Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: We are live. Hey, good morning. It is April 23 in Senate Judiciary. We're taking up page seven seventy two. There are some time constraints, so we're actually starting from the bottom with Chad Simmons himself. I'll introduce myself and the board members. Great. Thank you, committee. For the record, my name is Chad Simmons. I'm an executive director in the housing and home on this alliance going on.

[Chad Simmons]: I really appreciate the committee's flexibility and the schedule. I'm hoping that up right next door in just a few minutes. So I submitted my testimony. It's a little bit longer than what I'll share verbally right now. Our organization is a membership organization. We represent organizations, individuals, so faith based organizations, nonprofit housing organizations, and shelter providers across the state that focus on dual mission of ensuring that we prevent homelessness from happening and respond to it when it does happen, as well as creating a safe, affordable and accessible housing monitoring. So we really appreciate the opportunity to discuss seven seventy two as it talks about the house. We have a number of concerns with the overall number of concerns with the bill and feel like there it sets us up for creating additional challenges to our homelessness and housing systems. That being said, we do support a couple of very narrow provisions as passed and would like to propose I know it's done in economic development, and the Chicago and Federal Affairs is also working on some language around improvements in the court system looking for efficiencies. So I'd like to just speak briefly to those couple of key areas that we do support in the bill. So first area is two kind of narrow provisions offered by our nonprofit housing network and our members to expedite the notice process and or rental agreements and terminating those in the event of threatening behavior or safety issues that pose safety issues to tenants. We feel that this is an adequate shift and expediting that process for very narrow parameters around safety related issues. We did in our memo a bit include draft language that we also shared with some of you not to develop evidence. The second is Are you able I'm sorry to interrupt. Yeah, sure. To just briefly highlight or just tell us what the scrap language is for that? Sure. This looks at section one, pages eight, lines, and page nine. Page eight, lines 16 through 20, and page nine, lines one through two. And we are proposing that we sweep in criminal activity, strike out illegal drug activity, and then put in the words, any of which is an ongoing and repeated threat to the safety of other residents. And your proposing striking out the press where it's a landlord or landlord agent and neighbors. Yes. And I'm sorry, just neighbors. So that the landlord or landlords

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: would have

[Chad Simmons]: any currently made behavior towards those individuals. We struck out neighbors because some of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: our members, and I should

[Chad Simmons]: have said this upfront, our neighbor our membership is broad, and our membership also has divergent perspectives on this bill. So we are are we've kind of landed and tried to land the blame as it were

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: on meeting ground. Chair Bills? I recognize that you're not our attorney, but that it's sort of posing a threat. How is that defined? I feel like that could be a fairly subjective

[Chad Simmons]: Sure. The would have to so the primary landlord would have to show evidence and provide proof that threatening behavior is both ongoing and is geared towards the tenants. So essentially they would have to show evidence of

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Yeah, so I guess my question is what is threatening behavior? Is that I yelled at your dog three times? Is that I sit in my house by myself and yell because I'm struggling with an experience that is not consensual. Like what is threatening behavior? Is it actually physical threatening behavior? What does that mean?

[Chad Simmons]: So I think some of the testimony that's been given and other committees and our members have shared kind of ongoing pervasive violent behavior. And I think that those instances are the ones that are the reasons why we're bringing this proposal to the legislature for consideration. So I would say it could be a variety of things, but we are really focused on those acts of threatening and ongoing behavior.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: So I wonder if you would be comfortable with violent behavior as a threatening behavior given the sort of subjectiveness of what is threatening. I mean, might feel threatened because someone is a pro black man. I don't. But there's a lot of area for subjectivity and bias and problem. Do you see do you just sort of see what my concern is with that language?

