Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Man, spring is springing.

[Katharina Lozayas (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Spring is springing and you are live.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Great, welcome. Oh, I don't see the red dot, but that's okay, I guess. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs. We're meeting remotely. It is Monday, May 18, and we are here to hopefully land our landlord tenant bill H. H772. And we have a new draught to consider that has, I believe, addressed what we can address. And there are a couple of things that we were still discussing, Cameron, our legislative council, will address as we hit them during the course of reviewing the draft we have in front of us. We ask that anybody who had concerns about the draft be in touch before this meeting. And I have heard from nobody. So Cameron, I think if we could just check off sections and go through it, I think that would be great because I have the feeling we may be ready to pass it out with the exception of that ninety day discussion, which I just think we have to have because it hits a couple of legal issues.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would be happy to, the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. I just did a round draft 2.2. This is a draft of the most recent amendment that I received back from our editing team. It has been edited and so that is the version that I'm going to reference.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, can you just, sorry Cameron, I hate to interrupt, but can you just tell us how it differs from the draft 2.1, which you circulated?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's just been edited, so there are a few minor changes throughout the document to you know ensure that those wording matches our drafting style. Okay, great. You know, but the the kind of primary, I would say the the biggest change is in the third instance of amendments which I'll I'll mention in a second when we get there because you can probably see that the the age number has increased from the draft two. One that I presented previously. But I'll I'll mention it when I get there. So okay.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm gonna share.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I I will Great. Go for it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Second. But I'm sharing. Okay. So in the first instance of amendment, this is where we've kind of left off the past times that that we were meeting and discussing. It is striking out section one of the underlying bill and the report of the judiciary committee, and you've removed most of the references or most of the sections that were in the bill as it came over from the house, from the residential rental agreement chapter. So, as I mentioned previously, this is removing the cap on rent increases, the cap on security deposits, etcetera. So what we have here is what remains, making amendments to the termination and the requirements for termination of a tenancy Based on the conversation that we were discussing just last week, I've added in, I've added back in this Subdivision 3 regarding information that's required to be provided. And I just want to pause here for a second and I want to get back to the discussion that we were having last week. You all asked if there was information that was required to be provided in a notice to terminate. And what I said, and I want to be clear, that there's nothing in the statute. The only thing that the language in these residential rental agreement chapter requires is that the notice has to include the actual date of termination and it has to be provided by giving actual notice and actual notice requires that the individual defendant tenant has to have received it.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Now, the statute is silent. Now, the courts have added some additional kind of requirements here. So, in if you're terminating a rental agreement for non payment of rent, you have to inform the tenant that they have the right to cure if they pay the amount of rent that is outstanding due through the current rental period. So, because the statute allows the tenant to cure through the current rental period, you as a landlord need to provide the tenant with information on how much money would have to be paid in order to cure. That's, that would be kind of, required via the implication of the language in the statute, so that is information that has to be provided. Separate from that, the court has articulated in a decision that the there are principles that the tenant cannot speculate and I'm quoting from the case. The tenant cannot be put in a position of having to speculate on the meaning and legal effect of landlord's actions in a quote. So by reading into that, you can also, I think, argue that a landlord is required to provide the tenant some level of basic information on what the termination is for. If you're going to terminate because of the reach of the rental agreements, you're going to need to specify under what provision and provide them with the date of termination, how much time frame they have left, and you're probably going to need to give them some basic level of understanding of what they did, what the tenant did that is giving cause for the termination. You then ask me, well, exactly what needs to be required, I would say back to what I mentioned at the very beginning. The statute doesn't specify, so it's really gonna be a fact specific scenario and, you know, I don't have anything from the Supreme Court that I can point to you to say, this is exactly what's required. So if that's kind of the current framework that we're dealing with. Again, nothing required in statute. However, the courts have articulated that tenants need to have some, you know, base level of understanding so they're not left to speculate on, you know, what they're being terminated for and what is the legal effect of the termination. So what this sub three would do that you have on lines eight through 11 is for a termination for the breach of a rental agreement under subsection B which if you recall, there's a B one which is for breach of the material terms of the rental agreement or for obligations imposed under the chapter and then there's the B two which is a termination based on criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence or bill as it came over from the house. So, I inserted it here. And I'm happy to pause there because, I don't know that we've spent, much time discussing this language, so I'll pause for here and take any questions.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I have a David. Oh, I need that. Sorry.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. I was trying to grab the statutory section just in case you guys wanted to reference back to it, but hang on. Yep. There you go.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Kesha, are you virtual or are you in the room?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We're all virtual? Yeah, yeah. I'm not in the committee room.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. No, Cameron's in the committee room. Just couldn't tell. David, you have a question.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: I'm just curious about the relevance of the word affidavit. What's that really mean? If I was a landlord, do I have to go to the court to get an affidavit? Or is it a self attested document?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can give me one second. It's, you know, it's essentially a a legal document that you are, you know, swearing to the the truth and the accuracy of it. I don't think

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: it's Sorry.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Lost the language again. Can Yeah. Hear put can somebody? I don't know how to help you Cameron, make sure you can look at your notes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, that's okay. Got it.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Plus the screen share.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it is a, you know, written document that you as the individual producing it are swearing to its accuracy. This is, you know, typically going to be used in the court context because, you know, you can perjure yourself if you are providing, you know, inaccurate statements in a legal proceeding and there are, you know, legal effects and legal consequences that come with that. I think the key here is that you are providing this affidavit. It wouldn't, I would argue, wouldn't be required to take any exact form.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, that's kind of my question.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There what I would say, though, to to keep going further, there's some changes down here below. My apologies for the scroll. So in this section here, which is on page five, this would require that a copy here on line six, a copy of the affidavit would have to be attached to the complaint that would be filed in an objectment action. So you as the individual, you know, landlord who's providing that information, you know, there ultimately would be consequences if you're falsifying the information in the document because you have to include a copy of it with the complaint to the court if you got through an objectment process.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I just triple check the we're talking about an individual who has a lease agreement or is I mean, this is where I think I still have a fight with finance, but this is only if you have a written rental agreement, not if you are a long term tenant by virtue of staying longer than a month?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Vermont statutes do not require that a rental agreement be in writing, so it could be a written agreement or it could be a verbal agreement, and this would apply in a situation where you as the landlord are wanting to terminate the agreement for breaching the terms of the agreement, it would not apply you would not have to include an affidavit for terminating a rental agreement due to nonpayment of rent.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you're terminating the rental agreement for no cause, simply because you you want that individual to no longer be living there and you're terminating it at the conclusion of the rent of the written term, or if there is no written term, then you have to provide sixty or ninety days notice, but you do not need cause, so you would not be required to include this type of affidavit under those scenarios.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So this affidavit is only, we are now looking at requiring this if you are going to terminate the lease before the end of the lease agreement, before the end of the lease period, whether it's verbal or written, that understanding of what

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, right. So as I've kind of mentioned, think about it this way. If you have a written agreement or you're month to month and the landlord wants to terminate at the conclusion of the written term or if you're month to month and the landlord simply wants to, you know, terminate the agreement with you such that you have to leave, then, the landlord has to provide a certain notice period but they don't have to give any cause, any reason. They just have to make sure that they're giving you either thirty, sixty, or ninety days as the statutory scenarios require. That would be, you know, thirty or sixty days before the expiration of the written term, or sixty or ninety days if you're in a month to month with no written agreement. If you have a written agreement, whether it's excuse me, let me back up. If you have a rental agreement, whether it's in writing or not, you can also terminate because of non payment of rent and then, if you want to terminate because the person is reaching a rental agreement, Right. Then a scenario that would be under B. If it's

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: B, B one and two.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. And that could be if there is a written agreement in the middle of the term of the written agreement or it could be if there is no written agreement and you're simply wanting to provide a shorter notice period because the the B two, for example, comes with a much shorter notice period than doing a no clause eviction. In some instances, landlords will move forward with both. They may terminate the rental agreement for cause because of breach of the rental agreement. And then if you, you know, you don't have a written agreement, so you're month to month, they may also terminate the agreement for no cause, and they may use both of those bases to move forward.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So this is adding, this is really giving tenants, helping tenants understand why the landlord is moving to a victim in the middle of a lease agreement. Right? I mean, that's what this does. This ensures that the-

