Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No, you're being bad. There's five big bads. See, that's a great number of creators.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: We're all being very good, and good afternoon again, Welcome back to the Senate Committee on Government Operations meeting for Friday, 02/13/2026. Our final item to consider today is a bill we have looked at, S-one 196. Senator Clarkson is the sponsor of the bill, enacting that he can property tax sales. And we're gonna have legal counsel Cameron Wood give us again a, well, it's a nine page bill, so how about a 35,000 foot view of the bill, what it does, and then we'll get into actual testings. Yeah, we do.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Thanks. A quick overview of the report that came in on it. That motion requires the trustee. Right, no. Okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, Cameron Wood, Office of Legislative Counsel. What I'll do is I'll just jump in, I'll briefly describe what S-one 196 does, because it really just has a few provisions that can be described pretty easily. Then I'll back up, Mr. Chair, you'd like, we can talk about the working group that was created in 2024, and then some of the highlights of the report that came out of Act 106. Okay, so S-one 196, as mentioned, we've done a walkthrough, but just a quick recap. It would shorten the redemption period after a tax sale. So if you all recall when you're going through a tax sale process, over the past few years, this body has put in certain conditions that have to exist before a town actually moves forward to a tax sale. So in 2024, you all added that the taxes needed to be delinquent for at least a year. You added some notice requirements that had to go to the individual, and you added in the requirement that the municipality had to offer a reasonable repayment plan to the individual before you could get to the tax sale itself. Last year in Act 73, I'm assuming in response to some of the information in the report, you added another condition that there has to be a minimum of $1,500 due in taxes, okay? So that's the current conditions that exist. Has to be there for a year, 1,500, you have to offer the individual a reasonable repayment plan. Okay, perfect. If those conditions are met, then the municipality can move forward with the tax sale. At that point in time, the individual has a one year redemption period where the individual, as long as they are able to come up with the money that the property sold for, including the interest, which accrues at 1% per month, then the individual during that one year period can redeem a property and get it back. This bill, 196, primarily what it would do is it would reduce that redemption period to six months, and then it would also add in some conditions where either the municipality or the individual who purchases the home at the tax sale can go onto the property and secure the property during that redemption period. Currently, a municipality can go on to prevent illegal activity. This bill would expand that to say the municipality can go in and secure the property from damage, exposure to the elements, or deterioration. So it would add those as additional conditions. And it adds a new section into statute, would provide the mortgagee or the lienholder of record with written notice of at least ten days, excuse me, after providing those individuals ten days notice, the purchaser at the tax sale could go on and secure the property for the same reasons that the municipality could. So for illegal activity, to prevent damage, exposure to the elements, or to prevent potential fire hazards. So that is primarily what S197 does, those two things. Sara Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Maybe this is a question for you. Do you I it's the illegal activity piece that is I mean, a lot about this, Phil. I my hat holes out. But the illegal activity piece, what I'm worried could happen when it's not an official of the town or the municipality, and it's the homeowner, is that in responding to what they perceive as a legal activity, it may create some sort of dangerous vigilante type situation where does with this language

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that is a legitimate concern. Currently the municipality can do this.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right, and there's an officialness.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: what I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was about to say, adding it to the individual purchaser. This is where I think some of those concerns are probably addressed to VLCT. Chris Delia, who I believe was on the report, I think they could probably speak to the conversations legally, was on the committee as well. They could probably talk to you about some of those concerns because this provision in particular, the committee recommended against adding. And I think those concerns are probably some of the justification as to why. Keep in mind during the redemption period, the individual who, we talked about this one last time about bankruptcy, and during the redemption period, for example, one individual can file for bankruptcy, in which case the tax sale process stops, and the municipality cannot move forward because the individual has the opportunity to go through the bankruptcy court process and potentially retain the home. And so during the redemption period, the individual who owns the home, the delinquent taxpayer, it is their property, they still own it. They still have all the rights that come with the ownership of that home, they may even live in it, some cases they may not, but they may, so I imagine those are some of the exact concerns that were raised during the working movement. Okay?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yep. So again, for the benefit of those watching on YouTube and from the committee, the members of the working group were Vermont Legal Aid, Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Association of Listers and Recessors, Central Vermont Office of Economic Opportunity, NeighborWorks, Vermont Municipal Clerks and Treasures Association, Vermont League of Cities and Towns, Vermont Bankers Association, and the Vermont Borrower Association. And I know, Cameron, we have on our website the report from, ACT 106. I don't know if it makes any sense for me to read what I highlighted when I read it. I'll run through it if you'd

