you would strike four and five.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I would much rather focus on when it's serious enough to terminate a tenancy versus not allowing them to get into the messiness of For retaliatory. Yeah. Of not being able to conquer to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: whom I I would Yeah.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Right right. The whole retaliatory, I would delete them.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, it's current law, except four and five. One and five is added to its benefit.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: All I'm saying is I don't think we can have a conversation about termination of tenancy without not doing something that we've taken no testimony about in what is retaliatory behavior because landlords currently take that very seriously, it would be very hard for them to for us to just say, oh, now you can't you can't have these conversations or these conversations, but you also can't terminate their tenancy. So I don't know where everybody else says, I'm in favor of the the good Samaritan provision, and I might work to strengthen it if we have more time. Right. But it I mean, people appreciate how unworkable it is to do all of these things at once.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think it's necessarily unworkable if we try and fix it along the way. So, Cameron, so what I hear from you is take maybe consider adding to well, I hear from David. He's not comfortable with the good Samaritan provisions in the first place just because there are there may be reasons if repeated offense occurs that a landlord would want to be able to take action against the tenant. And I hear you wanting to maybe expand that to include other other things, but I think those are already protected. A disability is already protected in law. I mean, are other things

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: that abuse. With this. Is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it? I believe so.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Substance abuse disorder. That I'm not the attorney to answer that question.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, no. I said you just in case you didn't talk about that. In case you went mentioned the disability.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I'm not saying drug use I mean, this doesn't say drug use. It says overdose. You know? I mean, it it was a different thing. Right.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think if a landlord doesn't want a tenant in our building because they are instances of substance abuse, they should have

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a right to determine determine the agreement. So I can have it the same day. Kesha, Senator Weeks, so I don't like to sanction. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Gene, did you have someone you wanna ban? Okay.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You got kids downstairs. You gotta rent long enough stairs.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris? Chris, that's something that

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I can just say that right now, under current law, if you are using an illegal drug in your apartment, the landlord can move to evict you.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But what if somebody else is?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So in illegal drug or illegal drug? Legal drug. It's illegal. Illegal. All know that. Illegal. Right now, if if there are illegal drugs being used in an apartment either by by tensions. We can't deal with guests on top of the but that that they can begin to move to evict you, which is why they're trying to do this. David, what's your Oh, just to speak to this section, David.

[David Mickenberg (City of Burlington, representing the City)]: One hundred and seventy five Vermonters last year lost their lives to preventable overdoses. This law is modeled after a law that was almost, I think, unanimously passed in 2013, which said, has been promoted by everything from the colonel of the state police and others to say, if you're having an overdose, call for assistance. We value your life. But they don't want to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be punished for calling for assistance.

[David Mickenberg (City of Burlington, representing the City)]: Either criminally, and in this case, and this is about the seeking of assistance, and it's limited to the seeking assistance for and so this is intended to be a lifesaving measure that hasn't been one I mean, I've I've sent Senator Weeks the memo when it came up that Weeks applied to the committee. There hasn't been any testimony against this provision just for context. And this is about specifically the moment where you are calling to seek assistance because studies have shown that people have a fear of eviction, and therefore they won't call. If it's the risk of losing their house or surviving an overdose, many people take the risk of surviving an overdose than losing their housing.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: What we're discussing is this arrangement, not a social arrangement. We've got a landlord. We're not talking necessarily about our large housers, which we subsidize. We're talking about mom and pop with a couple units, putting yourself in that scenario. You've got drug overdoses, I get it, there's a certain aspect of you know, we ought to be conscious of that, but if we've got a repeated behavior of drug overdose or we've got a landlord who's not tolerant of drug overdoses, that's a business arrangement. Yeah. That's an indicator of risk. The last thing

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll say is, and there's other evidence of that. And I'm sure if somebody's overdosing, there probably is other evidence of that. Other evidence not associated. That's what this is indicated.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Not associated with the call. Other evidence can be used and a termination can be brought. But this is with the call for assistance. And I've forgotten your name.

[Katerina LaSias (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's fine. I'm Katerina LaSias. I'm with the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence. To speak to number five, similar to what David shared, this is about how they've grown We're on number three here. Sorry. Number five of the same, the

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: retaliatory conduct prohibited. We haven't done it in that section, but I mean, understand the situation. It's just

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: We're talking about drug overdose. We're talking about the rest of year. It's at the moment.

[Katerina LaSias (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Right. It had come up. So I just wanted to see that section is about how it's the contact to law enforcement. It's not the actual domestic violence occurring. We don't want to prevent any survivor from contacting law enforcement

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to see So this is protecting the abused. Yep. This is meant to protect the abused. Yep. If I agree.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I I will say, truly, like, it is it is it is true that when police or fire show up at at a unit, people's reaction around them is to say, ugh, like, don't want this person living here anymore, and that's that's a a great concern. I I understand what you're saying, Katerina, but a lot of things could be considered threatening retaliation if someone has contacted law enforcement for a domestic disturbance that then get used against that person before they're able to say, hey, what's really going on here because we can't keep having your risk kicked in or, you know, someone rallying the hallway. Right. And it's

[Katerina LaSias (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: the act of calling law enforcement. That was

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: just clarifying. Right. It's you know, it's just if we read it together with the section above, this is a huge conversation. It's a huge conversation about what's considered threatening in action that I then think is very much linked to, I'd rather focus on you can't eject or terminate somebody's presence because of these same things. Because then we talk about they're protected from a pattern of domestic abuse, sexual assault, and

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: and But also a pattern, to go to David and Tom's point, a pattern of of calling for drug for for assistance with an overdose. To go to David and Tom's concern, could we address that with a reference to repeated, to more than one offense or more than two? Because I think the the call is life saving. What we're talking about is not being punished for a life saving measure that is taken. We do not want people living in fear of calling for help if if if they're afraid of being ejected. I think that it I hear your concern. I also hear a 175 lives that that may or may not have been able to save in this circumstance, but certainly some are. Could we put a cap on the number of times that could be taking gene? So earlier, people were talking about is substance abuse disorder a disability? And it is. It is a disability and you can get social security benefits for the disability. The thing is you're not supposed to be using. You can't be an active user. That's substance abuse, it's not a substance abuse disorder. But the problem with substance abuse disorder, and you should have testimony on this because certainly I'm not an expert on it, but the problem with it is people relapse that part of the disorder. And so if you're saying, yeah, you get one free call for medical help, but the third one you don't get, that's when the person dies. So it's very hard to have the Good Samaritan paragraph, which I support, is a really great idea, but to understand what it is you're doing without expert testimony on substance abuse disorder is probably not don't support that. So, the judiciary committee did take testimony on this. They made decisions on this and included this language. So, I mean, we have had a committee already had testimony on this. And if we let's you know, you can disagree with it, but this is what judiciary has passed out and supports. So on a five zero vote. So let's just keep moving because I would like

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Madam Chair, in the interest of time, since we are trying to do this, we should just draw a poll of these things as we go along. Yeah. Doubling back, I don't know

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: how we're gonna do that in the next twenty, thirty minutes.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay. So if you wanna straw a poll on this just to, like, close it off. And we wanna keep this section? Senator Weeks, have you saw that in your position? No.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I have not.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. On this section at the moment, on the good Samaritan section, who would support keeping it in? And who would support taking it out? Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm gonna ask maybe that we I hate to single out drug overdoses, but if we don't have the protection for I I would even say, let's say it's not a drug overdose. Like, you know, you can have a tenant who has a history of substance abuse disorder have a wellness check called by their parents because they haven't heard from them in a week. And that could spook a lot of other people that the police came and did a wellness check on that person. And so maybe we're not getting into the instance of a drug overdose, but I would still say we should make sure there's accommodation for a disability in this section protected from a pattern of domestic abuse, sexual assault, etcetera, and the bifurcation of the rental agreement. I wouldn't strike this section entirely. Would say let's leave the conversation about drug overdoses for another day. It is a conversation that I think is worth having.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So that's just a straw poll. I think people's opinions hopefully could be changed with more testimony, with talking to our judiciary counterparts. So I would

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm actually saying we don't have time for that, and I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To your point, I ask

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: you that the bifurcation part is separate to me. So if you look

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at b, I'm not against the bifurcation of

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: the rental agreement and allowing landlords to do that. I see that as separate

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So four a and g, we're talking about?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, for b, I see the bifurcation part.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I I'm recommending keeping four a. I think four a and four b are important together. And I'm suggesting adding accommodation for a disability. But they can't bring an action. Uninterpreted. I don't think they can

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Well, I'm just a bit on three. So Oh, okay. Yeah. So maybe now we you're talking about four eight.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I wanted to make sure that that's yeah. So we're the

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: We have that on the screen

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: so we're all

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: on the same page.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we have it in front of us. The proposal that I hear is that we strike that that three of the five of us are interested in striking 3, but would be okay with keeping four a and b. True. Yes. True, yes. Randy? Yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And then I would ask how people feel about adding accommodation. You can't terminate a rental agreement because someone has requested accommodation for a disability. I don't believe you can

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do that. We'll let that. I thought

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You gotta put in a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You You can't terminate a rental agreement because someone asked for an accommodation. That's not a reason in the statute that would allow you to terminate a rental agreement.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But we just don't know what

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, Okay. What someone what's I could imagine something happening is if someone requested an accommodation, and maybe they were persistent or or Persistent. Mhmm. We can reach out, and the landlord didn't want the person to be there anymore. The landlord could just do a no cause termination. I think the person could try to bring a claim that they've been discriminated against because of their disability. But They're protected. I mean, that's a protected class. It's just that it's gonna be a back scenario they would