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Yes. And once it's in writing, it it's a it gives them more ability to go seek out information about their rights Exactly. Than they would be able to otherwise.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Agreed. Thomas, you have a question.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Cameron, I know you've gone over this, I wanna I just confirm. When they have a lease agreement and they come up with this reason, will this then justify differing amounts of time while they're in a lease agreement? Could this possibly, based on that reason, the affidavit be ninety days versus thirty days versus fifteen days?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Give me give me one second, because I wanna pull up the statute in this regard for this conversation, for this piece.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Cam, we again lost the screen there, which you may choose something else to show us in a second, but I just want to let you know what was I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: wanted to pull up a statute specifically. So if the landlord is terminating the agreement under B1 or B2, that comes with a thirty day notice period or a fourteen day notice period. And so, you know, the the landlord can provide a longer period if the landlord so chooses. It just has to be at least fourteen days or at least thirty days if you're terminating the agreement for breaching the rent agreement. This is what the affidavit would apply to are these two scenarios. Any other scenario, the landlord would not be required to provide this level of information.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. Can I ask a question there? Yeah. We're talking about termination for these two reasons, you are filing an affidavit in court. Hence, it's an affidavit because you're submitting it to the court. For everything else, you're just hand delivering or certified mail to the tenant.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct, I would say one thing slightly different. At this stage during the kind of, the process, you're providing the termination notice to the tenant directly. So the landlord would not be required to submit this affidavit to court at this stage. The landlord would submit the termination notice to the tenant with the affidavit included. And then if the tenant remained on the premises after the date of termination in the notice, then the landlord would have to file in court an objectment action to get a writ of possession to remove the person from the property. And when they file that complaint in court, the landlord would be required to include the affidavit as part of the complaint.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So then then I do have more questions about what we mean by affidavit before it's required to be filed in court because I do believe an affidavit, has to be notarized.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does it? I mean, we're not aware, an app again, kind of a a plain language reading of affidavit is just a a sworn written statement.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But if it's sworn, that's the problem. You can't I I don't think you can have a sworn document if it's if there's no witness. I think I I don't think we should use the word affidavit before it goes to court.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I was gonna say, I I you can take the word affidavit out if if there's kind of a, you know, consternation about it, then you could just say a accompanied by a written statement.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, David has a question.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Thank you. So I'm still back at the word affidavit and I appreciate when we meandered around to come back to that conversation. So I just want to summarize. So an affidavit is written, An affidavit is sworn. I think it's yes. An affidavit is notarized. I believe that's yes. And the affidavit is via the court system. And I believe that's a yes. Are all four of those accurate?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I am not aware of any requirement in Vermont law that requires that any affidavit to be given legal effect must be notarized. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. I'm saying I'm not aware of that legal requirement. I can inquire with our office to see if that is a requirement and if that is the case, somewhere, yeah, yeah. Oh, got it.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Okay, so notarized. Oh,

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: go ahead. Yeah, let

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: me if I can just wrap up this one.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, good. Notarized. Yeah.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Notarized maybe written yes, sworn yes via the courts. Yes, that's the substance of an affidavit as we understand it this morning.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and the question is, does it need to be notarized? I think that's hanging.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Right, right. So I understand all that. So, at someone's point a moment ago, removing the word affidavit, I would support removing the word affidavit. I don't think we need to instigate a legal process that onerous. And if there's a more appropriate word that makes sure that everybody's notified but doesn't require court acknowledgement, I would support that.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. I think Kesha

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Ram Hinsdale. Well, and to just save us time asking judiciary, I mean, having worked in in some of the family court, like a step below criminal court, they tend to require you either sign it in front of them or have a notary. So at what I don't think we should get into all of the is this a con law thing or not, but just it's not I don't wanna say affidavit or sworn statement because I think that's the next level of court process.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. There is a section in statute and thank you. An individual point this out to me as well. There's a section that allows for self attestation in lieu of requiring or in lieu of having to be notarized. So I would I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other about using a word. If there's some comfort, you know, in in using it, we can we can take it out, but it there is in statute the ability to include specific language that would negate the need to have the document notarized? And I could pull that up if that would be helpful.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No. I'd rather just we change the language.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But the the plus of having an affidavit is that somebody has to not it it has to have a sort of a a second.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But we are talking about mom and pop too. And I just think, like, we don't have to put an ambiguous requirement on people that could be used against them should they not have sworn it properly, etcetera. I I think what we're I'm what I'm saying is I don't think we need to require a sworn statement of any kind even if it's self attested at this point. It's a communication just like other landlord tenant communications.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I would agree. I would I would at this moment, let's let affidavit go.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is written statement okay?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, I think it needs to be a written statement. Yes. That's good. I think that's good. I mean, what we're wanting to do here is to provide a reason for why the Hi, Thomas. That's very funny. What we're trying to do is provide a reason to the tenant as to why the lease is being terminated in the middle of the lease.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, I can make that change. So then moving forward, we're back to where we were just last week. We have this language here in Subdivision 4 And 5 for being the the prohibition on terminating a rental agreement due to an individual seeking law being the subject of a good faith medical risk or a good faith request for medical assistance for a drug overdose and then when we get to 5, there is the language around the bifurcation and then we were here in the bifurcation section as well. So before I move forward, pause there, because that's where we were last week.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Because hopefully we're checking off these sections. So before we leave, is everyone okay with three if we remove affidavit? Okay?

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Speak I'm okay with it. The only concern that I have overall is it's funky and overly legalistic. And I think of that tenant who is the low rent tenant, it essentially pushes anybody towards a lawyer at this point, whether they need one or not.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, that is often the case with a termination. So I would

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I think it also pushes them toward legal help. Exactly. So someone who can give legal advice, which there are clinics for.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And also, quite honestly, it gives them a reason for what's happening, which often they have. So if everyone's okay with three, I'd check off three. And we're now on four with Randy's edition of Soli. Are we all okay with that?

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: We're talking about line 12 through 18. I'm still a no. I'm still a no. Oh you are? Yep I certainly am. I have been all the way through.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: too much to ask much to ask for mom and pop. You're a state subsidized housing agency that's different Mom and pop, there's no way. I can't get over there. I'm very sorry.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I can appreciate that. I just also think, well anyway, I think a mom and pop would rather not have somebody dying in their apartment either. So five, Cameron, just needed to get a sense of where we were as we move through these changes. Five is the bifurcation.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Before we go to five, I would like to go back and ask Senator Weeks if there is any modification to that section that would address his concerns. And I know that one of the concerns we certainly talked about is one of my concerns too, is if you essentially are operating a drug den as opposed to, in effect, a single incidence where a person has a problem and deals with it. No landlord, particularly the mom and pop landlords, want to be in a a situation in which they have extensive drug use in a property that may be next door to them or downstairs from them, etcetera. And that is a, I I think a valid concern.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Randy, it's a valid

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Or not, senator Weeks has any thoughts about how that could be dealt with and still have the landlord's ability not to be stuck with that for a repairing situation.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Before David gives his answer, I just wanna remind us all that that is an illegal activity that's taken care of and you can eject somebody under (two). So I believe, unless Cameron, unless I misunderstand that, illegal activity is already taken care of in B2. You can evict someone for conducting illegal activity and drug dealing and is an illegal activity.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: All about drug use.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, it's all about drug use. Not talking- Youth and what? We're trying to go down a different path of drug marketing or what have you. It's all about drug abuse, drug overdose, mom and pop environment.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: To answer Randy's question, what could get you to yes on that section?

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, I get it. So, I have not yet heard any language that satisfies this, trying to balance out the person in recovery versus the person who's, overdosing. I just simply think that the risk to the landlord, with an environment of overdosing is beyond what we should be asking our state landlords to absorb. But short answer, I haven't heard language that gets me to yes on this section.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, the question for those who are are fervently in favor of it, do you have any language that you would suggest that addresses senator Weeks and my for that matter concerns?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I mean, I just wanna step in and say, sorry if I missed this, that that judiciary passed this language out five-zero. Right. And this was, you know, when there was consternation about more criminal matters that wouldn't be addressed because we're trying to prevent overdoses, fatal overdoses, then judiciary wanted to weigh back in and say, you know, this section's important to us. So we could get senator Hashim to speak to us, but that's the thing is, you know, they'd looked at this from a the criminal and life, you know, value perspective, which

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Understand these

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: is not like we're kinda law.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Preserving life, and and that I I'm I'm sympathetic to, which is why I I inserted the word solely. Right. So that is not the sole basis for the disease. But operating a disorderly a disorderly house in which people are going in and out and, obviously showing signs of impairment, that is the kind of thing that I'm thinking about, whereas continual behavior as opposed to