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like, Mr. Chair, that's easier for you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Let's summarize it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Page five then. Executive summary?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yeah, it starts on page four, but And I was trying to share can share?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Get the request?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's saying that it's not turned on.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think the illegal activity, just while they're working that out, my memory was that it had to do with squatters. Oh, I'm sure.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, I just, I have really big concerns about handing over random civilians the ability to gauge what is illegal activity and then have to respond to it. Like, that But it's the town, not? Well, no. Right now, it's the town. Bill proposes to add the person The the entrance. Yeah. Yeah. I don't feel good about that. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, we can always strike that and keep the fire hazard damage and or deterioration.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I will say there is, if there is You can bring an ejectment against an individual who is in your home. There is a court process for that. I'm not saying that that's appropriate for an individual who's purchased it to have to go through that or the individual homeowner to have to go through that. That's for you all a policy decision, but there is a process to try to expedite an

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: injectment action against somebody who is there at lawfully. Even if you don't fully you know, for me, I think one of the challenges here is that we're dealing with people who think they bought a property, but they don't actually really own it yet and they don't control it yet. And then what rights do they have? Do they actually have that right to have them ejected or do they have to petition? Mean, the town has the right. We gave them the tenth. Right. Sergei Gulshky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And that is kind of my question, in this instance that we're talking about where the tax sale has happened, it's in this redemption period, who owns the home? Exactly.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In that instance, it may actually be the tax delinquent individual. Correct. Sure that's the word I should be using, but that individual who would probably need to bring the action. Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Senator White, did you have a question?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Nope. No question.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. So let's

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see if you have it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Yes, sir. Five,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: because

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: what I want to do is kind of drill into some of the provisions of the Yes,

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: sir. Okay.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: As Cameron mentioned, issue three, we've already dealt with that, was the able to or exceeding the $1,500 penalty, and that's already been satisfied here. Yes, But issue four, I think, is where we're beginning to talk about some of the concerns of the committee.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, sir. So you have issues, just briefly, issue one and two. So the first one, looked at recouping equity following tax sale. Yes, sir. The majority of them recommends that a process be developed, but there is divergence of opinion of what that process looks like and there is some information further in the report if we get to it today, if not for those following online, you can find some more detail a few pages down. There in issue two, there's recommendation about standardizing the process and having a statewide, just here on the first bullet, a statewide education program and resource system for municipalities regarding the tax sale process. This is a municipal process, so while it is outlined in statute, I imagine there could be some divergence across municipalities. So then, Mr. Chair, as you mentioned, we get to issue three, which was the recommendation of adding in the minimum amount owed of 1,500. You all did that last year in Act 73. Then you get to issue four, tax sales of blighted or dilapidated properties, and the working group recommended against adopting a shortened timeframe to commence a tax sale of blighted or dilapidated properties, and it also discussed further on in the report a concern about how you actually define what is some sort of dilapidated or blighted property and the concerns about how you approach that definition. Issue five, yes?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I am making an assumption here. Blighted and dilapidated are probably fairly subjective and not defined well in law, and do not necessarily equate to vagueness, correct?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that is a good assumption, yes ma'am, and I think people approaching it are gonna assume those are two different things. You could have a home that has no structural issues with it whatsoever, where no one's living there and it has been vacant, Versus you could have a home that has significant structural or habitability issues and somebody is living there. So I would see those as probably two separate things.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: And is there a legal differentiation anywhere in statute between vacant and abandoned?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But we can that I'm sure is defined somewhere we could probably define if we wanna make them do.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I don't know about in the property context because, at the end of the day, right, you have a right to do with the property what you want, so what is taken to someone, somebody else may be holding for an investment property that they're intending at some point to do with. What I mean by that is an abandoned is a field with no dwellings on it vacant? It abandoned? One's doing this. Well, sure. But you don't have to secure it. But constitutionally, what does it matter? Like, for me as a property owner with my property rights, what is the difference if it is a piece of property with no structure on it or a piece of property with a structure on it that nobody lives there and I'm choosing to not live there, that is, my property if I have to do so.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. But it may be a hazard to the neighborhood. What I think is what we appreciated, particularly with the Springfield Charter, which is making me think of this is that it's a lapidated property. It sort of depends on the context within which it's experienced. So a a a a dilapidated and vacant non code compliant house could be a hazard in a neighborhood. It can fine. You could be holding it for for for an investment. But if it's if it's a if it's being used by squatters, if there have been fires in it, if there have been if it's a hazard to a neighborhood, I. E. Their little children who might go play and fall through the floor, that is a problem. And that is becomes then not an intellectual rights property rights issue. It becomes a neighborhood health hazard and a Correct.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Neighborhood hazard. And municipalities have the authority to address those circumstances now. They do. My answer was in the context of I don't think you have a definition of what is vacant property or abandoned property in the context of property because, know Or abandoned. What it will right. What is What appears to be abandoned to someone, to the owner, may be abandoned for a specific reason, because if I come onto the property once a year, once every three sixty five days, is it abandoned? So I don't think there is a definition in the context of property, but again,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I don't But there may be, because we have the realtor over there, because they haven't answered all Yes, of these