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have to prove in court. Right. But they would have to do that now even as a protected class.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. You can't discriminate against people because of the discipline. Right. That that's already included in a

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I guess I would say it's been then what is the farm in spelling it out here? I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think it's already in law, so I don't.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I think it would probably be more proper to be in the section about retaliation. Can't change the terms or perhaps you could bring an action against somebody who makes a request for an accommodation

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would think that's a good Okay. Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That don't know what people feel about that. I would like to put in some underscoring language about the dictation. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's a request for a request for accommodation. In the retaliation? Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What would your accommodation mean? How far does it go? It does

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: go as far as I, you

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: know, In

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: terms of, does it require a landlord to do capital construction because a person has a disability? Just depends on how far does that go.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Would probably know at the time, so if they had the disability at the time that they entered into the rental agreement, then the landlord does have the the right to say that's too much of a hardship to put a ramp in this historic building or an elevator in this historic building.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, they wouldn't then probably take the apartment if they couldn't. Right. They that's not a distributed

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: that there would be a requirement for the potential tenant to disclose that or the contract is signed. Cameron has something to add to this. Sorry, real quick,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanted to double check. I think this is already covered. This is in the unfair housing practices section. Right. It says that individual cannot refuse to make reasonable accommodations in the rules, policies, practices, or services when such accommodation may be necessary. Now that's about rules, policies, practices, services, but

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But and that's not you know, this is this would be belts and suspenders, essentially.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I'm not saying don't I'm not saying

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Because it's, you know

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. But it's there already.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's well, it's there in Fair Housing. Right. Fair Housing

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But this will all be incorporated into landlord tenant law day.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, we kind of migrated into this conversation with the overdose question. Substance use disorder being equated to disability and being equated to protecting class. That's where I trip up on my mission. And again, I fully recognize that if there's a tenant and there's a wheelchair involved, this question of does landlord have to accommodate at the start of the contract? Probably not. In the middle of the contract where there's an accident or what have you, well maybe not. Putting an elevator or ramp to your point of view, that's a whole different question. But I do not want to migrate off the question of substance use disorder being equated with disability, being equated with protected class in the context of a landlord tenant relationship. I don't see that threat all the way through. And, you know, I could be wrong legally, but I think it's too much for a landlord to take on.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, there are people in recovery who do get discriminated against, though. That, and the question is, is is that a protected accommodation that you not say there's people checking on you too much?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And Cameron are probably and and Chris, do you have anything if you have anything to add on this? Because I do believe they are protect yeah. Jean? Yeah. So in fair housing law, which Vermont has, there's a difference between a reasonable accommodation and a reasonable modification. Modification means the ramp, the grab bars, whatever. And if the landlord receives federal funding, the landlord might have to pay for that. But a reasonable accommodation is simply a change in practices, rules or procedures and it's not meant in the defense, I guess, if you're a landlord and you don't want to provide an accommodation, you say, this alters my business. So, the idea of a reasonable accommodation is where a person with a disability has run up against a problem that seems incompatible with being a tenant, you ask for accommodation saying, if I only had my worker come see me once a week or if I only had this, then I would be able to conform to what is expected of tenants. It is not ever asking landlords to say you have to put up with, I don't know, somebody banging on the walls because that's part of their disability. There's a way to accommodate that which is different than ramps and grand bars and expensive things that landlords that if somebody says, I want your apartment. In order to have it, I have to put a ramp in. The landlord should be able to say fine, but you have to pay for it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They're able to do that now. That would be the law now. Right. So in terms of substance abuse, because I think David and Tom's focus is particularly on substance abuse. Well, is a disability. It doesn't mean that people have to put up with what people think of as what comes along with the disability like a drunk person shouting all the time. They don't have to put up with that behavior, but you can't discriminate against a person simply because they're in recovery. So You might think being in recovery is a risk, but you might think having somebody with a wheelchair is a risk in your building. You might think that having somebody Life is a risk. I mean, it's all risk. We all present risk at various points in our lives. I think that with substance abuse itself is is disorder, is a disability. I think that what we have to So at the moment we have a struggle to take it out. I'd really like to continue. I think we have a struggle to take it out. I think that the fair housing practices cover retaliation of a person with disability. We're requesting a combination of we are at the moment,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my understanding is we're keeping four a and b on top of page seven, and let's move on to a right to bifurcate a vote for an agreement. Okay. Is page seven, the next section, section 1A. The judiciary committee made some finer tweaks to the language in this section. Ultimately, what it does is it allows a protected tenant to request bifurcation of a rental agreement due to an instance of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or assaulting, and the landlord may read to that bifurcation, that's in the sub one A. In the sub two, if the protected tenant includes with the written request, and my apologies, I should have indicated there, it has to be a written request, it can't be a verbal. If the protected tenant includes with the written request a court order that requires the perpetrator to leave the premises, so we're talking about another tenant or another long block tenant at the dwelling unit, if the court order requires that person to leave, then the landlord is obligated to buy purchase of the rental agreement to that. So it's not a fay, it's a shadow. Submit the written request, no court order, landlord may bifurcate. You submit the written request, there is a court order, the landlord must bifurcate in that instance. This section I find. And then just very quickly, there was the remainder of the steps about the sub three is new language that would prohibit a landlord from requiring some sort of written documentation or written support as part of the request. And then the sub B is about giving the person the reasonable opportunity to seek additional tenants if someone is removed from the unit or to have additional opportunities to find new housing as the same as the case. Surprised we need to authorize.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is simply just something reasonable that they could be able to do, but

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah. Why does it need a good statute?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a requirement in some instances. So if the written, as I mentioned in the two, if the written request is being submitted with that court order, then the landlord would be obligated to do this at this point.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. Well, this I mean, so a lot the most common sort of criminal disputes we see, which is why we need a landlord tenant board, are domestic disputes. Right? And so just trying to bring up all the things that you can see, especially from my experience doing domestic violence work. The question then becomes, is is that landlord then able to recoup costs from damage, etcetera, from both parties? Right. Right. I mean, really, then the tenant has to take responsibility that they are also on the hook. They have higher security deposit on the hook. Like, there's consequences to being the the final person on the rental agreement. And so I just that's why you probably have to say that there's sort of a process for this just because that tenant should understand that they are then responsible for everything in the rental agreement. And this is good for them.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: It's a good point. I agree. But I'm curious what the advocates say about that bifurcation. If that is, in fact, the case that the remaining tenant absorbs all the terms of the original copyright. Chris or Gene?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Or Katarina? We operate by similar rules right now.

[Katerina LaSias (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yeah. Country. It's correct. So this language came from VAWA, the Violence Against Women Act. Yes. Public housing authorities, people who receive public housing vouchers already do this. So this would be expanding it to private landlords or the option of it to private landlords So as

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would support this section.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I I'm just saying they like, I I brought this up to the advocates earlier. I mean, in 2015, you know, I I wrote a bill saying you have to put everyone on the rental agreement. This is before I met my husband. In fact, we were in the same article in the Burlington Free Press without ever having met. You have to put in the rental agreement all the parties that are living in the unit. That's not a current requirement of law that tenants have to take the responsibility to say who is living in the apartment. So it there's a lot of points at which a the the only tenant that's on the agreement might be trying to say, this is not my fault, this is not my responsibility. They are still held accountable to that, but it's very hard when we don't require people's names on rental agreements in the first place.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So that is a challenge if you then It's

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a challenge. It was almost

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: half the three credits ten years ago. Right. Okay. So why why haven't we fixed that here, and could we fix it by requiring by that really requiring that all tenants in be required to be listed on the lease?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't know what problem You can do that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And this also relates to the definition of a long term rental. We're not doing that here.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But, we that's in front of other companies. Yes. Oh, Peter, just make noise. Oh, let's

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: be quiet. So, Peter Tucker for the Vermont Association Realtors. You know, I think that in practice, you know, there is a, you know, like a one page document that a tenant can produce to say, you know, I'd like you to buy the rental agreement. But in terms of, you know, a landlord needing to be able to allow at least ninety days for that tenant to not pay rent or pay partial rent. You know, This is on page A-twenty 14.

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Seems that that puts an undue burden on the land.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, I'd agree with that. I didn't read it out. Assumed you would agree with that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You missed why this section is is maybe articulated and also, you know, it is a big it's a big impact. So, sorry. I have

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: two suggestions here. I that that I'm hearing. One is that we actually should require all tenants in a space to be on the lease agreements so that when you bifurcate it, they're actually all tenants are on the East. That's I think that's what I hear Kesha Ram were suggesting. And Peter is the the landlord concern is on line eight, did you say?

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Yep. Nine to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: fourteen. Oh, nine to fourteen. Yeah. What's your concern here again? Sorry.