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, yeah. Well, so I don't know if we're arguing. I I agree, senator Brock. I think it would I think the word solely is a good one. And that I think everyone's intent is to make it specific to a life or death situation and the evidence surrounding that, very brief period of a life or death situation and all other patterns of behavior that point to criminal activity are very much a part of this ejectment. That Essentially, voting no, I don't want to say this for Senator Weeks or anybody else, but voting no would mean they don't have this tool for patterns of drug use and other criminal behavior. Right.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, I would suggest that unless we I appreciate that David is a no on this section at the moment. I would hope that Randy is considering supporting it, given the addition of solely. And we can think about it, but let's put a pin on this as one of the last things we have to resolve and move forward with appreciating the other changes so that we can agree hopefully on the rest of the changes that we have in front of us. So let's come back to this. Let's keep moving because we have the bifurcation here. So we're- Wait a minute, just last, I had to ask both Randy and David to chat with Bob Norris and Chris Matos who voted to support this. And I just was hope that they did that. I just don't know the outcome of those conversations. Just to go back to what Kesha said, the judiciary did vote this out five-zero. So let's keep moving to the bifurcation piece, 5A and B.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we've talked about this section a few times. The five a says that the landlord shall not terminate the rental agreement of a protected tenant because of an incident or pattern of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking. So that's intended to protect the victim in the situation where there is some sort of, you know, domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, something that could rise to the level of criminal activity in the unit or acts of violence in the unit to ensure that the landlord would not depict the tenant in that situation, the victim tenant, and then the sub B is that the protected tenant may request to bifurcate the rental agreement as authorized in section four four seven two A. Four four seven two A is going to be here in the second instance of amendments. You're proposing to strike out this section from the judiciary reports and insert in lieu thereof this new section and the only change in the information is the change in this subdivision three on lines 12 through 14, page four. And so this is where you have talked a bit about this subsection B which requires that when there is a bifurcation, the landlord has to provide a reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants or otherwise find new housing and that is to be not less than ninety days. Then there's been discussion about, well, what happens in the event that the tenant is not able to pay for the entirety of the rent during this period and the Subdivision 3 was being had in to make it explicitly clear that nothing prohibits the landlord from collecting past due rents or recovering losses due to damage. How I read this section is the landlord is going to be required to give that protected tenant ninety days. And then after conclusion of ninety days, if there is unpaid rents, then the landlord would be able to move forward with terminating the rental agreement due to non payment of rent. But the landlord would be precluded from doing that during this ninety day period. And this is where we left off with questions around this section the last time we were here, so all Thank

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you, thank you, Cameron. Cameron also did some additional work on this and found out that the ninety days is federal law, I believe, is that correct?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So my understanding is that the general federal law timeframe is centered around ninety days but I'm also trying to get that exact statutory citation. So, if I can find it while we're sitting here during this hearing, I'll provide it to you but this is, if you all recall, this is based on, you know, similar concepts around bifurcation of rental agreements that is in the federal Violence Against Women's Act, you know, protections, and so my understanding from the advocates is that ninety day period would coincide with the general protection that's under federal law for a similar type of reasonable opportunity.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it. Thank you, that's helpful. So after the ninety days, the landlord, if the rent has not been paid and an agreement has not been reached about how they would manage staying in the apartment and affording it, the landlord is able to move to collect the rent. To eject or to eject if they have not paid the rent.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct, that's how I read the section and I have not heard any objection from others who read it differently.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, thank you. That clarifies it a bit for me. Any thoughts from the committee? How are people feeling about this? This then definitely allows, so instead of just, yeah anyway. Any thoughts? The Kesha, do you have a you have a thought? Randy?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, I I mean, I I couldn't I don't even know. I'm about to get on my computer instead of my phone, but here I am just reading the language. And the I'm just reading between reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants versus finding new housing. The thing is there I don't think that's a a federal thing, and I'm focused on the locating additional tenants. Sometimes the landlord wants to take more responsibility for that. They don't just sort of want the person saying I'm trying to find somebody else to share my apartment. Without saying more, a lot can go wrong if you're just leaving it in their hands to find new people to live with.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, I don't think it leaves it in their hands. It allows for opportunities both for the tenant, the affected tenant, the protected tenant to either find new housing or to find an additional somebody that could come.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Do we, I guess, like, this might be a question for Cameron, but why do we have to be so specific about locating additional tenants?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You, I don't know that you you need to but I think the concern as I could see it is you have a scenario where the landlord is renting out rooms within a house and so you cannot only have one room that you rent and you know or you know

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What would happen then? I'm I'm sort of trying to follow your

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't understand that. I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. So so when you look at the federal law, it says that the public housing agency shall provide remaining tenants, and this is after you've bifurcated the the lease, or resident an opportunity to establish eligibility for the covered housing program. If a tenant or resident described in the preceding sentence cannot establish eligibility, the public housing agency shall provide the tenant or resident a reasonable time to find new housing or to establish eligibility for housing under another covered housing program. So I think the thought here is you have multiple tenants in a lease. You have bifurcated it and removed one of those tenants, and so now the individual tenant who remains may not be able to meet whatever minimum criteria the landlord has set out in

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Meaning they're not individually eligible for that program because they didn't meet another eligible category. We're talking about public housing. Mean, I guess because this is applying to all types of housing, I don't think we need to be that specific about about the tenant, like, remaining on the lease agreement. It So how how about if If they don't have to find other people to live with if they can figure out another way to pay the rent.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Think what we're trying to get at here is a reasonable opportunity to solve the problem that they have, which is how to pay the rent. And so, I think giving them a reasonable opportunity to both find new housing and figure out, if you could say in legal language, figure out how to pay the rent is, I think, the issue, isn't it? I mean, it's up to them whether that means an additional person selling something or doing something. It's up to them to figure that out, but it may not be, I mean, I think what we want is a reasonable opportunity for them to solve the problem.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Well, we go on to that, you know, if you go up into the B1 above, this is a question I know that was raised before, and that was provided reasonable opportunity to locate additional tenants or otherwise find new housing, followed by a reasonable opportunity under this section should be not less than ninety days. And I know I raised that question in our last meeting that essentially what you're doing is you are forcing the landlord to provide three months of free rent.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Right. And so I think

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And that shouldn't be.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. We we talked about that, Randy. You're absolutely right. But I think before we get to the ninety days discussion, I think what Kesha is asking for is in the lines above that. How can we simplify that on lines eight and nine before we get to the ninety days? Because that's another question. How can we simplify that and really just give them a reasonable opportunity to find a path to either paying the rent or finding new housing? I think that's what we're asking. So did you have a suggestion, Cameron?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can understand the concern with this language. We could redraft it to say something like a reasonable opportunity to meet minimum requirements you know, the the rental agreement.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: How about just saying, George, just to meet the requirements of the rental agreement? Yes. How about that?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. You're asking me to think on the fly, so yes, I'm not seeing an immediate red flag in my mind, but I will continue to think about it as you continue to discuss amongst yourselves.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. Great.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And the thing I think that, obviously, we will be thinking about as we head down to paragraph three is what is a reasonable opportunity? What does that mean in real life?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, think it's a reasonable opportunity that any reasonable person would understand was giving somebody time and space to try and solve the problem they have in front of them.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. But what does that mean? And it means different things to different people.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, it Yeah. And I mean, so I thought for some reason that Cameron had taken out the ninety days. I know it's important for VAWA purposes, but it but it and that might be related to public housing, which has a lot of paperwork. At the same time, the the it then begs the question, when does the ninety days begin? When the new written lease is drafted that just has their name on it? I did domestic violence work for years, so I'm not trying to say this to be contrary, but I think the ninety days is very hard to enforce when you're talking about small landlord tenant agreements versus public housing. And we just have to remember this bill is attempted to be written for large and small landlords, where this is a lot of paperwork or something that many don't do.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And an additional, as Randy had said from our earlier conversation, an additional cost burden to trying to do the right thing and give somebody who's going through a lot of trauma time to figure it out, but also not wanting to put an undue financial burden on a smaller landlord for whom three months of rent is a lot of lost income. So I think what I heard Cameron say is this could be shorter. Ninety days is federal law, that it could be shorter for state law. And although I think that the federally subsidized housing units would still have to comply with the ninety days for other so I guess I'd love an answer to that question, Cameron. But if we wanted to set this at a shorter timeframe, let's say thirty days or sixty days, that we could also do.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. These provisions are based off federal protections that would apply to housing programs utilizing federal dollars essentially, and there's a definition of covered housing program within these regulations that would articulate exactly what housing programs the federal law would apply to, but just for the the most general statement, it's going to apply to federally subsidized housing programs. You're putting this into state statute, would apply to any housing program or excuse me, any housing across the state, you know, both state housing dollars and private landlord tenant relationships. So you're not obligated to follow or match the timeframe outlined in federal law. You could make it thirty days, you could make it sixty days. As you're aware, this protection doesn't even currently exist. You're not obligated to match what's under the federal law. Just understand that your federal housing programs or housing programs in the state utilize federal dollars are required to comply with those federal program requirements.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Thank you. Appreciate it. David, do you have your hand up?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh, sorry. I don't even know how to put my hand up on my phone.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: No. I do. Thank you, madam chair. So at 10,000 feet, I agree with bifurcation. The concept is good. I get it. What I haven't heard is, I've heard of a lot of effort to relieve the tenant in this scenario, unfortunate scenario. I get that. But what I'm not hearing is relief of the non public housing sector, such as relief from taxes, relief from mortgage, relief from utilities. And it took about ten minutes in this conversation to kind of boil down the fact that the language which we were talking about is federal language about subsidized housing. And I get it for subsidized housing, Government's got a stake in it, federal government, state government, but not the mom and pop. And, we've got to protect the mom and pop. So, if we're talking about reduced, you know, reflecting on the ninety days to some, you know, shorter, time frame. I I could, support that, but I'd like to hear from the others in the committee.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. Thank you. Kesha.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: And I have, like, housework happening outside, so if it sounds loud in the background. I have kind of an out of the box thought, which is that it and I don't wanna distress Cameron, but that we would double the length of time of the other types of ejectment decisions for if there's domestic violence and the person wants to have an opportunity, a reasonable opportunity to bifurcate. Does that make any sense?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That question's to Cameron. I'm not sure I understand it. So