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you do. So the only thing I will mention is there is, I am aware of a definition of abandoned in the mobile home context. That's why I stopped sharing because I was going to pull it up for you. So in IDLE 10, you do have this definition, which is a resident of

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a mobile home or in a

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: mobile home park is deemed to have abandoned the mobile home if a reasonable person would believe that it's not occupied as a residence, the rent lot is delinquent, and the park owner has attempted to contact them. I think this is slightly unique in the sense that it's a manufactured house in a manufactured home community, so it's not necessarily the same as real property sitting

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It could well be very the similar, their which is somebody has stopped paying their mortgage stock, somebody stopped paying their tax, and there's nobody living there. What's different about A

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: lot rent tried to be on tax. Lot rent could be mortgage.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I don't consider lot rent in a mortgage because you can have a mortgage and lot rent. Correct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: You can.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: If we're looking at how to use it with houses, which is what we're talking about here, you could make a very

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: simple If

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: you get like a

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: condo then, would we open it up if you didn't pay your condo fees? What's the difference I don't know, we're

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: going to ask Peter about whether those go up for tax sale.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: They do, I think. They do. We've done a few in Hartford.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay, so let's, if we could get back to the recommendation.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bring us back just to here real quick, so issue four was about blighted dilapidated properties.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right, and they

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Recommend against doing anything Shortening time. In this piece. Issued by was about interest rates, and again, the working group was unable to find a consensus on this topic in particular. There are two separate recommendations, one from Vermont Legal Aid and one from Vermont Legal Cities and Towns later on in the report about whether or not the interest rate during the redemption period for a tax sale should be more tied to market rates versus what it currently is now, which is the 1% Vermont is 12%. Issue six, should the tax sale purchaser be allowed to secure the property during redemption? The working group recommended against this. If you read down the report because of some of the concerns that we were discussing a bit ago. And then the last issue is issue seven, where the working group recommends that there be a process created to have one entity consolidating information and making that information available online, cataloging it, etcetera, for tax sale processes across the state.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So I jumped ahead and wanna take issue six apart a little bit, and then we'll be joined by Peter Tucker. So the key points during the discussion about whether the purchaser can get on the property before he or she technically own it are allowing a successful bidder to enter into and take action is disruptive to the delinquent taxpayer, particularly if that delinquent taxpayer is in possession of the tax sale of property. It's inconsistent with recognized legal rights. Even a landlord is not allowed to take such action with regard to leased property except under extreme circumstances. There's no control over what that third party might do while pursuing actions apparently authorized by the suggested language. If the delinquent taxpayer redeems, then any action taken by the bidder may have to be undone. It's also possible the action by the bidder might have further altered the property in ways the taxpayer did not approve. There's particularly strong policy reason to allow such actions on property that is still owned or there's no particularly strong reason to allow such action on property that is still owned by the delinquent taxpayer and remains subject to a redemption right. Third parties, including bidders, do not have an insurable interest in the tax sale property until the redemption period expires. That would result in a third party entering on the property at their own risk with the potential for causing injury to the occupants of the property without possibility of the protection of insurance. The underlying concern giving rise to the suggested expansion of rights for the bidder at the tax sale is the possibility of illegal activity on the property during the redemption period, squatters, manufacture or sale of illegal substances. It's unclear how a bidder at a tax sale would secure the property against such activities, etcetera, etcetera. So it seems pretty clear to me based on the report from the working group that the bill in question would have to undergo some changes before we could move forward on it. So, Cameron, unless you have anything more, unless the committee has questions, I'd like to move on to Peter Tucker, and hopefully by the time Peter's testimony is finished, we'll hear from Chris Diehl. Right. That would be good. I mean,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: yeah, it's hard. I don't agree with a lot of the report, which

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

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: may be a part of the And, yeah, and that's what we, and I think what this entire discussion is doing is clarifying for me that this is a really challenging Mhmm. No man's, no woman's land ownership. It's not an ownership once you and and I think we would do well to really improve this messy transition, possible transition or not transition of ownership of a property. And I think it it's this report is helpful, but I don't think it answers the fact this is a very murky right situation, and we could clarify this. This would be really a benefit to all parties concerned if we made it here.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I took that to be exactly what the working group says. Right now, we don't think you should do anything, but go to work and change it then.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah, exactly. Go change it. Okay. Thanks, Cameron. I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: appreciate you going through the aspects of why they sent out the Yeah. That are, you know, and it is helpful for me to wrap my head around, like, even a landlord who actually does own the building, do that. And if there's illegal activity going on, I would I would imagine one could anyone without statute call police. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Or call the town.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: We go out to town and not here. Or the police. They don't necessarily have a town.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Or the Vermont state police.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Call my sheriff. Or the sheriff.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: There was a real county, they're in a pilot program.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But if they actually still own the house, they could go and secure it. Mean, if, you know, the original owner can go do it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Peter, great to have you join us and sure, bring us up to date with your group and how you all feel about this. Thank you.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And why weren't you on this?