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: That you're asking the landlord to to, you know, take a financial responsibility for the inability of the remaining tenants to pay the rent.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Would a

[Peter Tucker (Vermont Association of Realtors)]: reasonable opportunity to find another tenant or find another roommate for, you know, shall be no less than ninety days, you know, that's three months of maybe partial rent being paid. So Got

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it. So that we're exposing the landlord to losing rent here. Is that what you're saying?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We're exposing them to a lot in terms of how they negotiate with the remaining tenant about what constitutes the rental agreement and who's responsible for any of that haven't during that time period. Plus, if someone just stops payment, what can We also, at

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the moment, still have a million dollars in the budget for our rental know, rent both rental arrears and fixing apartments with the concern that we've addressed in the past with where, people are punished for physical damage to the apartment, if their abusive spouse has, done that, and they have an opportunity to fix it and get help, get some support for that.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: That's been removed from the as far as No. It's maybe in the budget, but it's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: not in the bill. It's in the budget. But it's not in the bill. No. It's not in the bill. It's in the bill. That's why I mentioned it. So we know that that's there for

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: so My point is that we didn't have an opportunity to object to that either. It's just in the budget. Right. It was in the bill. It's stripped out of the bill. Not on

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: our It was in the house bill, and it was taken out and put in the budget there.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I understand all that. I just wish that in this environment we could have a conversation about those kinds of programs. That's all I'm saying. Right. But it's in the budget. And we have to follow-up.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The path, and and actually, this committee put that money in several years ago for to cure I I assume the purpose

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: of it, but I don't have to agree with it. Yep. Know. As far as the use of state

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we have we have something we can fix right now in front of us. So I think I hear you suggesting that we require all tenants on a lease, in an apartment to be

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: on a lease. That's one. Yes. I I guess what I'm saying is this is I'm not trying to choose a side here that this is a very common and complicated area of the law. This happens a lot, that there's a dispute between two intimate partners, and there's a lot of messiness after that. Right. My question is, does this does this resolve the messiness, or is this us making more problems? I don't think anything we could do can resolve the messiness of some of those No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Landlord couldn't work. But we and we're looking at that, and there is a whole study. I mean, we've done that. We've worked on that. That was a priority for both of our committees.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm trying to give my colleagues enough information to understand why this section might be more complicated than

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna strip it?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't wanna strip this section necessarily. The the the judiciary worked on this.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I think I would tie it more to the no trespass or whatever we're trying to do to solve the So of someone who's unwelcome in the building or the apartment.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, let's get to that. This is the action, though. I mean, I

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: think This just has more consequences than

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So anyone is appreciated right now. Maybe I just see this permissive language, but maybe I'm I seeing it agree. I think that we also I I don't know how we fix the exposing landlords to lost rent here unless there is a an opportunity. I mean, so there is an opportunity through this fund to maybe collect some of that. I guess my question is What? Is there anything in here where we can reduce the landlord's risk in losing partial rent for three months? Right?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Strip the paragraph. B one. B b one. One.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: And and two. Subsection. Subsection. Why nine? You're 15. PATRIVEN.

[Katerina LaSias (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I would, just wanna share with the committee that being one is allowing that tenant to not immediately feel as if they were a vicarious, right? Because if they don't have, if they choose to bifurcate, and then they can't pay for their unit because of life circumstances, it means that they wouldn't be, wouldn't have a roof over their heads through no fault of their own. So that, to me that's what B1 says. Two is the length of time that they would be there.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So I would So how would you protect the lender? I under I appreciate this is protecting the tenant, and we appreciate the tenants in these circumstances. Mhmm. It is brutal. I I mean, there's no question. The question is that that's true for the tenant. How do we also protect the landlord from not being financially injured as the other part? To have more people injured is not Yeah. So we have one person or maybe a whole family of of injured people trying to recover and trying to figure out how to pay for the apartment. I appreciate giving them an opportunity to figure that out. How do we protect the landlord during that? And I think that's the question for this person. Thank you. So I think let's put a pin in that and and keep going because now we're moving into the agenda. And I'm gonna give this till 10:15, and then we're gonna turn to the other two housing bills, which I hope we can get out. So this clearly, we're not gonna be able to get out today, and we're gonna need some more time. I appreciate that. I wanna hear from all of you before, like, the end of the day, if possible, because Cara and I have to put an a on our we have an hour and a half each day except Monday.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I just raised the previous point that pretty dependent. I don't know when we're gonna come back to it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're coming back. No. No. We need suggestions on on you mean you're just suggesting striking v one?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, just where we are in this. If we just do the straw pulls, that moves us along against us with a vote if that's what you're asking.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate that. I think this there may or

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: may not

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be a

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: If the villagers never comes out and just dies to the wall, that's also an option.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't think that's an option. Think that's poor option. You know did a lot of work on

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: it. And I think you should do straw pull, so then that way we get it Okay. Low. Let

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: us we straw pull the last section. Let's straw pull pulling b one until we have a how a straw pull on requiring that all tenants be on the lease.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I would interject right now and say that's extremely problematic from a drafting perspective. Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yeah. I'm I'm sorry. I was breaking it up more as a Okay. It's always more complicated. No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Very complicated. Be so Appreciate it, Howard. Appreciate it. We're not trying to do it in an hour. Thank you. I was hoping we had would be supportive of what the judiciary did and move it along.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But we're We could do that. I know. That's That would be the no trust. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're getting to the protest. Appreciate that. Okay. So the other option at the moment then without that is striking section b one until we can come up with a fix for how the landlords are kept whole.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: B one and two. B one and two.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. And I hear, Kesha Ram Hinsdale, and it is we need to figure out how we can help protect our tenants who are going through this. But until we can figure out how to balance Gail. Gail's asked on behalf of the network. We I don't know if your straw poll means you're closing out this section, but it means we would like the opportunity to consider your concerns or for that view. Talk us. We don't have a lot in common. We have next week. That's it. So, on an hour and a half each day, unless people are willing to work through them. So, Taterina has, I think, been very articulate about why that's important for us. I don't think we need to hear much more testimony than me, but I think I hear my committee so the straw poll at the moment on keeping sections b one and two, those who support keeping it in. I support keeping it in. Those who are Sorry. I'm we're doing a straw poll on b one and two.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I just wanna I'd be happy to look at at new language, I guess, where I don't think we should

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do post. B one and two, I will ask again. That is the request to have a straw poll on B one and two, and that this is the ninety day leniency, you know, ninety day period to allow a tenant who's been subject of domestic violence to allow themselves to find a way to satisfy the rental requirement.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: On discussion of that quasi motion, I support striking this now, but

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I welcome alternative language to assess that conversation. Great. I Just running out of runway. Yeah.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Okay. That's right.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So we're submitting moments.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So who is supportive of striking it now with further proposal of amendment?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I support striking it now, and then if wanna have more conversation Okay. Between now and with this here

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is fine. Who supports striking it now? Great. Okay. And two of us would keep it in, I think. Okay. And I think that's a charge to our advocates. If you can come up with new language that the request is really to figure out a way to keep the landlord whole as we as a tenant goes through this. So quite frankly. Okay. We will look for new language. Okay, going to eject. We're on page eight.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Moving to the top of page nine, this is the changes in the ejectment chapter. As I mentioned earlier, the judiciary committee has removed all of the language regarding a new subchapter for objectment, including the expedited hearings that are built within that subchapter to a few changes that remain. The first here on page nine is just a technical amendment to this section for payment of rent to court, the rent escrow process. There are two subsection As, we're removing one of them. Now we get to the next section, which is about property of the tenant remaining on the premises after conviction. So if you all remember when we did our walkthrough, discussed the fact that you go through the ejectment process, the landlord receives the writ of possession, that writ of possession has to be served on the tenant, the defendant, and then at a point later in time, the sheriff would then come back and remove that individual from the premises if they remain. That time frame as to when it's served and when the sheriff comes back is different depending on why the writ of possession was issued under what statutory section. It could be five days, it could be seven days, it could be fourteen days. Current statute says that the landlord has to maintain the property for at least fifteen days after service of the writ. What this amendment is doing is taking that out and saying that the landlord can dispose of the property immediately upon being restored to possession. Immediately after the ejection process is completed. Immediately after the sheriff has come back and removed the individual from the property. So, again, that could be as short as six days, could be as short as eight days, could be as short as

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's a few days. It's not, like, that second.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I'm just pointing out the fact that you're reducing it potentially from fifteen all the way down to six in some instances. So that's my that's my Okay. Succinct way of articulating this. Yes. Thank you, Thomas.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: This is the it's pretty much stuff

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the curb. So the The

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: same day.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Obligation to put it under any climate controlled environment and storage. They can just pass it to the curb right after the birth of the HIV.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, they have they have six or eight days to Yes. Move everything.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Chris? I I have concerns with this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Chris.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I I was just gonna say that that if the if the objectiveness is on a shorter time frame, the writ is is served, we get possession after five days than we would, in the current law, that we have to take the belongings and store it for ten days someplace. So we can More cost. So there's a cost.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: There are costs when you go to business and

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do I'm gonna share also responsibilities for being attentive. I mean, I'm sorry. Also responsibility

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to We have very significant laws about storing tools properly. You're saying that there are other laws that guide the safe storage so that reasonably they can get their stuff without it being damaged.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Under the current law, Ms. Kesha just explained, there's three different time frames. And the storage of or allowing for access to possessions, this has one time frame.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So we're shortening that time frame?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: So we're only shortening the time frame for the period where the possession is shortened, but not for the period. So one of the session periods is fourteen days.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can we talk about?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That's fourteen days where they could go get their stuff.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And we're shorting that to immediately. So so we're shortening that to five days. Let me jump in.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You go back. You jump in.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go for it. Okay. At the end of the ejectment action, so you've got the termination, you've got the ejectment. Of course it does. Landlord plaintiff, you have the writ of possession. That has to be served by the sheriff. And then the sheriff, in each of the statutory sections, it says it's served by the sheriff, and then after a period of time, the sheriff has to come back and physically remove the person from the property if they They haven't already. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The timeframes are five, seven, or fourteen days. The court could order it longer, but statutory timeframes are five, seven, or fourteen days. What this section is dealing with here is saying after the ejectment for the eviction, what does the landlord have to do with the property, and how long does the landlord have to keep that person's property before they can dispose it? Put it to the garbage. You will throw it away. And the statute currently says that the landlord has to keep the property for fifteen days after the service of the writ. And so