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the way this is set up is you cannot terminate the rental agreement for the victim, the protected tenant due to those instances. It allows you to bifurcate so that you can terminate the lease agreement for the perpetrator who is engaging in the activity, but you cannot terminate the rental agreement for the victim under these provisions. You would need some other reason to terminate that individual.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Such as nonpayment of rent?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could be. Could be. Yes, sir. If you you're

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Because not all those obligations

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My apologies. Yeah.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The protected tenant.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My apologies for the scroll back up. What we're talking about here is we're talking about this Subdivision 5. Mhmm. And Subdivision 5 is going to exist under subsection b. So this is the landlord wants to terminate a rental agreement due to breaching the rental agreement terms or doing some other criminal activity or acts of violence that threaten other people. And this five is saying that you cannot terminate the rental agreement for those actions of the protected tenant. But you may bifurcate the agreement down here under this new section. You may bifurcate the agreement to eject or remove, the individual who is engaging in the abuse, sexual assault, or stalking.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, in that instance, it's a a protection to say you cannot eject the victim and the question then becomes here as you've been discussing in B, this is saying that if that protected tenant is unable to cover the rent of the dwelling unit because you've now you've now bifurcated and ejected the abuser and so you only have the victim who remains if that individual is unable to cover the rent cost of the unit. Do you want to include, these protections that kind of, align with what is under the federal programs.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there wouldn't be, I guess, background Senator Ram Hinsdale on your question, there wouldn't be any, guess what you could do is you could extend the termination notice period for terminating a rental agreement due to nonpayment of rent. If it is the protected tenant, you could extend the termination notice period under that section to give the protected tenant a little more time. I think that would answer your question of how you would go about doing that.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But that's what this section is already doing. I mean, it's already giving the protected tenant more time to solve the problem in front of them, is how to pay the rent, if they aren't the majority, you know, if if it's a challenge. Thomas, I believe you had a question.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I didn't want to take us off this thread.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay, so was it on this subject?

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: The previous point, but

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, okay, go for it. All right. So

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Cam, earlier in this discussion, it was raised, I and don't remember a clear answer, I think there is one, but to Senator Weeks previous points, is there any way or precedent to treat or distinguish types of landlords, be it non profits versus the mom and pops? Is there a definition that lines could be drawn along those? I just don't remember a clear answer to that inquiry.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Between sort of private landlords and public and

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Nonprofits like CHT. Nonprofits. Categories of landlord where some of these rules could apply and not elsewhere?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the state statute, the residential rental agreement chapter, there's, I don't recall there being any definitions that distinguish between them, but in in practice, you do have a lot of these programs that are set up either at the federal or state level where you apply them to housing entities, you know, public housing authorities, landlords that receive those state or federal dollars and then, you know, typically, those entities are set up as nonprofits in order to receive those funds. So, so, in practice, it happens that way where you you have the distinction of where these programs apply to, you know, non profit entities receiving state or federal dollars. The statutes, the residential rental agreement chapter isn't really set up that way, but you could set it up that way. I mean, you could apply these provisions that we're discussing here regarding bifurcation to, you know, state entities that receive state housing assistance and if you were to do that, I would strongly advise you to match the federal law exactly because I imagine most, you know, state housing authorities that are receiving state housing dollars are probably also receiving federal housing dollars I don't think you would want them to apply different programs depending on which funding stream. I assume you would want that to be universal. Hope that's a very long winded way of trying to give you information regarding your question.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, well, yeah. So is it a long winded way of saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander that we have to make it sort of more universal? I mean, that it should apply to everyone?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So no, You don't have to apply it to everyone, and you don't have to apply this to anyone. And, again, it's not current statute. And so if you wanted to distinguish that it applies to certain landlords of a certain size or certain landlords receiving state assistance, So you do

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: we could bifurcate it by type of landlord. Okay, I'm sorry, misunderstood you. So we could leave what's in place here for the nonprofit tenant landlord for whom this already applies. I would make the change though before we get into the ninety days. I would make the change on line eight of the reasonable opportunity to meet the requirements of the rental agreement period. And then we could, for non profit landlords, include two and three. And then for private landlords we could reduce the time frame perhaps and consider thirty or sixty days for people to maybe thirty days for people to work out their arrangements. And then after which in both cases, the landlord can move to collect the rent that's owed them.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: May I ask you a question?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, of course.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Do we, for example, some of the section eight housing, aren't those private landlords?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They could be.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. They are. They they you're absolutely right.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And so you get into that same situation. My concern basically is this, that when you extend the ability of a tenant because of the circumstances we're talking about to delay rent up to ninety days, you have a situation in which that private landlord still has the requirement to make payments on his or her mortgage. That affects their credit record. If they don't make it, it also affects their ability to retain their property.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, I appreciate that. I know Kesha has a thought, I know we have Chris Donnelly and Gene Murray, and Chris has asked to weigh in, and I appreciate Chris weighing in on this point, and then we'll go to Kesha.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: Hey, thanks. I just want to say that these requirements of Violence Against Women Act of federal law already apply to us, so putting it again in the state statute would just be redundant it may cause some complications. And I think the intent behind this is really you have a tenant who has been traumatized by a relationship, and the intent of this language was to give them a little time so that they're not also traumatized by losing their housing at the same time. I hear the concern for landlords losing out on their rental income. I think grace period is fine if it's sixty days or ninety days is appropriate, but I think the language also doesn't let the tenant off the hook. You know, I think they're still responsible for paying the back rent.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: So I think it's trying to give that space to allow for someone in a traumatic situation to not have compounded by becoming homeless or losing their housing, but also ensuring that it gives some time for them to find the resources to pay the rent.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Chris Donnelly (Champlain Housing Trust)]: I think that's the intent and I understand the challenges on both sides of this, but again, we're covered by this, that's fine. I hear you for the smaller landlords and that they may need a little support, but that would be my recommendation, is that if you want to shorten the time period, shorten the time period, but protect people that are in a traumatic

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. In both situations, Chris, they are able to pursue, no matter what the timeframe is, they're able to pursue getting, reclaiming the rent if a reasonable, something occurred. Correct. Okay, that's helpful. Kesha?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So the reason that I'm sorry?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then I think Thomas has a question after you.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay. So the reason that I'm arguing that we either use the kinds of situations that require certain lengths of time and not focus on other other types of landlords, etcetera, is because we've given a lot of thought to those timeframes. And whether or not a challenging situation deserves more or less time. So in that would say we don't really even need to put a number of days in here. You know, if somebody is experiencing domestic violence, but that's resulting in a nonpayment of rent, that's kind