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Well, so Peter Tucker, you know, I'm the the director for advocacy and public policy for the Vermont Association of Realtors. And in '24, I actually was part of a what was formed as a stakeholder group to, you know, take a look at tax sales and redemption and that sort of thing. That bill came out, or the work group came out of that work in that session, but I was not part of the work Right. Just simply Was fine.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Cheryl's first bill, which prompted this and back in

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

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: You know, a little bit of background at that point. And, you know, I think that the work that has been done was really good. You know, we did put in this this mechanism, to give to make sure that that anybody who was subject delinquent taxpayer was subject to a tax sale potentially had the opportunity to enter new repayment plan. That was not clear in the in the, you know, the statutes beforehand. You know, one other thing that I learned in that process is there's an attorney, Mr. O'Toole, who does tax sales for, like, twenty, twenty five towns. And what I didn't realize is that, you know, he said it in somewhere in the range of 80% of tax sales are redeemed in that one period You of know, they find a way to get it done and actually end up taking the prop that delinquent taxpayer ends up with the property at the end of the day. You know, tax sale, just, you know, purchasing a property tax sale is risky to begin with. You know, you're making this commitment, tying up capital or whatever, and for that one year period, you may not, you know, it may not amount to anything. You know, the property's redeemed by the delinquent taxpayer, and, you know, and, you

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: know, they're just

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: out. I thought that oh, sure. Senator Vyhovsky?

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Well, in an instance and and I I know nothing about how a tax sale process works. So in an instance where the delinquent taxpayer redeems the property, they have to pay back the person. So so the person didn't lose the money they tried to buy the property. Right.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: But they are you know, they tied up their capital for a one year period

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: of time. And there's interest that's paid.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Right. Right. Well, and interest would be paid by the delinquent taxpayer.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. There's interest. They not only go lose their their investment, they they also get interest. Okay.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: The other thing that does happen is that the town is on the hook for education taxes to the state. Yeah. Regardless of, you know, who owns the property or or what part of limbo it's in. You know? So quite honestly, you know, when we were talking about, you know, securing for, you know, illegal activities, you know, that's kind of a a town wide thing, right, that hopefully benefits the entire town. But I can tell you whenever there's a delinquent property going through a tax sale, everybody else is on the hook for, you know, the property taxes due for that particular property to the state ed fund. So wrapping these things up quickly, you know, obviously limits that that exposure. You know, I have I'm I'm here today to say that that our government affairs committee met Monday, and we reviewed this bill, and they are supportive of the changes in this bill. Yeah. That was not something that I thought I was gonna say today, but that's why we have, you know, a group of statewide folks that can provide input. And and, you know, obviously, the the the big change here is is securing the prop you know, allowing somebody to secure the property, whether it's a municipality or the tax lienholder, you know, at that point, you know, for that period of time. Go ahead, Tanya.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think this may be a council question for legislative council, but we currently do allow municipality to secure the property, correct? Right.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: What is it, it's for illegal activities, And this expands to condition of the property. Damage from exposure to the elements of Go ahead.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No, no. I got it. Yeah, okay.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Exposure to the elements and deterioration. So those are and fire hazards. Those are being added to the town's ability to, secure for illegal activities.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: And I think that was added in '20

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: It's well, it's in

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: your bill. It's in your bill.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Currently feel it's we had asked who haven't had it before.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, it's illegal activity and potential fire hazards, and this would be expanding it to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: expands it

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to the municipality to expand it to include damage to exposure and deterioration. And deterioration, right. Okay. Got it. Okay. Think

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that aspect makes I think what we've gone through to go so far, think

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we could probably support that. Mhmm.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Yes. And I I understand exactly. Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Probably not much of the budget.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator White?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Wait. Can I just get clarification? My understanding is a municipality can currently do those things.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Two of them. And they could do fires?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It's Wait.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Let me just open the camera. Yeah. Sorry.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If it's due to a fire hazard

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or illegal activity, the municipality currently has statutory authority to go in and secure the property.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yes.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What the proposal is is to add exposure to the elements, deterioration, also to then add the ability of the purchaser at the tax sale to do

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: That's all those the difference. Not comfortable with the individual,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: but I am comfortable with adding the extra couple things to what the municipality is able to do.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. I can see that.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Like, I am also absolutely not comfortable with the individual doing it. That makes sense.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Think it's very personal for me.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: No, I have to say, as much as I was hoping we could move this along for the benefit of my constituent, because she is still my constituent, I have serious concerns about that too. Maybe not for the same reason. Sure. But if that purchaser injures him or herself by walking into the place and they're uninsured and they or they do damage to the building, I'm just as much concerned about that as I am protecting the rights of the property owner during this period of time. I don't know what the right solution is. Is it a year? In essence, they have two years. They have a year before this whole thing kicks in, and then they have a year while the tax sale is pending to wage, But in

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: that's a lot of time. I mean, lots of you've taken that long to pay our bills.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I understand.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: You've that long to pay other bills. Why are we and I guess the other piece is the question when you say go on a property that and you may damage yourself. Who is insuring the property while it's in this limbo land?