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That's current law.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am. Okay. So That's the initial So one scenario is let's take the five day scenario. The service the writ is served. The landlord comes back five days later and physically removes the person. The landlord has to then maintain that property for another ten days, at least.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Good. I like that. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now let's take the fourteen day timeframe. Sheriff serves, comes back fourteen days later, executes, removes the individual from the property. If the fifteen days haven't passed, the landlord has to keep it for one more day, and at that point, can dispose of it. What this amendment is doing is it's saying, immediately upon the landlord being restored to possession so it's going to be either the five day window, the seven day window, or the fourteen day window. Immediately upon being restored to possession, you can dispose. So it impacts those shorter time frames, because if it's the five day window, you have to keep it for another ten days. If it's the seven day window, you have to keep it for another eight days. In those situations, if this amendment moves forward, they don't have to maintain the property for that additional ten days and all of the additional eight days.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This is extremely confusing, and we should talk to sheriffs. They I mean, sheriffs already have a hard enough time with evictions are hard to do. Ejectments, evictions, whatever you wanna call them, they're very hard to do. They're very hard on our our

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This isn't bureau. Yeah. But this isn't really the sheriff's check.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This this is the I don't even understand the time frame is. I think we need a very people to get the time frame.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: So I believe against this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right now people have quite a long time to get their stuff out. But again, if you're concerned about landlords losing money,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: isn't losing all of the whole month.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Landlords take on a risk when they have somebody live in their home and there's cost to that business. The the cost, one of the cost means they maintain their stuff for a period of time.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And they have storage whereas sheriffs and police often have lawsuits against them for not, for damaging something or so they don't do it properly.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay, so I just want to reflect on the fact that the eviction notice has been served. Really the question is how much longer does the landlord have to tolerate the tenant before eviction? That's set in stone. Question is, how much time is there for them to get their personal possessions out of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the out of the apartment and

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: why isn't it congruent with the person themselves leaving? They've already been notified that they're going to go.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They've already lost time with ejects.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: They've got kids. They gotta drive

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And also they they

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So is an eviction. They There's something that's going on very wrong

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: with Well, it's not an eviction. It's an ejectment. And the problem is eviction Okay. No. It's not. No. It's not fair. No. Eviction is a court process. Right. If you don't have a landlord tenant for it, then the there is no place for the person to say, I'd like to go with the sheriff on this day to get my belongings. You don't courts coordinate when people get their stuff and how long that takes. Eject ejectionment and eviction are two very different things than a person under ejectment has absolutely no day in court.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're not they're they are the same thing. That's not true. Don't think. There's no difference in an ejectment or eviction. Right. The statute the the statutory language uses the term interchangeably.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. So I think So worth me saying just a person facing ejectment doesn't have time to get their stuff? Or They have a ton of time.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They have a lot of time already.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: They have between the notice and the and the last day of the warning. And then the sheriff returns and that's then they're they're out. They should be taking their possessions by that point out.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I don't even.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: They've already gotten ahead

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: of I can't understand what the time frames are.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We've just heard the questions. Gene. Wait. Gene has input here. So for years, the only thing about once a tenant was gone, what was the landlord's duty was part of the abandonment statute, and landlords are required to store stuff for sixty days. And then a few years ago, this particular section got amended to say fifteen days since service of the writ. So eviction, ejectment cases, the statute says that once the court decides that the judgment is for the landlord that same day they issue a fourteen day writ. Right. As a point Well, not of impinging on that. Right. And so the thinking when they changed it to what it is today was, yes, what you're saying. But tenant has known that this is coming. They know when their final hearing is and that they should be preparing all along to leave unless they think they're gonna win the eviction. The problem with the shorter time frames, the seven day notice particularly, you can get a seven day writ if the case is pending and there's a motion for rent into court and a rent into court is ordered and then the tenant doesn't pay the same date or the same amount as ordered. The landlord can go into court and say, I want my writ now and can get a writ, which is just a seven day writ, which is not the whole period of time, you know, the tenant has noticed that you're out someday. This is really a very sudden thing that happens. And so in terms of saying immediately, this really puts tenants who are subject to orders for rent into court at a disadvantage. Oftentimes, if a tenant has been a day later, a dollar short with their rent into court payment and there's a writ issued, if the tenant can get legal help, we can go say to the court, please turn that around. Here's the money. Here's the time. Vacate the writ. But seven days is super short. And if they can't get legal help, even if they're ready to pay, the writ is there, and they lose all their belongings.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: They can't get a party with a truck, move the couch.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So in terms of the immediacy, the whole hearing thing, this is not much of a change. But in terms of those shorter time frames, this is actually huge.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And When

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Not only the tenants lost their home, they've lost all their belongings. Okay. This was a choice judiciary made.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm okay with being in the minority, but we're Yes. Happy to just do a straw poll on this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Problem. What are you showing us here? Pass by the

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just trying to give you a quick visual the rudimentary nature of it. Sir, the the writ is served on the individual far left. Okay? Under certain circumstances the final court decision. The court has issued that the landlord is entitled to possession to property. And they issued the landlord the writ of possession that has to be served, so the defendant is being served with the papers that they lost the case for argumentation. Right?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I pause this here? So the section is under ejectment.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's under the ejectment chapter.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. And ejectment can happen to a tenant on a lease, a tenant without a lease, but who has been on the premises for longer than thirty days

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Pretty short.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Or any person. So we don't make any differentiation. This is when a sheriff shows up and physically removes you.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that's what the red blocks are.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The reds are, but the first is the writ. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the sheriff comes and provides the defendant, who was the subject of the objectment action, Service that the landlord the writ of possession, the documents that the landlord's been filed

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: for.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Just to be clear, we haven't changed anything about any of those people's rights to a court hearing. Right. Nothing has changed.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's nothing that's been changed in the injector.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Because then we go to the no trespass action. Right. But we're not there. Do change that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. We'll talk about that in a sec.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. So the service is, again, it's delivered to the defendant, and then depending on, as I said

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, and they have to find the defendant. That's sometimes a challenge. So, it isn't active until it's actually given, and the defendant has received it. Is that correct? Correct.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, let's so, I mean, I I know what sheriffs go through, but I wanna make sure I understand that part. Okay. The service is it's it's hand delivery, but I can't remember now if the person has to sign or confirm that they've received it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Chris or Jean? Cameron, do they have to what do they have? We do acknowledge it's been accepted. Service of a writ? Yes. The it's delivered by the sheriff and the sheriff is a notary and they say, I I just gave them the writ. It's a proof of certain Yeah.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I but I I mean, this has been a a debate for years. I don't know where we have landed in terms of the sheriff has to physically find the person.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, yes.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. I I thought there was something where, like, in thirty days that they cannot Yeah. Find the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So the sheriff gives it to the person, they notarize it. So it's delivered to

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the individual, and then the statute says, depending on the statutory section where the writ was issued, so whether it's because the it's an unlawful occupant, because the individual didn't comply with the rent escrow into court, or simply because the plaintiff has won the case, the sheriff comes back five days later and physically removes that person. That's what the red bar is intended to identify. It could be five days. It could be seven days. It could be fourteen days. The statutory section we're referring to here says that the landlord has to maintain the property for a minimum of fifteen days after service of the writ. So that's what green bar is intended to identify. And so what the statute is being amended to say is upon immediate upon the landlord being restored to possession, they can immediately dispose of the property. So instead of the green bar here, and under the day five and the day seven scenario, the landlord has to maintain that property all the way out until day 15, and what the amendment says is no. On that day, right here.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: On the final day, which is five days or seven days.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could dispose of the property. So it is removing the obligation of the landlord to maintain the property out from day five to day 15 or day seven to day 15 in those scenarios.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And what determines the difference between five days and seven days?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If if the writ of possession is issued because the tenant was an unlawful occupant of the property. Then that is a five day current

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: If it's a lawful occupant, it's

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a whole week. It's fourteen days unless it's because the individual didn't comply with an order of rent escrow into court, in which case it's seven days. So we're talking about unlawful occupants having five to seven days to get out, and then lawful occupants Could be seven. Or fourteen. Up to fourteen or longer. Who orders it to be longer?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: This amendment by judiciary enables a lawful tenancy that's terminated at fourteen days to get out.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could be as short as seven days.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Might I say if we can't understand it?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think this is the Okay. Thomas, what would you say?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I I understand it. And I'm about to you just strike this section, and I just like to have the straw poll vote move on with this. But I also wanna say they disposing of it means kicking it to the curb. I think they they also still have the current authority to move

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it to a basement or somewhere else

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: in a storage facility to replace these time periods. They don't have to keep it in the apartment in the pristine shade. Right? So Okay. So I moved to strike this section.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: If I

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: lose this vote, I lose this vote.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, there we are. And Jane, do you have anything to add in terms of our understanding of this?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I think counsel has explained this. You're an unlawful occupant, that means you're an unlawful you should not have access to the property in the birthplace and you'd have

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to go to court and to

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: to then store your stuff, your belongings, for another ten days beyond that period where we've already gone through a process seems a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So difficult help me just further understand unlawful and lawful tenancy. Hold on. Unlawful and lawful tenancy. Once the writ is served, does the tenant become an unlawful tenant, or are we talking about unlawful tenants from before? Because if if what I'm understanding is a lawful tenant who has been objected, has been evicted, has up to fourteen days. You you're a lawful tenant. It's only one day less than the fourteen

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: or fifteen days.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Keeping stuff for ten I'd like you to say for thirty days. There's storage units.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not asking for that. But That's okay. You have to lose a relationship.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: You've taken on that much courtesy to your tenants.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: James is had something to add. No. I was gonna Oh, I was talking about lawful or unlawful tenant, and there's a statute that defines what that is. Right. And but I thought legislative council, he was gonna it looked like he was gonna explain for that one if you wanna know how many. Would you be kinda? Because I feel it now. Absolutely. Thank you. That's why I asked the question.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was simply gonna say you're the lawful you could be a lawful occupant up to seven days after the writ is restored. Just because it's seven days doesn't mean that you weren't a law ful occupant. The only one that's related to unlawful occupant is the five day period. The rest of the period is