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: of a

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: different scenario than if they're experiencing domestic violence and the person is, removed per relief from abuse order or some kind of protection order, and they really do need to figure out a lot in their lives. So we have reasons that we give people different amounts of time, and it should either be, you know, a metric, like a double of those time frames based on those reasons, or no time frame at all. We shouldn't have a random different time frame, We don't need to say what type of landlord because the types of landlords, as Chris said, that are covered know they're covered.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So, I think it's helpful for a more modest timeframe would be helpful because I think everybody needs to know kind of what they're up against, what timeframe they need to operate in.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So then use the timeframes. You can be in a domestic violence situation, but have a different impact on your housing, depending on the reasons for ejectment that we just discussed. So we shouldn't have highly different reasons for ejectment and different time frames. I feel like I'm losing you, madam chair. We just looked at time frames related I to

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I appreciate. I appreciate.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: This is like, we we're not gonna be able to figure out what's reasonable in in Franklin County versus the Northeast Kingdom versus Chittenden County for all of these scenarios, we should use the type of situation that is causing an ejectment of the other party, which would then create the need to bifurcate the lease at that time.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So we're already creating this opportunity by bifurcating the lease. I think the don't see removing think

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can you Wait, stay with me here.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't understand not having a time frame so that

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: you Because the reason for bifurcation is because you want to eject someone from the apartment that the other person did not feel safe or comfortable or, you know, who knows what, those that creates the reason for the bifurcation. We should look at the standards we've created for ejectment if we're then giving a victim of domestic violence, which it doesn't have to be documented, it doesn't have to

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: be a

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: court proceeding, we should use those existing metrics. Metrics because if you get a relief from abuse order, that person is out of your house overnight. If you can't pay rent because this person is not helping you and is in and out of your home and they're named on the lease, that's like a different scenario. The What this creates

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: is a different scenario. So I'm not

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: No, doesn't. It doesn't because it's based on the reason this came forward is because you have varying events that might cause your landlord to eject a person in your household based on some event occurring that that gets them ejected.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Is anybody else following what I'm saying? This is if someone's getting injected and the other tenant steps in and says, I'm glad you're injecting them. I'm a victim of their violence. Then it really depends on if you're talking about the violence that they're experiencing or drug activity, etcetera, or if all of a sudden it's for nonpayment of rent. Like these are really different scenarios. I

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: see what you're saying is that the bifurcation could occur, then we go back to the other ejectment opportunities, which we've just created if they are not able to pay rent, B1 kicks in. But the bifurcation that the other opportunities we've created would be sufficient, is that what you're saying?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: What I'm trying to say is that they at least need to relate, because this is not happening in a vacuum. In this section, there's no if Cameron goes up, I could be wrong, but you don't have to prove you're a victim of domestic violence in this case. So there's no time frame that starts any kind of clock. And the only time frame that starts a clock is the objectment of another person in your home Right. Who you are then saying you might have been a victim of, and they were asked to leave?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Cameron?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure if there's a question for me there.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: There's really not. There's really not. I struggle with this section because I do think a lot of the committees that looked at this before us were thinking of large housing providers and federal law, and were not thinking about individuals in very individual situations where they rent out one place or, you know, etcetera. I think this section is overwritten and problematic for most types of landlord tenant relationships. And we should probably just take out the number of days if people are sick of hearing me try to explain landlord tenant law.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: The question is if you take out the number of days and you're left with the question of the landlord shall provide the protected tenant with a reasonable opportunity, what does that mean will be the question that will then have to be decided.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I agree. So that's I I don't if you're gonna bifurcate it

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Because the courts decide reasonableness much better than the legislature.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Why. Right. I'm not worried about the reasonableness. I'm just concerned that if you have a tenant who's suffered trauma and needs a grace period to solve issues around that trauma and the loss of one of the partners in the tenancy,

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The trauma is different because that's why there's ejectment conversations happening and why they go to court. So already, if they're in court for ejectment, if we write in law that a bifurcation needs to be made available to a victim of domestic violence, that can be brought up in the court proceeding around the ejectment. Right. And then the reasonable standard is performed by the court, which is much better at what reasonable looks like depending on the situation.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So you would suggest that we fix, maybe fix the language in eight and nine the requirement to meet the rental agreement, get rid of a time frame and just keep number three, make three number two. So that the landlord would not lose rent over the bifurcation challenge, that the bifurcation challenge would not require any additional accommodation. Is that what I hear you saying?

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Are you asking me or?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, well that's what I'm hearing in this conversation. I'm hearing if we get rid of the time frame that we ask, that court would take care That's

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: what I'm saying.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah, that the court would take care of reviewing whether the reasonable opportunity to meet the requirements of the rental agreement and get rid of any that everything else will take care of the problem we're trying to solve. And that we keep the last sentence. Nothing in this section would prohibit a landlord from collecting the rent. But that could, I mean, I think the minus of losing any grace period for somebody is that you're then immediately, if somebody's going through the domestic violence challenge and somebody gets ejected, don't have any

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: They do. They have a lot of rights because they have a written lease agreement. Not necessarily. Okay. If they don't have a written that's kind of the first question I asked because we are affecting a lot of tenants in all kinds of bills that we're doing this year who don't have a written lease agreement. I believe that many bills in many committees, Madam Chair, that we probably should have looked at affect people's ability to have an informal lease agreement. That is probably going away with the tax law that has passed out of the finance committee.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay. We are going to lose Randy in a few minutes, and I would really love to land this section if we could and land the other section because I think we're okay on the court work, we did good work on that. This piece is, I think, I just need If we take out the days, I'm happy to take out the days, but I would like to change the language around finding additional tenants. And I'd like to keep the language that allows a landlord to recover the lost rent. Also

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Essentially what you're doing when you do this, when you do any of this in this way that you're talking about, is you are making the one person to get punished in this, the landlord.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. I don't think that's the case.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: But, again, if if if the rent is not being paid because the the tenant who is a protected tenant can't pay it or doesn't pay it, and you have ejected someone and that person doesn't pay it, who pays it? Well, the person who pays it in effect is the landlord.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, the landlord then can move to eject them. The whole point of this is by removing this, the landlord, we go back to the ejectment opportunities earlier that we have discussed.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: So the individual gets ejected and then who pays the rent?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: The landlord can move to collect that rent.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: And then you have a reasonable period of time allowed, which is still under discussion as to how long that person has to pay the rent. If it's paid at all. And then you don't wanna put the burden on the tenant. Now you're you're doing that in the case of non large nonprofits because you think it's the you know, whatever the rent is is going to not amount to anything that's going to affect individuals. But what we're talking about here does affect individuals. It affects that small landlord. Who has to come up with a difference for however long we allow for But that's the case. Not pay it.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: That's the case currently. That's the case currently. If there is I mean, we are providing in law here an opportunity to make sure that no matter what happens, the landlord can move to collect the rent. I believe, Cameron, that's current law. They are able to, if there was an ejectment, they can move to continue to collect the rent.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: Of course. If the person's name the person who's being ejected, that person's name is still on the list, then the question becomes how how will how the courts view that right now in terms of the responsibility. Let's say it's it's two people who are living together, one of them gets ejected, and let's say both of them are on the list, then what happens? If it if if they get ejected, one person gets ejected, only one of them is on the list, what happens? It's almost as if we ought to have a chart that tells us what happens right now under the law in each of these cases.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Who's responsible?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. So Cameron is here to tell us, I I think what we're trying to do is create a grace period for people who are going through domestic violence trauma. That's, I think, what this section is about.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: No, and I don't disagree with you and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. However, what I'm saying is-

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I know, I don't want to go through the grace period. I don't disagree. The question is, we can't force anyone to pay the rent if they don't have the money. What we're trying to do is make sure they can find the money and they can pay the rent because we don't want them also losing their housing. So if we take out the ninety days, it forces them to then solve the problem sort of in real time. It doesn't give them any grace period. It does then revert them back to B1 and two of the If the landlord has to move to ejectment because rent hasn't been paid, it then moves us back, I think Cameron, to B1 and two. Is that correct? I mean, I'm a little lost, quite frankly.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will try to answer a few things that I picked up on there. The statute currently is silent on bifurcating any lease agreement. So, if a landlord were to move forward in trying to reject a party to the lease agreement, they would have to do it under one of the statutory provisions authorizing the termination of a lease agreement. If an individual tenant was committing acts of violence against another tenant within the same unit under the same lease agreement. Currently, I imagine the landlord could move forward with ejecting the one individual and my understanding is the landlord could probably move forward ejecting both. And my understanding from advocates is that's what this language is intended to prevent because you want to protect the victim or at least that's the argument is to protect the individual who is the victim in that situation and not eject them because they are the victim of the actions of another individual.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So the can I pause you there, Cameron? The decision about ejecting somebody who has a lease agreement, verbal or written, and the decision about who is a victim and what rights and responsibilities they should have are better left to the court than for us to try and put that in every landlord tenant agreement in the state. That's what I'm saying. This is why we need a landlord tenant court, but landlord tenant issues get figured out a lot during the relief from abuse order process. So we're I feel like we're trying to over legislate when most landlords, if they're small enough and the person is, you know, right next door to them or something like that, knows what's been happening and would welcome this opportunity to bifurcate the lease and try to be helpful. If we're trying to over legislate for large federally regulated programs, then that's the problem. We shouldn't.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, what I hear, and we're at sort of zero hour here, so I guess what I guess I'm hearing a suggestion from you, Kesha, is that the courts are going to deal with this once there's a relief from abuse order objection process that we really don't need this whole second instance of amendment. Is that what I hear you saying? That we enable the bifurcate.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: We should say, there should be the opportunity to bifurcate, and it should be reasonable. The the bifurcation is the reasonable question.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: But we have that in five a and b.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Right. And then everything else is held then by who you have the lease agreement with and what rights they have in court from there.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Madam Chair.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, David, I see that. So