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Is it is it insured? Yeah. Who knows? You know? I mean, if if the the the delinquent taxpayer if if the delinquent taxpayer owns that property until the end of the redemption period when they you know?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So they one assumes they're either paying to have it insured. Could conceivably a new purchaser who buys it at tax sale, could they insure it or not? Is there an opportunity for them to insure?

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I doubt it because they don't hold ownership. Exactly.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So you have to fully own it

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: to to insure it. And to be honest, if they can't pay their taxes, I'm not sure they'd be in a position to take an insurance policy off.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, you mean the the original owners? Yeah. Yeah. Oh, Yeah. I don't know. I think they probably could. If they lived in Woodstock, you could pay your insurance bill much more easily than you could pay your tax bill.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, maybe we could carve out Woodstock then. Right?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Well, Of course so.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I also think to senator Clarkson's point, sometimes when you're in a difficult financial situation, you prioritize what you can pay, and one might prioritize ensuring their home over

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Okay. A fact. Fair point. I've certainly Particularly if you're still living. And if Right. If you're living in it, then it's unlikely the new the potential owner. I don't even know what we call the people who buy these things at tax sales. Potential owners. Crazy people. I mean, I think they're crazy people doing this. The risk is so high. It's worse than a Broadway show, investing in a Broadway show.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But that's not easy. Your risk tolerance may be different than someone else's risk tolerance. If that is in line with their risk tolerance, that's

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a choice they can make. So but also, it's it's not just risk. A lot of people buy these properties because they can afford them. Because they're much less. Yes. And they invest their heart and soul in it because it's the one thing they can afford to buy in the neighborhood they may wanna buy in. So what is hard for me in this is the people who are actually buying it, not investors who want it, who could wait out and but the people like Cheryl Sun, who it's a big financial, yes, risk. And it it's it's not like they're doing this because they can afford to not have it go through, and they are really desperately hoping that they'll be able to buy this property and affordably renovate it and affordably move into it. So that's what's hard here is this real limbo. Just it's you're neither here nor there. You either own it or you don't own it and you do own it all at the same time. And you have your rights.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I will say that the redemption period was changed by that group in '24 from, it used to be one year in advance, you know, that you're in delinquency before you're put in a tax sale, and then three years to redeem. And that you know, that's where the the education tax discussion really kind of, you know, won out.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: It's not one and one.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Well, it is now, one and one, but it was three years of redemption previously.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right. When was that change made? 'twenty four. Not that long ago.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: No, not that long

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: No, that all became out of some of this discussion that began in '23.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But my point is just a couple years ago we made a change, and generally speaking, I am of the opinion that we should wait to see how a change plays out for a little bit before we make more gains.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I understand. And I think the committee's decision on this, as is true quite often in this building, is the balance. Are we protecting the rights of folks that are in the position of being delinquent, and are we protecting the rights of someone who is willing to take the risk at a tax sale to step up to the plate and buy it? I don't know. Well, based on the recommendations from the working group, it would seem like that group is suggesting we don't do too much amongst them. Yeah.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I mean, just because this is such a good conversation. I I think that if you if a building is vacant, if a perch you know, what do we call these tax purchasers? You know, I I feel I don't don't have the right name for them. But the people who bought it at tax and the the building is vacant and the person, and somebody buys it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Successful bidder.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Successful bidder, thank you. Successful bidder, and the building is vacant. I think then the successful bidder should have a right to be able to secure property in the ways they aren't currently able to at the moment, against the things we have here, and your group agrees. Your realtor group agrees with that.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Well, if I can give a couple of examples, these are personal examples. I sold real estate for twenty five years before I took on the advocacy role. Had a building, You I may have been behind on the mortgage, but it wasn't a tax sale property, and I represented the buyer. We were within seven days of closing, and the pipes burst. Heat was off, the pipes burst, and that deal was caught. Yeah. Don't know whatever had happened to that building. They had another good buyer In

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: that case, but the the original owner

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Was on a they they lost their they lost their sale because my guy backed out. Yeah. In terms of, you know, securing the building