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But you're asking what makes someone a lawful or Unlawful. Okay. And I think everyone should understand if we're voting on it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So a lawful tenant who is evicted is one matter. An unlawful tenant who is evicted is another matter.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: belabor An unlawful tenant is what? Thomas has patience with us.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: But to belabor the point, there are times when you have roommates and roommates move in and then they've got the stuff and the original tenants are gone and still stuck. That stuff that people, renters, need that access to. So I I don't think if it's unlawful, that's any less of a reason that the landlord should should not

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: kick it to the curb right away.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I think there's some obligations for the landlord to hold on to this stuff for the tenants to be able to get us over a period. So that's why I'm against this section and happy to lose this vote.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Cameron, are you gonna tell us what the difference is between the lawful and unlawful?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have the definition right now in front of me. You you don't have a lawful right to possession of the property. So Right. So that's an The the the easiest scenario I can give you is somebody who has self let, who never had the legal authority to self. So the substance use there doesn't have a lawful right to be there.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I will go back to short of a no trespass and a study of landlord tenant court, I'm probably just a no on the bill because we there is not even clarity on what people understand about all of the area of landlord tenant law we are touching. Well,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: there we are. So Thomas has asked for a Just to move things along.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm just trying to be time sensitive. So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To and I think we're at the top of page 10. So are you proposing to take this back to a a current law? Think it's current law or this proposal. Is that what you're suggesting? Correct. So you support current law, which requires fifteen days. The landlord can take

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I would frame it as I don't support this change to current law.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's a pro current law. But who supports current law?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Anti this change.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So wait. Let's not get into your yes or no. You're saying he On what? Change storage law or don't change storage law?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'd say that is what's in front of us.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I move to strike these changes starting on page 10 lines one down through 2015.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, is all current law, except

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for immediately. Out the immediate changes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So just keep current law. Right. Current law. Okay. So who supports current law?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Current law. So striking these changes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. And who supports keeping?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So Are you a yes on the whole bill?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, that's the question now.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: So I think the approach of posting it apart is good.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, guess what I can say is protect

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: too many things that we don't know enough about makes me a non over. Okay, let's go to trespass. Okay,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: moving to the next section, we're on page 10.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: They were almost halfway through.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The the the second

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: half will go back to the next page.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Trespass. Section four, the purpose of section five is to override. That's the only change here. It said overruled. The judiciary committee wanted to change that to override. The Vermont Supreme Court's decision of state versus Dixon allowed the landlord or dwelling unit to obtain a democrat's pass order, prohibiting the tenants invite fees or licensees from entering the dwelling unit's common areas If the person subject to the worst, finally, they turn to the lease agreement, then you would have fee. It's a guest. A guest. So then we get into section five, which is amending the unlawful trespass section. The changes that the judiciary committee made here are gonna be starting on page 12. So the bill as it came over from the house says that the landlord can issue a no trespass order, if the tenant consents to the order, the guest has violated terms of the lease agreement, or the guest has violated state or federal law while on the property. That's still here. What the judiciary committee added was added specific language to say that the landlord can issue a no trespass order if the individual has previously been ejected from the property. And then in Subdivision 2, they added language to say that for the consent of the tenant, because that's one of the conditions, you can issue the no trust asset if the tenant consents, it has to be an individualized basis. It has to be on an individual case by case sent, and that says that it's against public policy for there to be a blanket consent within a rental agreement, and any such blanket consent would be void and unenforceable. So you can't have a situation where a landlord, as part of the rental agreement, has you agree to consent to the landlord issuing a no trespass to any of your guests that they choose.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And this solves, in part, the Decker Towers issue that we had faced, a couple of years ago that we it's ongoing, but it's in large measure, this would help resolve those issues.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next thing that the judiciary committee had was in the Subdivision 3, which says that the no trespass order is enforceable for one year, and it may be renewed for subsequent one year periods. The only other change is adding the definition of premises into this section. So the primary changes, as I mentioned, landlord can issue the no trust pass if the person has been objected, obviously. Individualized consent is required, and it's only enforceable for one year.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: A deferential to the judiciary commissioner of audit to section six.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree. Agree. They did a lot of work on this and I would support this work. Chris and Gene? I do too, and I just want to clarify one

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: thing about the ability to issue a no trespass to someone that's been evicted or objected previously. It's only in the circumstances. It's not if you just haven't paid your rent, you can't then issue a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: no It's not a

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: no cause eviction, you can't then issue It's a no only for con that's either violent or torturous.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, very, very good point, and my apologies for missing that. When you look at the subdivision fee, is that the landlord can issue the no trespass if the guest has previously been ejected from the dwelling unit due to a termination on the rental agreement under nine BSA 4467 B, that's for the failure to comply with material terms of the rental agreement or because of criminal, illegal drug activity, other violent acts, so it's limited to those. So if you've been ejected because you didn't pay your rent, or if you've been ejected because of a no cause eviction, then the landlord wouldn't be able to issue you a no trespass under that scenario. So my apologies for not not mentioning that. Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So, I mean, we should very much understand this section, and, you know, to to understand the landlord tenant side of this. And when we this is a big change. Right? It's not just a big change for big housing providers. I wanna make sure people are picturing a single family home, for instance. So often when you know trespass somebody, it's good enough to know trespass them from the common areas of a multifamily housing project because you're saying you can't enter the front door, you can't enter the hallways, you can't be in the common areas, etcetera. But I need to make sure we understand this as any landlord in any dwelling unit, and that could include a single family home. And if I'm just picturing that for a minute because that is a huge it's a huge change to say a landlord can now trespass someone from going into someone's dwelling unit if we are not otherwise talking about any common spaces that are shared. And I doubt that they the judiciary addresses.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I think the madam chair madam senator, if I I've and I'm when I'm interpreting the point being made, it just it is a big policy change. It's a big And it is.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Policy change. It's big policy change. That's a That's a good for

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you to say. Understand probably the implication of the policy change.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Fred, could you talk with us about the single members here?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: The conditions still remain, and that you have to the tenant that is renting the house, called the house, has to be the one that either asks, or the person that's the guest or invitee has to be breaking the law, or

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, they have to have broken the law in the last, They violated the state of federal law on the premise. Yep. Is there nothing about the chair. Or The prejudice have been ejected. Or they're violating

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: the terms of the lease, of the lawful occupant owner, not owner, the person that's renting the place. So it's still those conditions need to be met. So I don't see the difference between a single family home or a multifamily apartment. No, I think that may I think it's still those conditions need to be

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, and I'm looking at the conditions, and so the tenant responsible consents to the order. Okay. You know, often that happens in situations of violence where the They don't want to.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Right. The next conditions meet

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. So or then they they don't want to be the one to have to consent or not. The invitee or licensee subject to the order has violated the terms of the dwelling unit's lease agreement. That could be entering the basement, honestly. I mean, lease agreements are very broad. So that that is a big one. That's a big one to say, you know, like I I mean, there are so many things you

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: could put in a lease agreement that that they could violate. But there's there's a long process before we get to this. They are already in violation I mean, if they are in violation of of the trespass Well, actually,

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: a no trespass doesn't take any long any long consideration or evidence gathering.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: These are mostly peep these are people who have been previously ejected. Right. It's not

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: all of not it's not a, it's a

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I just wanna make sure we are understanding what they're doing that

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is So it's previous, Cameron help us. Yes ma'am. Previously ejected. Yep. And. So it

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There's no ands.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. It's it's one of those four things. It's either the tenant consents, the guest is violating the lease terms while on the property, violating state or federal law while on the property, the individual guest has previously been ejected. Under any of those conditions, the landlord could have a no trespass order circuitry.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So it's the renter, it's the guest, or it's the guest who's been previously ejected.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I could maybe live with b being a pattern of violation. But otherwise, you could simply say somebody did any one of these things. They smoked outside, and they could be no trespassed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think that That's true. I don't know if that's true.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I hear I hear what you're saying. A pattern of smoking outside?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: A pattern of violation of

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: smoking I would be fine with that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: A pattern.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Counsel can probably use a word that's appropriate in statute. That incorporates a pattern. Repeated or ongoing. It's a lease violation.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would probably say repeated. So

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I just wanted clarify that.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think pattern is better because pattern, I feel like, is used in a lot more than repeated.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Think that's legislative council. I think you could well, let's come back to us with something on that. But other than that, I support this section.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm just reading it carefully. Thank you, and

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we appreciate your It's good

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: to have you. And I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: will say it this way, I can add the word repeatedly, and then it's a one word fix. Okay, can you repeat that If wanted to say pattern, I probably need to rewrite

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the whole. Okay. So then let's just add

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: the I'd like say pat. Where

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: where are you? On line 16 to 17. And you would add

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Rewrite it the same pattern. It said repeatedly My busyness. I disagree. Well, you may be,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: but you're not the lawyer. Our lawyer is our licensed professional. Said was

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: he would just insert repeatedly or he kept rewrite the whole section, and I'm proposing that a rewrite of the section is better than saying repeatedly. Well, we have time because we're looking obviously at other pieces.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And so we're gonna perhaps end as we finish the Because we have positive red blood that's a whole new section. So I would suggest that we look at, Cameron, would you weigh which is better and come back to us with her

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on Yeah, I'll talk to So we're looking at B? Think adding pattern is going to be challenging from a word perspective. I'm happy to work with you on.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. And so we're talking about b, coming back just with a rewrite on b. Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I would suggest that given our time frame that we look we have other fairly good sized pieces in this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So very quickly to move on. So when you get