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: I fully understand the intent of what we're trying to do. Unfortunately it's bumping into the reality of landlord cash flow whether it's thirty days, sixty days, ninety days. I do think that bifurcation, effort is, worthy and should remain in. And I recommend that we hold this topic of, the actual rent, how the rent is paid back and who is responsible for next year and possibly though put it into the study. I know that the study is about housing court, but maybe one of the questions that could be asked to that group is how to solve this particular aspect of this particular issue.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, think they may, I'm not sure it's a procedural question for them. I think they're wanting to keep their thing to procedural.

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: I actually thing that I agree with David. That we think about is something like this, and we may not be able to do it in the five minutes that we have left. Well, but

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you have left because

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: You create you create a fund that is designed to provide this temporary funding for rent of people in this situation to be a revolving fund to be repaid and so that the tenant who is removed from the location do has to pay back the back due rent into into return to the fund if the fund has paid some of it. That way, you protect the tenant who is the the protected tenant, and the other hand, you provide a mechanism to provide the funding immediately that doesn't come out

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the small landlord's pocket.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, I think that's a great idea for next year, and I think that's wonderful. I don't think we can probably do that immediately without knowing who would contribute to the fund. But to go back to David's point, okay David, what would you change here? You would take the idea of this challenge, of the bifurcation, allow for the courts to weigh in and help resolve who pays the rent, and then take the additional question to and add it to the court study?

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Potentially, certainly allowing bifurcation. The issue of a reasonable opportunity, you know, blah, blah, how would strike B1, B2, B3, but hold the language for next year, hold the language for the study, whatever a good mechanism is to properly review it with enough time and enough committees to get it correct. That's my opinion.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Madam Chair.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah. Kesha, so

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think if the courts were with us today, I'm guessing, but I spent a lot of time doing domestic violence in court, when there's a conversation about non payment of rent, there's not, we're not talking about an immediate danger. The reasonable standard will look different to the court, but they also will be looking at the timeframe in which somebody individually has to face eviction or pay their rent, etcetera. When you are talking about any type of violence, this is what I've mentioned before. The court will kick that into high gear because both tenant and the landlord are then potentially in higher danger because of criminal behavior from the ejected party. So the courts are better equipped to determine when something stays in civil and superior court, and what is considered reasonable, and when something moves to criminal court, because there is an immediate threat of danger to all of the parties involved.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, with resolving this right now, would We would keep the bifurcation language of section 1A and take it through three and then B, you're both suggesting that we remove B in its entirety and instead come up with a recommendation for the court to consider resolutions of non payment as a result of domestic violence? Mean, I need help from our Cameron, we need some help here with suggestions on how to resolve this. I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mean, will just I will If it's a policy decision for you all, I will echo what I was hearing from some members of the committee, which would be to strike me in its entirety. I think you were that's what I was interpreting senator Weeks to offer. And at that point, you would be left with a, which would authorize the bifurcation when it's requested in writing, and it would require the bifurcation if there's a court order that requires the perpetrator to leave. It would leave open the question of whether a landlord could move forward with terminating the rent based on non payment of rent and that would just be governed by current statute, which is if the protected tenant was not able to cover the rent or the periods after the bifurcation and ejectment of the perpetrator, then the landlord would just move forward as they do under current statute. If you were to remove the that's my understanding of the request from the table. I will also, madam chair, I will comment that, Patarina, who is here in the room with me, had her hand raised and wanted to chime in. I'm just mentioning that because you probably can't see her on the screen. Whether you called on her, that's up to you. I'm just letting you know.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. Katerina, thank you for being there. It would be great to have you weigh in, but that is my understanding of what Kesha and David are proposing, and then adding a piece in the court discussion. Katharina, feel free

[Randy Brock (Vice Chair)]: post that. Before she starts, this is the point at which, unfortunately, I have to leave for the day. I'm I'm sorry. But I do. Thank

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: you, Randy. We will share with you where we land later in the day and Good, tomorrow thank you again. Yeah, thank you. Katharina.

[Katharina Lozayas (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Hi, I just wanted to say that this section

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Sorry, identify Sorry.

[Katharina Lozayas (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I'm Katharina Lozayas from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. I think when we're talking about the first two sections, so A1 and A2, it is a request from the tenant. So a tenant who is in a situation where they know they cannot pay their rent will likely not ask to bifurcate because they don't want to risk homelessness. So I just want to make sure that's a shared awareness of the committee. That's part of why B existed, that there would be a possible grace period so that if they weren't able to cover their rent, there would still be an opportunity to stay housed. But I understand that the committee wants to further discuss that, but I wanted to

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: don't have- Katharina, thank you very much. I think the challenge that we face in this committee at this moment is that the grace period can't allow landlords losing money. I think that's what I'm hearing. We appreciate that the trauma needs to be resolved and we need a plan forward for traumatized tenants to figure out how they're gonna pay the rent if that's the problem. It may not be the problem for all victims of domestic violence. But if that is, I think we need more time in another bill for another day to figure out the grace period so that it doesn't impact landlords. I think that we are going to have to settle at the moment with current law to resolve that issue and strike B, go with A, and maybe add some language to the court study. Because we have to get this pill out today if we can.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what I'm hearing you, Madam Chair, is strike Sorry,

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: go for it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's great. I'm not sure what language you're thinking you would add to the court study. If it's a policy question of anything about whether or not, know, moving forward with some sort of timeframe or reasonableness, I think the judiciary is going to come back and say these are policy matters for you all as well as the city branch.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I agree. I was trying to say that earlier. I think this is going to conference committee and if we have additional language, we can work on it and add it in conference committee.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what I have written down for now, Madam Chair, if you'd like to take the straw poll from your committee members is striking me in its entirety and leaving subsection