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They failed to secure. They failed to keep it heated enough. Right. The pipes burst. Mhmm. So then they were out.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: They're out. Oh, yeah. Whatever the damage was plus whatever the, you know, he lost the contract on the property. You know, that it doesn't fit precisely into this. And but, but the when the government affairs committee of the Vermont Association of Realtors met on Monday, and I said, I think that we should, you know, we should, not allow for this kind of entry. And I think representative or senator, sorry, Vyhovsky, you know, that that your point is well taken, having just, you know, whoever bought the tax, the tax lien, able to kinda go in and I mean, there's just so much risk there by conflict between the delinquent taxpayer who still lives in the property and if somebody tries

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Let's let's assume that the only thing would be if it was vacant. Right.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: You know, I you know, my guys my guys want you to be able to secure the properties. Yes. Absolutely. You know?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: How do you know something

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. You know, vacant.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Because you know if people are living or not living there. That's

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: No. Don't really

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Once you open the door, you will.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: That's not a legally defensible argument. You just do. I I think

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: you know if a building is vacant or not. You know if people are living there or not.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: But I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think the issue is there is no statutory or constitutional requirement that you live in property that you own.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: That's the issue. That's fine.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: There are different elements of risk with a building that is vacant. It it certainly is able then to have the the heat no heat, and therefore the pipes go off first. It's it's then raccoons and animals can come and live in it. I mean, are there are things that you do not wanna have happen whether you own it or you're the successful bidder. No one wants the building to deteriorate.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But that's why I think allowing the town to to do something, and if you're the successful bidder, call the town and ask them to do it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Like,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I don't think random people should be having to make up

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: These are not random people. These are people who

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: are interested in purchasing a property that is protected. But from the legal standpoint, there are just any rape anything. Aren't just people who invested in that

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: They also might have a negative incentive to make sure those people move out quicker. You know what I'm saying? Like, imagine so imagine the situation. My father purchased the building in Windsor. Wasn't a tax sale. Was a regular purchase. Totally normal purchase. There were people squatting in the location separate from the owners of the property who sold it. You, in this situation, where it's even more clear that my father was the property owner, extremely dangerous for him to go on the property, had to get law enforcement support. What this bill would do is, let's say, got in a tax sale and you want to go knock on the window, he would be totally empowered to do that. Mhmm. That could set up a really negative interaction.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So would the committee thank you to the realtors for supporting this. I appreciate that completely. But would we consider them empowering the town to do what I think all of us would hope with a vacant property would happen, which is protect the vacant property from further deterioration and exposure and elemental damage.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I think I remember when I have both already said we would support maybe the addition to the municipal rights, but not any person individually.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm hearing that loud in pieces. I'm hearing the lovely unity of that side of the table with the head of the table, and unity over here with one who has no vote on it.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: So I think that the direction you're headed into is you know, certainly much less opportunity for conflict. Right? I mean, you know, having, you know, just the the purchaser, the lien. You know, the if you if you did keep that language in there, that person would have to be at risk for their their safety if it's a if it's a, you know, criminal activity or something going on, at risk for any improvements they made to the property. If it gets redeemed, they're kinda you know, I mean, do they get paid back for it or are they out of luck? I don't know, and I can't speak for the towns, league of cities and towns, whoever would speak for the towns, but are towns gonna wanna be willing to take that on as well? You know, I'm thinking about, you know, there are low cost things you can do to preserve a home, like making sure that the water is drained, you know, because there is no heat, you know, that aren't super costly, but definitely protect the property. But you have to have somebody that knows what they're doing to do it. They can do it wrong, and then you've gotta you know, you damage the property further. And I just don't know how much towns are gonna be willing to take on, and you have to understand that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I think a town is gonna wanna protect its grand list. Mhmm. And I think the more deteriorated the property gets, the lower the value of the houses and the lower the value to the town is. And I think the interest in the town is a, fewer fires, less damage, protecting brand list, and and and enabling in large measure the person who owns it. I mean, I think there are a lot of positive reasons a town would want to. I

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: absolutely think we should probably hear from and she said, Beal's. Oh, Beal's. Yes. And I hear you, but my understanding is the language in the bill grants the town permission does not mandate that they do it. Right. So each individual municipality can gauge their risk tolerance versus the benefit of doing these things. We're not mandating that they do it. Right.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: So my assumption is we because I was ready to park it.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I know we were. We've had such a good conversation.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: As I can be.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Take note of things about the company.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I'm almost stuck on

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: a I think based on what I'm hearing, and I agree, we should probably take more testimony on this, and if we can move it with some provision changes, maybe we do it that way. And I want to hear from Christelia too. Was trying to get some of today. Don't know. Well-

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So I think the LCT and Chris

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: are gonna need to hear from. So

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Can I add this back in?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yeah. And Peter wants to finish his testimony. Oh.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But No. No. Don't be sorry.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: So you know, got know, because I do think this is the critical issue, you know, and Which is the critical issue. The the the the ability to secure the