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to I'd love the Just let me just finish my thought here because of our time. I would really like us if we're capable of moving out seven five seven this morning. We need some minutes to look at Cam's rewrite, but I think the rest of the bill is ready to go. Cameron, how much time do we need on seven five on the airplane on the seven five seven manufactured home? I think do we need sort of or I meant if we ended this discussion at 11:15, it's and then moved to oh, we're starting at 11:30.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think the changes I have on July or July should not take that long to review.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's take this discussion until eleven and then do is that okay? And then July to, to to Valentine. I Okay. So let's finish on this for your

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So I'm on page 12 b Okay. At the top.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Go. I I'm

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: gonna need to make sure I understand this one better to be comfortable with this one because this is clearly somebody who was a neighbor in the building, and there are now no trespass from the entire building and the person's dwelling unit, and it says under this and that, and I don't know if that's kind of, you know, all of the possibilities of of why they were they were ejected due to a termination of a rental agreement. That could be for non payment of rent.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it's limited to the sub D.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, that's what I'm

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: trying understand. This is what the judiciary committee was looking at as well, and so you're correct, Madam Center. It is the individual, the guest, has previously been ejected from a dwelling unit on the premises, so it could have been someone's neighbor, probably the most likely scenario.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Which I'm talking about that. Due

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to a termination of a rental agreement under 4,004 and 67 B. So the committee had that discussion that you were just phrasing. Some of the senators on the committee said, Why would we allow the exclusion of the individual as a guest because they were evicted due to a no cause eviction, for example? So the committee decided to limit it to just termination under the breach of the rental agreement, they said Section B, so it has to be a termination because the tenant is failing to comply with material terms of the rental agreement or with the obligations imposed under the chapter or because the termination is based on criminal activities, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence which threaten the health or safety of other residents. If the ejectment is under one of those two scenarios or one of those two reasons for termination, then the landlord could issue a no traffic password.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So for the same reason that I struggle with B, I would limit this to B, too?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Further limiting it? It's a policy decision for you all. You all as the generalist. Is it a good

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: or a bad policy decision?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Not my decision, sir. Okay.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Let's If keep we're strong hold, I agree with you, sir.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not sure I fully understand.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'd love to see that language come back. Are you meeting Monday that we're gonna work

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: on this one? No. We're meeting Monday at the moment on 02:30. There are lots of concerns about about

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: issue of five discussion. So we are still

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. We're we're no. I had just said it was You didn't seem like Yeah. Yeah. Okay. The one thing I will I'd I'd like to say on this before we talk about 02:32. So can can you just explain what you just said, Kesha?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That we write b two. That we limit the ejection to bives.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it would be so on this line three, it would simply be

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: adding So I'm on page 12, are we back on page 12? Page line

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: three, we would add two after four thousand four and sixty seven, so it would be four thousand four and sixty seven(two), and that would further limit the ability of the landlord to issue the no trust pass due to an objection through only the judgment actions that are brought based on criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence, which threaten to help protect you. But there were other reasons that wasn't included, Chris?

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I think this is the intent. Okay, that's So

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it would be 4467B2. Right, fine. Okay. And then we're going to look at language on the repeated ends. Repeated words. Okay. So Let's move then to positive for entertainment. So the Oh, do you wanna do a straw poll? No. No. I I'd wait.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Was not a straw poll

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: to my point. I'm just still reading.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Unless we want a straw poll.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'd like to see the language of Kesha.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I would just like to flag for finance that this has a different definition of dwelling unit than what you're looking at in September. That's drives me nuts.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know. But that is an undecided thing. We have to move on.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I'm just whacking it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Fine. Let's move to Positive Page

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 13 all the way through page 17 is the Positive Rental Payment Pilot Program that I think you're all really familiar with, which worked of the Office of the State Treasurer. My recommendation to you at this point is if you're not funding the program in the budget, I would simply remove this because it has the language that it says. There's no obligation to do the pilot if there's no funding. I think the state treasurer's office has been very clear they can't do the pilot without funding. So Yeah. I keep it. I think it's confusing for the public if you have it here or if you

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have need it clarity, though. This was, I believe, included in the house budget. Know. It wasn't included in either budget.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Governor's budget? Not to my knowledge.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. No. No.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Governor senate budget? Not to my knowledge.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But I would have taken

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The the only thing I will I will offer It's a great program. I think Because the treasurer has been good at these things in the past, though it has been frustrating that we did baby bonds, is that we allow them to accept a non state funded contribution for achieving this pilot. They're not in the room, so I would just offer that that is something we can do when we can't come up with the money, is see if they can get a economic empowerment foundation to to do this kind of thing, for example, or a donor. But because I I have always cared about the section. I we've we've all time to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I'm not a peer

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the amount of support

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of this section. I will ask them. So why don't you ask them and see if they are okay with that? Otherwise,

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: let's And and you may have other you may have three members who are not okay even if it's funded by somebody else, but that is something I'd like

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to put on the table. If you'd be kind enough to check that with the treasurer's office, that would be great as well because there are at least two of us who have supported this from the beginning. It's a it's a very I mean, it really is a great way for renters to build credit score given that we've just talked about credit score and how important it is for getting a Columbia apartment in the first place. Good. So now we're

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on page 17, the bottom of page 17. Oh my god. Looks like racing. There's this section related to the security deposit transition period, which is intended to say that if a landlord has a security deposit that exceeds the two months rent, so you're putting the cap in statute of two months rent. If a landlord has a security deposit that is more than two months rent, the landlord can maintain that security deposit until the termination of the rental agreement if the rental agreement was in effect prior to the effective date of the act. It's just saying if you're if you're holding someone's security deposit that's greater than the two months grant, you don't need to give part of that back to them to be in compliance with that section. Simply have to comply with the security deposit law and provide it back in that first upon termination.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And once again, I know I'm changing security deposit law because it affects a lot of other areas of law.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So section kinda corresponds with the security deposit above if you're gonna take that out or change that So what did judiciary do? With this? They they made some minor changes based on

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But they kept it. They supported it by keeping it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I think this is an area that they feel is the jurisdiction Even though in their purview.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Without endorsements, they would send it to us.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think they would say it's in your jurisdiction, not their jurisdiction. I don't want to speak with them, but Did we straw pull tubers to remove the two months

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: thing earlier? We did not. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We should do that. Okay, the next piece, to keep you going real quick to get to the end, page 18, next section is the Landlord and Education and Technical Assistance Program, CBOEO, similar to the pilot program for credit reporting. My understanding is this was not funded in the budget, and if that is the case, my recommendation for you would be to remove the language.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Was it contingent upon being funded? Because I believe there is some work already going on in terms of landlord tenant education. Chris or Jane, anybody who knows about this, I think there's some work going on.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: This was I I all I know is this was not funded in the budget. Right.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But the okay. I'll say still

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: a good thing to to to move forward with.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It took me until this year to realize this is Tenants Bank. Right? Like, which was called twenty years ago when it was that, people leave. It is the only hotline. It now is housed in CBOEO. It's the only hotline where people can get information about their rights and responsibilities. Don't you have a hotline? Great book.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Doesn't legal aid have a hotline? I would say as of this moment, we're not very hot with answering the questions because you're overwhelmed. Legal Services Vermont has lost funding on legal aid. It has lost funding. So, no, we're not answering the phone for all the questions. People call and we call them back. Right. That's not So at the moment, CDOEO is taken this on or not. Have they done it and no longer doing it?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, they have taken over this tenant a. This this tenant legal info like, they because they testify. Well, I'm trying to understand once it left legal aid, if they're obligated to if they have a lawyer on staff. So they're not providing legal advice. They're just providing information about the law.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And resources of

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: it to And this whole section's contingent on an appropriation, which doesn't exist. I was worried that they are unfunded or losing funding for

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The hotline I don't think so. They can't

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: do anything. So but this is a need that needs so this is maybe another piece for the court to look at it. Like, how do we regrets addressing these Okay. Place for people's Yeah. Courts don't do exactly. Well, courts are being asked to do a lot here, you'll see in the report. Okay. So our next is our housing court studies.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Technical training. Do you wanna keep this in or remove it?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Sorry. Technical training. I think remove it with no funding. Okay. Is that okay with everybody? What? Remove section nine with no funding. Okay,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so now we get to the Statewide Housing Board's report, section 11 on page 19. On or before 01/31/2027, court administrators shall submit to the General Assembly a report on the feasibility of implementing a dedicated active document in Vermont for handling all matters governing residential rental agreements under nine BSA Chapter 137 and Injection Actions under 12 BSA Chapter 169. The report shall include an examination of

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I ask a question

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: before we go on? Sure.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Did they I'm just curious. Did they have a discussion of just focusing on residential rental agreements?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not while I was in the Okay.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think that's the best practice. I just Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Then we can testify with the court in the courts of their work. I think that that we we can we

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: having them in?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't think unless people feel we have to. I think that this is the work judiciary to do.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: Well, does say page 19 line five, governing residential.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. I circled that. That's what I'm saying. So it's I just didn't know if they had discussion about other landlord tenant law, which governs nonresidential. Right. But this is

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the majority, I think, of the concerns in this bill.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I know. I'm just wondering if they got a conversation, and I do think we need to talk to.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You can talk to another and ask her.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I are we gonna

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have judge Soveign? No. We're gonna try and move this bill in the next couple days after we address the issues that we have. It is Terry's charge, and I believe Terry has taken this on. And I think that we Willing? We

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, Terry Korson. It was, like, Tara Bill? Like, I'm sorry.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Willing. Is really know if she paused. We never

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: heard of negative. We're just you know, an indicator. I don't know.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, we can ask people We to can't go to the Well, mean, of course he is not,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: but believe it would be here. The court had objected.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I've been asking for a month or more to have the court to then testify.