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's what I'm hearing from the committee.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: I concur.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thomas, is that okay with you? Oh, and Kesha, okay, great.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Sounds reasonable.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think that's what I'm sensing from the committee. I'm disappointed, but I appreciate this conversation. So let's move to the third instance of amendment. I think we're all in agreement on two.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. The third instance of amendment is striking out section three in its entirety and inserting a new section three. Fortunately, I have to strike the entire section and re add it all back in only to add this highlighted language here on the top of page five. What I will do is I will first mention that you have already asked to change the word affidavit above, so on line eight I would change that as well to the written statement instead of an affidavit. But the the point of this section was to coincide with the above that requires that information to be provided. And this language beginning on line eight would say that the complaint or the ejectment, the ejectment complaint that's filed with the court would have to include a copy of that written statement. And then on line nine and ten, it would have to include a copy of any rent ledger if there is one available. So this is the language that was in the house version as it came over to you. And so if you're going to require that written statement above for a termination, require that written statement be included with termination notice or termination under B1 or two, then you want to require that information to also be filed with the complaint in court if there's an ejectment action filed.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and I would support that as long as we remove the affidavit.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, affidavit to written statement. Okay.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And I confirm that the affidavit does require notarization, so let's definitely take the affidavit, including the written statement, I guess.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, it may require a notarization, but there's a separate section in statute that says for a document that requires notarization, if you include a specific phrasing within the affidavit itself, then you don't require notarization.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right. I think the committee's feeling was to remove affidavit.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Agreed. Agreed. So we have written statement. Okay. So that's there. The rest of this is as the recommendation came out of Senate Judiciary. So for this section it follows what was in the Senate Judiciary Report, which is here on line 13 for section four eighty five 3A. We're making a technical change. Currently, there are two subsection As in that statutory section, so you're deleting one of them. Then we get to the next section, four eight five four a. This is the section about the property that remains in the dwelling unit after the writ of possession is issued from the court. And at what point can the landlord dispose of that property that remains and how long does the landlord have to maintain that property? We had a conversation about this a little while back and I tried to pull up an Excel spreadsheet and demonstrate how the time frames work because I understand it can be somewhat difficult to understand without a visual representation. What this does is it says that immediately upon the landlord being legally restored to possession of dwelling unit, the landlord could dispose of the tenant's property and I've simply commented that that could be as short as six days. The senate judiciary committee left this in as it is drafted, and it's here, remaining in in that state. And madam chair, senator Chittenden has to say that.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes. Sorry. I'm trying to find you on this draft, and I'm completely not finding you.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Should be on page six. Page six beginning line eight.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then Thomas. Thomas.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I'm gonna say what I said before. This section just doesn't feel right to me. It doesn't feel right to me that we are making it so that when this writ of possession finally occurs, the landlord can literally toss this stuff to the curb without giving people, I don't know, a day or at least a week, to be pick this stuff up. I just feel like landlords have some responsibility for the things inside of these locations to give them a window of time to go get them. So this is enough for me to be a no on this bill, but I could be persuaded if any tenant advocates could say that this is comfortable, that they understand this process, and this doesn't give them pause. But it just seems to to not have to hold onto this for fifteen days is just kinda cruel, and the fact that they could just throw it to the curb as soon as they get possession, this is people's stuff in really rough times in their life. So I really need a tenant advocate to make me feel comfortable with this section for me to get to yes.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So thank you for I believe we straw polled this before.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I thought we took it out.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. You've it for four to keep it in three two, I believe.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Oh. I'm a no I'm with Thomas. I I think this is a very important section. We talk a lot about property when someone gets evicted. We I we had a chart that still didn't make sense to me. I'm a no on the bill with this section as well.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Well, I I think I think it would require more time than we have to discuss it and to get everyone to guess. So I would also support probably taking it out at this point.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Senator Weeks has his hand up, madam chair.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, sorry, David.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yeah, thank you, Thanks, Tom. Yeah, we talked about this in committee and to me, it became clear that there was a notice period that the the tenant knew that they that there was an eviction process that had been started and that there was some number of days where they were aware of the point when they had to leave and frankly from my perspective when the tenant leaves property leaves with that notification intact that's where I would got to a yes on this but if it's too complicated right now, I support striking it and we can carry this conversation. I

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: think this conversation is going to be robust next year and I would suggest striking it for the moment and having it revisited next year.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Striking section 4854A.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Correct. I believe that's the, those are the, that is what you're talking about.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, okay. I'm just making a note for myself. So, alright, moving on to the next instance of amendment, because that's the end. So that takes you all the way, because there's a sub A and a sub B in that section. So now we're on page seven.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We're on page seven with the fourth instance, the fifth instance, and the sixth instance.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes ma'am. And so these are related.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Have eight instances.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Yes, Mr. Chair.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yes, David.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Just to set expectations. I'm really under a time crunch today. I cannot absolutely can't go beyond 01:00 and I'm under complete duress being here right now.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay,

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: try to support the committee, But no

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Thank you. We we will end at one.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, ma'am. Great. So the fourth, fifth, and sixth instance of amendment are related to the trespass language. And in the fourth instance of amendments, so here's where commented the last time we were here, I pulled up the Senate Judiciary Report and I, you know, reflected on where it's allowing a landlord to issue a no trespass order if one of four conditions are met, the tenant consents to it, the individual guest has violated the terms of the lease agreement, the individual has violated state or federal law, or the individual guest has previously been ejected from the property, and so there was a request for Subdivision B, which is to issue a no trespass when the guest who's subject to the no trespass order has violated the terms of the dwelling units lease agreement. There was a request to add in that it be a pattern of violation, and so what you have here is adding that in where the invitee or licensee subject to the order has engaged in a pattern of violating the terms of the legal. Right,

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: thank you. This was something Kesha had wanted to add, and I'm fine with it. I thought the committee was fine with it, so I think we're a check on this one. Are people okay with it? Right, then let's go to the fifth instance.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, before I go to the fifth, I will comment the sixth, which I would just mention, and it sounds like you're all okay with it. Pattern of violating is defined as two or more acts over a period of time, however short. So those two go together. Right. You have the fifth instance of amendment, which is where, as I mentioned a second ago, the landlord can issue the no trespass order if the tenants or excuse me, if the guest has previously been ejected from the premises, and it was limited to an ejectment under four four six seven b. So you would not be able to issue the no trespass if the individual had been ejected due to nonpayment of rent or due to a no cause eviction. It would have to be an ejectment under the breach of the terms under b one or two, and the request from Senator Ram Hinsdale was to further limit that to only ejectments due to B two, and so that's what this fifth instance of amendment is doing. It's adding Subdivision 2 after 4,467 would be.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So just say that without the numbers, that that would mean that the no trespass would only work for violent behavior?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, you would only be able to issue the no trespass order if the person had previously been ejected under B2, so it would have to be due to criminal activity, illegal drug activity, or acts of violence. So if you had previously ejected the tenant under B1 because the tenant failed to comply with material terms of the rental agreement or with the obligations imposed. Don't know why my experience is too bad.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, got it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And you would not be able to issue a no trespass if you eject someone under B1, only under B2.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and I think we had some discussion of this. I am fine with this at this point.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: I get it. I think that's a good change.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yep, and Thomas, you okay? Okay, great. Last six.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, moving to the seventh instance of amendments, is top of page eight. This is deleting

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And then what happened to six? I thought we were on six.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mentioned The sixth instance coincides with the fourth instance.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it, got it, got it.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So now we go to the seventh, which is deleting sections seven, eight, and nine. Section seven was the deposit, principal, credit reporting pilot program. Section eight was a transitional section related to security deposits, which is no longer necessary, and section nine was the CVOEO landlord and tenant training. Those have been removed because they weren't funded. Then you get to the eighth instance of amendment, and in the eighth instance of amendment, it is striking out the need study and report from the judiciary related to this dedicated docket and you've made a few proposed changes here. For starters, I've changed it from a housing docket to a residential rental docket.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then, you get to page nine and there on sub four was a request to include some information from the language that was in subsection B related to the procedural impacts of when to begin the twenty one day timeline, whether it should be filing of the complaint versus service of the answer.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Right, and this is all language you and the court worked on together. You and Terry worked on this, and I believe the judiciary has signed off on this language.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is my understanding as well. When you look at Subdivision 5 here, there was a request from Senator Ram Hinsdale to include whether to include other legal matters beyond residential rental agreements within the dedicated docket itself or whether it should be just limited to residential rental agreements. There is still this Subdivision 6 of kind of the the catch all. Any other matters deemed relevant to the issue of implementing a statewide residential rental docket.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, why do we need five if we've given them six?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the request from Senator Ram Hinsdale was to replace six with five, and I've kept Terry

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: agreed to six, so I'd kind of like to stick with what Terry and the court agreed to. Okay. Well, so

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I I I specifically said I just think six is like a, do you have anything else to add? My kids are with me. And five is a bit much more specific in my mind too. I do. And I can't imagine them being upset about when they're considering being asked to specifically answer, does it make sense for us to talk about landlord tenant law or other commercial property law beyond residential rental agreements? I'd like a specific answer to that question, which is usually why we ask for studies, not to say anything else you think is important.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Oh, then I think it's five and six, not five replacing six.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Well, you had you thought six covered it, but but the then six would cover everything. So I'm just saying this is specific information I would like to know when

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: they I complete their agree. And I appreciate that. But I would have five and six then. And because there may be some other things that crop up during the course of their work that they may wanna raise. So I'm open to having I think five and six makes sense.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm okay with both.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was a lot of language in a subsection B that has been struck at the court's request. Was some from the judiciary about straying from, away from procedural matters and straying into policy questions. So their recommendation was to strike that entire subsection B, So it's not reflective here. And then lastly, there is what was subsection C is now subsection B and it requires the court administrator to consult with interested parties including landlords, tenants, Vermont Legal Aid, and others deemed necessary. I believe the previous language said that the court needed to take into consideration the interests of other parties and the judiciary was a little concerned with that. So this allow this would require them to consult. And then, the last is this last two sentences here which is after the bill is passed that the bill be amended to read an act relating to residential rental agreements, ejectments, and unlawful trespass. Currently, the language talks about residential the residential rental credit reporting pilot program, which you are proposing to strike. So it kinda all sense to have that in the title of the bill, so you're renaming the bill to be accurate.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, I think I am fine with that entire section. I think, how is the rest of the committee on that? I think that you guys did, that we did good work. I think we're, how are people with everything except on, I think there's agreement from what I can gather on everything except page two, which is number four.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: The disability protections?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No. The Good Samaritan piece. So I think we're fine on the bill on everything, except from what I'm hearing, with all the strikes and the changes we've added, and the strikes and the additions we've made, I think my