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: problem. Yes.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I agree. I'm I hope that my government affairs committee will be okay with me saying, you know, I understand the concern that an individual can go in and do that, but leave that ability with the town at their discretion. I think that you're right. That's exactly what it is. But the part that we fully support is reducing the redemption period from twelve months to six months. The reason is, you know, the the less education fund money coming out of the town to pay for it. And and once again, I'm kind of a little maybe out out ahead of myself on this one. But I think, you know, what senator Clarkson mentioned at the start of this conversation, why do we not just wait until the end of all this stuff and just sell it at the end of, you know, a year and a half, two years, whatever you decide is the right period for you know, because it's twelve months before a tax sale can occur and then twelve months to redeem. You know, just because of tax you know, just because the the the town has forced that tax sale on the property doesn't mean that's when the town has to sell it. You know? And if they just waited till the end, you know, a lot of the controversy it would be a

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: and it would be done deal with this.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: The property potentially could be deteriorating during that period, be it six months or twelve months, you know, too much. But but, you know, I think that that the certainty that that would create is worth exploring at least.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Because I I think as I see this, I mean, there's just this we've created this messy period where you're something it's in need of fish in your home. And a family is let's say, ideally not ideally, but at its best, this is a family trying to work to save their home. And they have the opportunity. That gives them certainty, and then there there isn't this it just gives everybody more certainty if we gave it eighteen months, and then they would either sell it or not. And then there wouldn't be this sort of messy in between.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: And and remember and, you know, if you wanted, I can probably find mister O'Toole's contact information. But if he's even close to right, saying 80% of tax sales are actually redeemed, it would save all that, hey, I think I own it, but then I find out I don't really own it because the delinquent taxpayer redeemed it. And just wait till the end. Turn it away.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Do you have any information about when typically people normally redeem of that 80%? Are they doing it in that first month? Is it coming at I think it's

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: last day. Yeah.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Then so why would you

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I mean, that's a guess on that's purely

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a guess on my phone. So They do it last day of the six months too. I mean, they For while. Just like well, like, everybody works to the deadline. People work to the deadline. If you have a deadline

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: You you say people work to the deadline, but

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: they the time. They didn't work to the deadline for their taxes. But the house wasn't going to be taken away from them.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: They would they would save on it. You know, there would be some savings the quicker you do it. But, you know, do they have the ability to do it?

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yeah. I guess my point is I'm I'm not hearing a logical logical argument for why six months versus a year is actually going to give people the opportunity to purchase their home at the same way either time is. And I well, I philosophically can understand the idea that people pay when they are at their last possible moment to pay. I can philosophically see that. Why would we make it six months so it's even harder? They've got

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: a whole bloody year. They've had

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: a whole year to pay their taxes.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: It's just really not enough time. It's not enough time. Eighteen months isn't enough time to figure out

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: how to pay a bill.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: If you are that indebted, no.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: If you weren't that. Know you have I know you have

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: a lived experience of this one, but it can take I was disappointed when we moved for three years. I we had this same argument.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But we weren't on the committee when we moved.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: In 2024? Knew better than it. That I

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: mean, I my experience was in house, you know, ways and means. That's that's where I had

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I I don't think we would need that decision.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: We had a whole conversation about this exact Oh,

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we did, but it was Cheryl's first bill that we were having the first conversation about.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Senator Vyhovsky.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I appreciate that college students might, you know, work to the deadline, but I'm sorry. The choices are I might become homeless the moment I can pay that bill, I'm paying that bill. So I don't know that it is fair to equate homework with the loss of one's home.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I'm just talking about deadlines. I think people work against us.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: My point is that I think a lot of people who have the looming threat of losing their home are going to pay that bill as soon as they possibly can.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Okay. Why don't I suggest this?

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Maybe there's data. That data that we've asked.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Well, that's what my question was. Do you have any, say, keep track of that or

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Right. Quicker is better. Next Wednesday, it will be the first item we take that in case we get into an extended conversation again. And I'm sure we will, and then

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we have to turn the track. Yeah. There's quite a few people scheduled to come out on the two charters. I don't know if Could we could fit it we do it on Tuesday? Because that's just the two introductions. Do you think you could get data to us by Tuesday? I can do Do you think you could get the data that Becca just asked for?