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: I know we're under a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. No, no, we're

[Senator David Weeks (Clerk)]: This is a great, potentially a great opportunity to raise. It would be possibly appropriate to have almost every Absolutely, chair

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we're happy to have Eric present. I'm just saying, let's

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I think it's a great idea. I think we ought to ask her before we try to present something on the

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Of Of

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: course. We have a lot of other things. We're coming back to review. Clearly, we're not passing without today. Give me a break. So would you be kind enough,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cameron, to just finish this section? Yes. So the first thing that we're forward looking at, financial costs of implementing a dedicated housing document in Vermont, workforce impact of a dedicated housing document, including the number of judges and staff necessary to resolve all ejectment actions statewide within ninety days following the filing of the complaint meet the timelines outlined in 12 BSA Chapter 169 for expedited hearings and resolve the judgment actions brought due to the termination of a rental agreement under B2 within twenty one days from the date of filing of the complaint.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So this It's called a residential rental agreement docket in the first paragraph, and then the rest of it calls it a housing docket.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I just refer to it as a dedicated docket in the first section for handling matters of residential rental agreement, and then refer to it as the housing docket throughout. We can take out housing. No.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think we I I I think many of us would like to have a complete housing docket.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: That is a policy question. That wait. That is our discussion.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you're limiting what they're looking at as far as what you wanna title the docket. Is just the report, would You would obviously title it whatever you all would prefer if you put something in statute separately.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, I would say, let's say we're just talking about what it should be called in the future, like LRRP. It is concerning to call it a housing docket while we have the environmental report and while we have other housing matters taken up. Most I think most states call it eviction diversion or some other form of discussion of residential rental agreements, if that's what this is limited to. I'm not comfortable

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: buying it. We're quoting opinion and we're inviting Terry and Yeah. Way.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But I hope we don't feel like personally No. Anything, Cameron. I'm struggling with the building.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You call it you call it whatever docket

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you want. Just struggling with this period. Okay. So Clearly I mean, a housing I think, in all fairness, this committee has supported the notion of a housing court for a long time that would see your appeals. It would be a much bigger Yeah. Court. So some of us are very keen on that long term. Well Right now, we're dealing with landlord tenant law. We're we're looking at a rental Right. More a a very focused rental docket at the moment that could perhaps, given the time and the resources, be expanded.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I just wanna make sure that people are also appreciating the full scope that, for example, Burlington has a tiny quasi judicial entity called a housing review board, but they almost exclusively focus on security deposits. They do not handle other So we really should try and make sure at some point we're on the same page about Right. What this diversion board would be. So we gotta finish because we're gonna try and get

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: some So, the report is intended to look at is resolving all objection statewide ninety days, complying with the current expedited hearing time frames, and then creating a further expedited hearing for determinations under (two) within twenty one days. Also looking at the impact of other court staff with the implementation of this dedicated, I'll just call it, docket for now. Moving to page 20, whether current state facilities have the capacity to support, whether new or expanded facilities would be required, whether current technical capabilities within the judiciary can handle virtual statewide implementation, and any other matter deemed relevant to the issues of implementing a statewide housing docket, or whatever you want to call it. Sub B here, the report shall include information on legal issues to consider and requiring an expedited hearing for a judgment brought due to termination of a residential rental agreement under (two), including how the court would determine that a tenant is an ongoing threat to the health or safety of others if that were to be a condition upon which an expediting hearing would be allowed. There was discussion in the judiciary committee about limiting those rejectments that are due to some sort of violent acts, of whether those acts should be of an ongoing nature.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, this is a dangerous tentative.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so whether it should have to be an ongoing threat to the other individuals, and so they're asking, or the intention of this language was to ask the court to provide you all with information on how the court would go about making that determination in an expedited hearing. So this

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: was instead of addressing the dangerous tenant, they chose to put this into the court into the court's judgment. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: on page 20, line six and seven, I would just want to make this more specific in terms of if they're gonna go beyond the scope of residential rental agreement. Let let's, for the moment, look at this and figure out the language around a residential rental docket because it's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think Well, even if

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: we call it a residential rental matters, residential rental, I want the court to be able to come back and say, you know, we feel like if we went through all this trouble, we'd wanna go beyond residential rental to You claim our

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: include that as part of the report, you're saying, like, whether or not to include additional matters within Yeah. This

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: don't like the entire, you know, of the plan. Is there anything you'd like to add? We could say that, but I would change that section or make it more specific to do do they think this court should have a scope beyond residential rent relief payments?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Let's finish up, and then let's I think we're on b we were on b four, or have turned the page?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I believe that that that's where we're at. So looking at how to determine, this is under the sub B1234, how to determine if it's an ongoing threat for the expedited hearing, whether there are procedural issues with beginning the timeframe with the filing of the complaint versus service of the answer, how the court would determine that damage to the dwelling unit is a threat to the health or safety of others. That was discussion among the judiciary committee about whether or not damage to the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: dwelling It's unit not just damage to the dwelling unit.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Damaged to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: the whole community, as we heard from Gene. We had the best testimony on this from Gene Risman.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So under p two, where it says criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence, there was proposal on the house side to include the words damage to the dwelling unit. Right. There was discussion among the judiciary committee about whether or not damage to the dwelling unit should rise to the level of having an expedited hearing within twenty four days, and how does damage to the dwelling unit actually threaten other people. Right. So that's what this is intended to for.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: A lot of residents, they haven't given it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then whether there are procedural issues with shortening a time frame for termination of the residential rental agreement. Moving to the top of page 21, in developing the report, the court administrator shall work to balance the needs of interested parties in making recommendations, including balancing the rights of tenants, the landlord's property interests, and the safety of other tenants' purposes. You. Dated 07/01/2028, Christmas. It's a privilege. Thank you. I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we I I think just given all that we're to go to Monday. So we're meeting Monday, nine to eleven on Zoom. We have intended to just address 02:30. I would propose that we spend the first hour addressing s 02:30 and the pluses and minuses of including the change that the house made to include noncompetes or whether we it's extremely thorny. And as as both the chair and vice chair, we're gonna have the chair of house commerce in to talk about how full that field is of mines. So it is a minefield that we may or may not have time to address and and actually deal with that next year. The other half of it, I would propose we begin to look at the changes in this bill and have Terry Horizons come in to discuss the court the court study and to address the other changes that we have discussed and begin that discussion. Then on Tuesday, we have a PBD at the moment. Correct. And we'll do this bill at that time also. We'll have an hour to do it. I will only get an hour and a half each day unless you're willing to start at 8AM on Wednesday and Thursday.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So then I would just I think I was the one trying to untie the knot on the knot in Keith. And, like, if if the whole conversation is, are we gonna do it this year or not? Yep. That time might be better spent on this if I'm the only one who was trying to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: take Well, I think two sets of interest.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean but I I'm rethinking how much time you spend on that if you actually wanna go positive with them.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So I I think we need there are two things in front of us on this. Is one is the noncompetes that have been raised, which is evidently a much bigger conversation, and particularly if we wanna talk about features, it it's evidently ripe with challenge. And the second, which we'll hear about, but the second is the VSEA request. And it's got and Sophie may have a a way for us to work that through. Although, sadly, we have heard from Bloomberg, I did we did go and discuss whether it was germane to the bill, the labor bill we have at the moment. So it has been John felt it was probably not germane. We can, as a committee, of course, decide that it is. I just wanted to put that out there for you as we talk about it. I would give if we're not gonna discuss the noncompletes and a little input on this, we could do forty five minutes on 02:30 and the rest on housing. On What's 02:30? I thought that was not No. It's the labor bill. It's got other pieces in it, and it's got the request about the VSEA. So, I mean, there are we have to land agreeing with the house or not agreeing with the house, and then I would devote the rest of the time to doing seven seven two. I'm not gonna yeah. And then we hopefully, we can do seven five seven right now, and then we can finish up on seven seven five on Wednesday. And we also have s three twenty seven coming already, the economic development bill. And we will at some point have the S three twenty eight, the housing bill coming back to us from that. So we have to deal with all those. I think we have permission to go through Friday for an hour and a half each day unless people I would ask them to think about Wednesday, Thursday, Friday starting at eight if you wanted. I can appreciate if eight is too You other attendees too, think Yeah. Know. I know. And I know we're gonna have conference committees, and so we're gonna have to work around that too. Yeah. So at the moment, we're scheduled for 08:30 to ten because floor is 10:00 every day. On Tuesday, however, given many of us are commuting up to the State House. Kiera, can

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you do invites for each of those days with Zoom links embedded in them?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Because sometimes you have to be on a way. I appreciate that. Unless people wanna start at 08:30 on Tuesday, But I'm happy to start nine to ten Tuesday. We're doing nine to eleven on Monday, and then 08:30 to ten each of the other days.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I might be a little late on Monday. It's Sibley Teacher Day under childcare.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: It's not sibling teacher day.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: It's a You're