[Chad Simmons]: Yeah. I understand that. I think there are ways in which, though, again, our members have shared with us that not all activity is and not all instances are violent, but they pose risk to the tenants. So we've been kind of looking at this from a tenant protection the same way. Okay. Just

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: to follow-up on Senator Nader Hashim, we are in sub two on line 16 and following? Yes, correct. Because it does say acts of violence, and then it says, threatens the health or safety of other any other activity. So it seems like your point, if I'm understanding the change you want make, it seems like it's already there in the acts of violence. My question other than that is,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: do you go along with

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: the last line moving from fourteenth to fifteenth? Yes. And just quickly, reason for that particular collective. Sure.

[Chad Simmons]: So as our members have shared with us, expediting the process a little bit would help them create a safe environment for tenants to live in. And so that little bit of time moving the process forward would be able to allow for folks to the nonprofit providers to be able to move the process quicker to ensure the safety of the tenants. So we do.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I wouldn't necessarily characterize it as small changes, reducing it by all means. So five days dosage quick to the virus.

[Chad Simmons]: And again, I think we would only agree with this change proposal in this very narrow focused instance. Because as I shared earlier, we do have concerns with broadly expediting the process for variety of reasons as you pointed out. It is a fair point. So where I left off is the second piece that we are in support of is the ability to issue a contract pass order for any tenants invitees. Again, this would be in the cases of threatening behavior as well and ongoing activity, and that would get the tenants consents to the no track pass and the invitee violates the terms of the rental agreement per state or federal law. So those are the two narrow provisions that we are in support of in making those changes. Again, think our goal is that this bill be narrow and focused and make incremental changes to the landlord tenant. So you support the no trespass section as it's written? Correct. And everything, generally everything else in the bill, proposed agnostic. There are a couple of other sections that we do, and I know you'll be hearing from a couple of other advocates that we do support. But by and large, we feel like the bill is too broad and too makes too many changes. I think a number of our members have shared that if this bill were to move forward with the expected date as is, it would make it almost impossible for us to be able to respond adequately and provide the updated education and informations to and legal services to folks involved. So we feel like just having a narrow component of that. The other thing I didn't mention explicitly, but that we are going to a little bit more detail in the memo is looking at ways to improve the court process and expediting and looking at ways efficiencies to make for making the court. And that could include also looking at specifically a standalone housing court that would look at these specific cases outside of the court proceeding. So that could speed up the process as well.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: I have a question about the no trust definite meeting for you at Navy for Legislative Council. And that, so if a tenant consents to a no trespass order, couldn't they just get the no trespass order themselves because it's their house? Is there some reason why it makes more sense for the limer to do it as opposed to the tenant?

[Chad Simmons]: It's a it's a good question. I'll let I'll let his counsel answer, but I do have a response as

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: from our members. The legal Cameron Wood office is legislative counsel to the record. The legal answer is there's a seat nothing. We prohibit the tenant who has law law abatience, parenthesis, or a mischief, a or

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: mischief,

[Chad Simmons]: mischief, my take on is there could be directly situations where the tenant may not want to be the one who issues it for fear of retaliation of their partner And if you're coming from a landlord, then the tenant has more standing to say, I had nothing to do with that, it was the landlord. Whereas the landlord and the tenant could be actually agreeing with each other to issue that no press vest. There are also other situations where there are folks living in a space and it's not entirely consensual with the tenant that they're living there, but the tenant doesn't quite know how to reclaim their space out of fear. So it's something that I've seen a few times in Brown Grove but Anyway, you actually, that was one of the examples I was going give in my previous work I did, support for communities dealing with and experiencing substance use disorder. And we found that to be a case oftentimes seen where people were intimidated and folks were essentially had to choke over their apartment. So we were also hearing from members too that those kind of intimidating acts of threatening behavior put enough fear in a tenant's case that they wouldn't feel comfortable doing the I test think the final thing I'll just mention is you'll hear from advocates shortly from the Vermont Network that they're proposing some language changes that would support make additional protections for folks that are experiencing domestic and sexual violence. And so we support the language that they'll be disclosing to ensure tenants can report incidences of violence without fear or risk of losing their health. So I think this is just another good example. And then there are over the protections in the bill as it exists that we do agree with and support. And those essentially say that tenants would be protected if they call or ask for rental assistance and and

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: make those decisions as well.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other questions? Good. Thank you. Thank you, Sandy. So I'll go back to the topical list to Jessica.