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: sense- I'm sorry, I have to go chase my toddler, but I had wanted to discuss the disability protections. That was important to me for yes vote on the bill. But I have to go on mute.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: We took care of that, I believe. I thought we took care of that earlier.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was language, if you recall, we were discussing this the last time we met. There a request from Senator Ram Hinsdale to include a prohibition on terminating a rental agreement due to breach of the material terms under B one if the activity giving rise to the termination was due to an individual's disability.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Ah, so remember we straw polled this and we agreed four(one) to not include that language because people didn't feel that-

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Okay, well, this kind of takes me back to, in the beginning, you said nobody raised concerns that you were aware of before we We

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: were having this conversation and I think-

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: But a lot of new language was worked on to address the concern.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I thought the new language was adding the reason for a termination. I didn't know that anyone was working on additional language about that. Because I think the committee after all that discussion, Randy's concern was, well, a mental health challenge may be a disability, but it may be incredibly disruptive. The, that can't be a reason. I mean, there was a pretty fulsome discussion about unseen disabilities and-

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Hi, mommy. Hi, mommy. Hi, Mira.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: That conversation kind of veered into the, overdose type circumstances, and we did receive an email from Brenda. I don't know if you saw that Senator Weeks yet, but, I agree, Chair, that we didn't conclude in that discussion that the language is needed, but I wonder if Brenda's email actually puts us in a different perspective separating and distancing it from the overdose concerns. I don't know if you have thoughts, Senator Weeks.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Have to

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: be honest, haven't read her email. It's just been, quite a hectic weekend. I can certainly make sure I'm, well versed before we, reconvene, but, my apologies. I have not read her email. I'll make a note of it though.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't recall new language being worked on in this. We voted four zero one to not include it.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I think I wasn't here at some point.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, you're right. You left the discussion, but the discussion was- We didn't

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: speak in natural resources. But I think some misinformation was kind of not addressed, which is that you can't engage in a pattern of behavior of any illegal activity and be covered for your disability. What we are talking about is an ejectment process, even if you have a rental agreement and no trespass, if you don't have a rental agreement, that centers a lot on this person who is on the lease agreement having a lot of agency. We have to worry anytime we change landlord tenant law and we're affecting people with disabilities because they are often a very vulnerable population for people to come squat in their property and really deteriorate their relationship with their landlord or cause them to lose their own rights without much regard for that person. People with disabilities essentially are often taken advantage of for their housing and they are the ones that face the most consequences for that.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So, given the timeframe that we're in, I would ask you to work on language to present to us tomorrow that we might consider. We'll meet nine to ten. I know Randy and David could have another meeting, but we'll meet nine to ten. We'll hope they'll able to join us during the course

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: With of

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: our last eight minutes, can we look at the last thing we had drafted? Because there was never a problem with the language, I don't think.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I think there was a problem with the concept of people using a disability as a Yeah. So I didn't know that we had language in addition to what we were looking at because the committee pretty much decided no on the language that we were looking at, with my understanding. Do you have language that we're I just don't know about any additional language. Cameron?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have any new language other than what you all were discussing last week.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And we agreed to not include this language that we had looked at. A landlord, right. I thought that was what we had agreed. If there's additional language for us to review, we could look at it, absolutely look at it tomorrow.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: I So, wash my sheet. I think, I mean, like I've struggled with whether I have a yes or no on this bill, as you know from the beginning.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if you have additional language, Kesha, I'm happy to look at it tomorrow, but I we don't

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: So but can you speak to this language while we have seven minutes and what the existing concern is? Because I had to leave to go speak to natural resources, and I'm not clear if the conversation was about the letter of the law here in what's written or about some concern that this would allow for, unfettered drug activity or something because someone has substance use disorder.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: No, help me, committee, and Cameron, I believe that the conversation was about using So as

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: I reread this, I am more comfortable because of the clarifications that came up in that discussion. I really wanna hear from you, Senator Weeks, if you do take a look at Brenda's email, don't I know if that does, it's not too long. But this this section B makes clear to me that if the disability, the disability can't be used to justify, or even if it's a mental health or anything related to drugs, but again, I think we clarified that if you're abusing drugs, that it's not protected. It's only that if you are in recovery, then you, it is a somewhat protected class, but really more employment law than landlord. But Section B tells me that if the behaviors are violent, if they create health and safety threats, or if it's criminal in any nature, then that disability is not a protection at all. So I am relatively comfortable that this is focused on genuine disabilities and not using disability to justify or weaken the ability of landlords to extract or to evict problematic tenants. I don't know if you have any thoughts, Dave.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, real quick, just to clarify though, if you limit the five A to subsection one, you don't need the five B, and what it would do is it would authorize or it would say that if someone was breaching the material terms of the rental agreement or they were not complying with the obligations imposed on the chapter, then the landlord would not be able to terminate the rental agreement if the activity in question that gave rise to the termination, so the activity that was violating material terms or was violating the obligations imposed if that activity was a result of someone's disability, then, you would not be able to terminate the rental agreement. I just wanted to clarify. We, I ended up removing the B because if you limit it to subsection one in the five A, you don't need the B anymore.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Can I just say maybe the B is like belts and suspenders to some people, and we leave it because it makes it really clear you can't engage in criminal or violent activity? Yeah, I'll leave it at that because we just have a couple minutes. I feel this whole section is very important.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So if somebody's disability is allowing them not to work and they don't have the money, does this allow an ejectment to continue if somebody's not paying the rent?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It would not cover a situation for not paying the rent, no. Response to the other comment that was made, if you're going to keep something like B, then, you know, my question would be, are you adding in illegal drug activity? Because B specifically talks about, you know, kind of the items listed in subsection B2. So So, if you're going to add kind of belts and suspenders language and you intentionally leave out one of the provisions at b two, you're signaling to the court that that's not your intention. So if you're going to keep a subsection b as it's kind of written on the page, I think you would potentially need to be careful about including it and how important.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Got it.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Is it Cameron, can I ask, is it conflicting or is it a compromise? Because I am the crux of a lot of our arguments have been is, like, a pattern of illegal activity, you know, a problem for a landlord or other neighbors that they should be allowed to address. And I think a I think a court or a reasonable person standard would look differently at a relapse in the home than they would, you know, people going in and out exchanging guns and drugs.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Okay, but that's not what this is about. This is about a disability, that a landlord could not terminate if a person's disability meant they weren't able to meet the rental agreement requirements. So I don't really fully appreciate what that could.

[Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Member)]: Be. Madam Pierre, think you were just I think you've that you're working to understand this piece altogether, that this is are specifically focused on B1 and B2, which is the difference between any breach of the rental agreement and criminal or violent activity. Right.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: And obviously that would be excluded for a person with So I would suggest, given we have two minutes left, that we take this issue up again tomorrow morning between nine and ten. I know David and Randy will join us, but we can maybe work on getting this language to a place where at least all of us can, could have some agreement on this. And then we need to revisit number four, I believe. Is the last, those are the two outstanding pieces. The disability language and number four, the Good Samaritan piece. Because I think other than that we've done I think we're in agreement on pretty much everything else. I think the disability language I may be getting more comfortable with and I think we just all have to understand its full implication.

[Thomas Chittenden (Member)]: Senator Weeks' time is up, so I guess we'll pick this up at 9AM tomorrow and hopefully we'll all be at where we are.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Yeah, thank you. I think that does us for today. Thank you, David, thank you, Kesha, thank you, Tom, Randy, Cameron.

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: Good conversation.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: Katrina, we will see you tomorrow and what?

[David Weeks (Clerk)]: One question, H775, when do you expect it'll be, you should be on notice for?

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: I don't know, it has to come out of natural resources and it still hasn't done that. And then it goes to finance, believe, is that right, Cameron?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe it will go to finance, but that is a decision of your secretary. Right.

[Alison Clarkson (Chair)]: So thank you everyone, Cameron and Kiara, if you could stay on just for planning purposes, everybody else, we'll see you tomorrow and we'll see you David as soon as you can, but Kesha and Thomas will see you at nine. Great, thank you.