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I mean, you gotta tell the. Okay. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we're ready to shake up our brains and go back to Bill, I think we're ready to land. We just thought maybe In the airplane. That's why I'm using the airplane language, seven five seven. It is the manufactured housing bill we heard from Gail yesterday, and we asked Cameron to draft They some work on this because it's unresolved. These corporations, David Hall, made it very clear that these are for profit businesses functioning and it's something always to be considered nonprofits. And so to that end, I think we agreed to move ahead with the way things are happening, currently clarifying that and then asking for this additional work to be done. Cameron, would you be kind enough to address where we are and sort of David Weeks feedback also and the suggestion of a way to look who's gonna look at it and come back to us for regular? Sure.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so I drafted up an amendment based on the conversation that you all had yesterday, had a conversation with David Hall, and just wanted to clarify a few pieces Thank you. For discussion.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thanks to everybody. Have a good weekend too.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in July, we're talking about the limited equity cooperative of all parties. Right? Yeah. And there was a question, a discussion about some of them are listed as nonprofit entities of the secretary of state, some of them are not. Discussion about that indication of nonprofit status being able to allow those entities access to funds that other entities may struggle to access, and so trying to resolve that issue. And there was conversation you've had conversation a few times now about, oh, why aren't we just registering that it's not in prominence? They do serve a public purpose. In statute, that is listed what the public purpose is. These entities cannot be listed in the Secretary of State's business registration system as nonprofit entities because they are not organized as a nonprofit corporation. Separate from that is an entirely separate thing of whether they get tax exempt status with the IRS. That is not a state matter. Right.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That is not necessary to be able to be considered. But we don't know that fully, which is part of why we're asking for this.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The organization of a nonprofit at the state level is about how the corporate entity is set up and how it operates. And so the Secretary of State's office at this point has been very clear that these entities are not nonprofit organization types, and they're not designed to be, and the staff doesn't allow them to be nonprofits. Why are some of them registered that way? I think they've testified pretty clearly that that is an error that Historical failure. That's what I recall. Right. And so it is somewhat problematic to just unilaterally go in and then alter certain things within the So registration you don't wanna do that. The point I'm just making is this discussion and this point about should they be all made to be nonprofits, etcetera, they shouldn't because their organization type in your statutes is a cooperative housing corporation. That's what they are, And that's what the Secretary of State's office is organizing them as at this point moving forward. So then you get the question of, well, we want to make sure that they can access certain funding sources that the state offers. How do we make

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: sure And that's a range, remember. That could be AOP for a road. Exactly. That could be water, sewer. Exactly. It could be lighting. It could be internet. There's a whole range of grant opportunities they might be needing.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so the question is really dependent on what those funding sources are designed to provide money for. Do they require tax exempt status? Do they require some sort of service of a public purpose, etcetera? It's gonna be dependent on whatever that funding source is. So what we've done

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: For the population it serves because as we have discovered, the equity limited cooperatives are for housing of low and moderate income people. That makes many of these communities eligible for some of these grants independent of those technical corporate statements. It It could. But hospital. So But all this is clear as mine. Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what I've done based on the conversation that you all were having is I've done a few amendments. First off, first amendment here, so we're just looking at what the amendment would be if you all wanted to amend the bill. First, you'd be adding in a sun setting. Removing this That was Randy's idea. So you've added so the bill adds in this b one, which says that a mobile home park that is a limited equity cooperative shall be treated for purpose of state funding and grants as if it were incorporated as a state nonprofit corporation for public purpose and public benefit under the laws of the state. That will resolve the problem if the funding source requires that the entity receiving the funding be organized at the state level as nonprofit. That would solve that problem. But as we've discussed, without knowing what all these funding sources are and without knowing what all their eligibility requirements are, etcetera, it may not solve the problem It for certain funding may or may not. All this section is saying is you're gonna be treated as if you're incorporated as a nonprofit for state funding and grants. Give you an example. Let's say the state funding and grant says you can't give the money to a state nonprofit. I can't imagine why a state funding source would do that, but just humor me. If the funding source says this money doesn't go to state nonprofit entities, this section isn't gonna help them access those dollars. So you have this in, here's the sunset that's being added, separate from that, you have this report, Second instance of amendment, new section, section eight report. Department of Housing and Community Development, 11/15/2026, in consultation with the agency of administration, ANR, AOT, shall submit a written report to the committees of jurisdiction here identifying all state funded grant and loan programs available to mobile home parks for infrastructure improvements. With an analysis on the eligibility and regulatory barriers prohibiting access to the funds for mobile home parks registered as limited equity cooperatives. You want the answer to what are the barriers for these organization types to be able to access state funding and grants, that's what that report is specifically What intended to give you the information are the fundings, and what are the barriers that are prohibiting these entities from accessing? That is what? I added in that the Secretary of State should provide technical support as necessary to DHCD. I have not run this by the Secretary of State, I haven't run this by DHCD. Just so

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: you know, I don't know whether

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But they should DHCD support has a mobile home park unit.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, ma'am, they do. And they are best equipped to really take leadership of this. And so my thought was, the reason I added the V, was if they're doing an analysis of the eligibility and regulatory barriers that may prohibit access for these entities, the Secretary of State's office could help them identify what these entities are.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we also talked about tax, the tax department.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, yes, ma'am. I am discussing with you first thing before testimony this morning. I realized I had not included the Department of Tax if you feel that that would be, although the Department of Taxes exist under the agency of administration. So I think you're actually okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay, right, we have a consultation with the agency of administration, right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, and so then the third instance of amendment, we've changed the effective date because you got that sunset, so effective date's July 1 except '5 and '6, which relate to sales and use tax. Is as the bill came over, this hasn't been changed.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But then we had Electric fees that finances go. What

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I had to do was add the lines three there, so that and section 3A, which is the repeal, takes effect 07/01/2028, two year sunset. So you get the report back, gives you a biennium to potentially either keep the language if you feel that that's the best way of addressing the barriers that these entities face, or it gives you the biennium to target those grant and funding opportunities if you feel that there's something that needs to be changed.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Or if you just go to the fabrics, how much money we're gonna lose by virtue of the fact that it's gonna take us two years to fix this. That just seems like an excessive amount of time. And one of the questions is, is this the kind of thing you do with a subcommittee for and you're ready to go next year, That's done with a year, I don't know how much money we're talking about. That's against somebody who went to hell, but why do we have to fool with this thing for a few years before they can it to suit the point?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, we're not, we're asking it back this November.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I think you're you're putting this in place Yep. With the possible sunset in two years and asking for the report, and senator, I'm gonna speak for you, but I assume what you're saying is, hey. Let's just get the information over the summer and come back and fix it once.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Then Should be ready.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So getting rid of the sunset?

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Oh, what the sunset is? It should go away then. No, no, what should go away?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Hopefully once we fix it, this is an opportunity we want everyone who has a limited equity collaborative to be able to participate.

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I mean, take advantage of it. Agree. I agree.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, so I would say the report's enough and then get rid of the sunset. I I I would support that.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We have the impression you wanna keep the sunset in case the there's the issue with adding this into statute.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Then if we're gonna keep this done, I would put in 27 after they've done this report and after we've hopefully changed the law and see how it's working. Is that okay?

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: That was the intent. The sunset was to force us

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: to get on with it rather than dragging it out. No. I appreciate it. That's why we have the date So on the

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want the sunset to be point seven. Correct. I think that made the interest of misunderstanding on my part.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't think we were fully clear at that point. So I think we're getting there.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So I will change that to 2027. I

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: would welcome a motion to move h seven five seven as amended with in the first points. Check. It was three second. Third. Yes. Third in the three instances of amendment with and they would be draft I'm supposed to do it as

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: one point two? One point two. It would be dated May 8. Oh my god. Was that as described by the chair.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That work? What?

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Because it's so moved as described by the chair.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So moved as described by the chair. I would accept that motion. Senator Clark. And with the understanding this the fees all the fees that are discussed in this bill are going to finance. And we'd sort of agree given our time frame. So

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: this So this bill's going to finance? Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we draft 1.2?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas speaks of you have coffee. Senator Weeks. One one just wanna make sure we so the amendment is 1.2. The bill that we're laying the amendment on top of is draft 2.2? Is eight no. H757 has passed by now. Correct. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Senator Brock? Yes. Senator Chittenden? Yes. Senator Wiggins? Yes.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Who would like to reprimand? I've already taken on one bill that no one else

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: around to so glad to do it.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Unless somebody else really wants ma'am.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas Chittenden. Thank you.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm gonna get a really good section. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And David Holt's letter. Sentence, sectional sectional sectional. Yes. We are very grateful for sections by sections. In case we haven't already said that you're the candidate.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you like me to now pivot you to seven seven five? Or I think we have a little

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: long little punch down. We have a

[Senator Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: high finess to go away.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have six minutes. You're working.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: You have great endurance and stamina, though, Cameron. Thank you for all of this.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: You're welcome. Yeah. We're very grateful. I I as much as I would love to get seven seven five out of here I mean, if I I I just if we wanted to quickly review I mean, we do have a few minutes. What is It's the housing bill, though. It's the housing bill. Oh, And we have made a number of changes to it. I just I think we just are gonna need some time to to review it, Cameron, if you don't mind. I think we will do that on we'll figure out which day to do it on. Just, ma'am, five minutes. Totally understood.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I just can't stress enough. Like, even if the Zoom links populate every next day, I need this on my calendar so nobody else asks me for this. I can't help you. Just put Karen. Right now we're yeah. Because

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we will take this up either Monday or Tuesday just with Cameron, if we

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could do a quick review. Yes, ma'am. Just remember, I will be You're not available Tuesday. Tuesday. Yes, ma'am. But Monday is let's just talk to her.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Monday's fine. Oh, so Tuesday, you can't be here with us. So we will do other non housing things. We'll have Yes, miss Chittenden. So we okay. We'll do okay. Thank you.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can make another request here? Can you make it?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna go to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: my website and

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: check it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: wanna. Even if it's tentative, but then it's not that day. Yeah. We have to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: have it by the end of today.

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I mean, in the calendar. Because, like, then we will keep changing, and that's what I used to do. So it's really helpful to have the changed agenda, especially from here in person on Monday, to have the most up to date agenda in the

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We have been trying to do that online, obviously, for all of us to just check it online. Are you asking to appropriate it in Oh, really?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Calendar. Don't know.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We do. Regard.

[Senator Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Could you have everything?

[Senator Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Let's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: go