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: A good idea. Okay. I don't know that that's a I don't

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: think so. That's Yeah. That's what

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: he's saying. Just

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: So you would have to probably do it with an individual town who track, you know, going into people actually. I don't think

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: I was tracking it, though.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: I think it's the question.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: PLCT and just dealing right now of of We

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: should probably hear from legally we saw on

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: the record.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They yes. They were on the.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Right. But they might have some of the data that senator Oh, White is asking

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I hope we should ask them that question so they come prepared.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I mean, may be other questions, but I I realized that anyone was gonna track that.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Right. It would probably be. But I do think generally, watching up my family, who work against deadlines all the time. Cameron. On my patients.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanna clarify one thing, and it may have just been a misinterpretation on my part, Peter, respectfully. The redemption period, as far back as I can tell, has always been one year. Wasn't three years and then reduced.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I know

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: we did not do that in this committee, so I don't Yeah.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Knew that was

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: three years. It it wasn't the redemption period. It may you know, there may have been another provision that factored into it, but I just wanted to double deck for you. And to answer the question, as far as I can tell in the statute, the individual is just simply referred to as the purchaser. The individual who makes the winning bid of the tax sale is just referred to as purchaser throughout those sections. So there's two things I wanted to

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I would say they're in and of itself. That name is makes this whole whole process very murky. We could an owner. Yes. We could. But we have an owner and we have a purchaser. Where do we have in our lives something that has dual interest that significant? In a free home sale,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: have a owner, you have a purchaser until the closing date and the plan to hand over the keys happens. It's the

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: limbo piece that Yeah.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. But that happens in regular home sales as well. You've sold your home and you made an agreement with the purchaser that you will move out of that home contract.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: But you're not.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: But like It's also

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: an auction setting. So it's a very different setting than most home sales have been. You know? You're not you're not negotiating with the next homeowner. Do you get what I'm saying? Like, you're not having a real conversation typically as two people like you do when you purchase a home or work through a realtor. It's a very different situation. In fact, most people walking into home sale auctions don't know if they're gonna get the home. They don't know what the cost of the home is gonna be. So I think of it I understand what you're saying with the risk calculus. These are not traditional home purchases in the way that you or I go out and purchase a home. You're entering an auction situation, which in and of itself is also like a completely different thing. If you've been to a car auction before, like, you don't know what you're gonna get. You don't even really get to look under the hood. You know, there's all it's a different thing than when you purchase a home and you get an inspection and you get a walk through and all of this stuff. You it's a different construct.

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: Also think that you entered into that risk knowing that that was the risk and you made the choice to do so, whereas the person who's having their home sold at tax sale didn't decide, like, I'd like you to sell my auction off my home. Yeah. Like, I I I do think that there is a level of choice in saying, I understand this is risky. I understand I could walk away at the end of the year and not have and and only be given back what I paid in the interest, and I'm gonna do it. I mean, it's the same if

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I invest in the stock market, and I'm

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: like, hey, look, they're here for Bitcoin. I'm like, hey, this seems like a good idea. I'm gonna put some money into Bitcoin. I have no way like, I purchased this. I have no way of knowing if one year from now that is gonna have tanked, it's a risk.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: I will say, when you purchase real estate conventionally, you have a written contract that is binding on both parties at the time that it's written, and usually the time frame is sixty to ninety days max, So, you know, it happens a lot faster.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Which is why the bailiffs probably support the notion of six months. Right.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Yeah. Mean, honestly, I mean, I think, you know, for that delinquent taxpayer, that's, you know, less you know, less on them, you know, if I they can get it have attorney O'Toole's phone number here, and I would suggest that he would know exactly

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: he had do with Okay.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Will you connect with I will. Yep. Yep.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Yep. Okay. Thank you, Peter. I appreciate it.

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: Thank you, guys. Yep.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Well, we delayed as long as

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: we could, but I'm gonna

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: He's not like

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: He didn't

[Peter Tucker (Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, Vermont Association of Realtors)]: he didn't really wanna come down.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: I'm gonna bring this weekend a little closer for a committee member. So we'll take this up next Wednesday, And so far, we've got VLCT, Chris Delia, Vermont Legal Aid, and Mr. O'Toole hopefully joining us. Again, Senator Morley will be back with us next week. So I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend, Valentine's Day, and that's something you celebrate. Most people do. Oh my god.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: I hope everybody celebrates it from severe dacity. Well, do,

[Senator Tanya Vyhovsky (Vice Chair)]: If no.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is there anything people would be, though.

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

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: Is there anything else for the committee today? Okay.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: Except I do wanna say publicly what a joy it is to have Dan Gottsagen's paintings in our world. Yes. We should have.

[Senator Rebecca "Becca" White (Member)]: Yes. Then as a group paintings, I think they were photographs. Yes. Isn't it? No. Were. It's nice.

[Senator Alison Clarkson (Member)]: They and these are our constituent, Dan Gottsagen. He lives in Artland. He does he's done a lot of art in public buildings in Vermont, and he's one of our great painters, and he we were having a discussion, he said, hey. You're willing to lend these to us for the rest of the session. With

[Senator Brian Collamore (Chair)]: that in mind, we will adjourn for the day and the week, and see you on Tuesday.