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: Good morning. Thank you, Chair Hashim and Senators. For the record, my name is Jess Hyman. I'm the associate director of CVOEO's statewide housing advocacy programs, including our fair housing education program. As you probably already know, CVOEO is one of the state's five regional community action agencies, and we work to advance economic, social, environmental, and racial justice, we support people in achieving economic independence. Most of our programs serve the Champlain Valley area, Franklin Grand Isle, Chittenden and Addison Counties, and our housing advocacy programs are statewide. So we work with renters, people living in manufactured home communities and individuals experiencing discrimination all over the state. As part of that work, we respond to more than 3,000 calls and emails each year through our helplines for renters and manufactured home residents. We provide rights and responsibilities trainings for renters, landlords, municipal officials, and service providers. We offer housing stability and eviction prevention support. We work with SILs, and we have a temporary housing voucher program. So to allow time for questions today, I'm just gonna cover the first little bits of my written testimony. I invite you to review it in full at your convenience. So I'm here today to share some deep concerns about seven seventy two, make a few policy suggestions. If there's time, talk a little bit about the connection between education and early intervention and policy and reinforce some funding requests. So please note, I'm not an attorney, and I'll happily leave the legal analysis to experts like legislative counsel, Cameron Wood and Jean Murray of legal aid and others. However, I do have many years of experience working with tenants and landlords and people experiencing legal housing discrimination. And I can speak to the impacts of the significant changes to landlord tenant statute that are proposed in July. For context, you know, every day here at CVOEO, hear from renters who are facing threats to their housing stability, and they often get to us only in the last days of their notice periods or after they've opted to needle needlessly leave their homes after a termination notice or an illegal eviction. And renters are often really scared to speak up and also to enforce their rights, often because they fear retaliation. And this is especially in areas where a few landlords control the majority of the rental market. Granted, when we hear from renters when things aren't working aren't working or aren't going well, and we know that a large amount of the the landlord tenant relationships around the state are positive and fair. And that's another one of the reasons we have big concerns about seven seventy two. So our biggest concern is how it will disproportionately impact vulnerable communities. We recognize there are very real safety challenges caused by a small number of egregious situations. However, this bill significantly reduces due process for Vermont's, you know, approximately 76,000 renters. And these changes will harm people with disabilities, people with limited English proficiency, and those already subject to discrimination and harassment. So shortening the eviction notice and response timelines overall makes it harder for tenants to access legal representation, eviction defense, or emergency rental assistance. And the bill also makes multiple changes to landlord tenant law that weaken existing renter protections. And some provisions of this bill were intended to strike a balance. We we understand that, but the the cumulative impact creates unnecessary harm. We also have concerns in about parts of the bill that would codify landlord fees, such as background check or credit check charges, despite the existing statutory limits on implication fees. Other provisions such as shortening the timelines for non payment and breach of contract from existing statute, including posting notices on the doors, actual notice, and including, provisions such as repeated late payment, refusal to allow landlord access, termination for no cause, and the undefined other reason for expedited eviction are also problematic for us. We feel that current statute has maintained a good balance, between landlord tenant rights and responsibilities, and seven seventy two disrupts that balance. So few alternatives to consider. If the core issue is the length of time eviction takes to move through the courts, we believe that problem should be addressed by increasing court capacity, or establishing a housing court rather than eroding due process for all renters. Similar to what Chad mentioned earlier, CBOEO would support a separate approach, that allows for expedited resolution in truly dangerous situations, but only if that's paired with tenant protections, such as limited rent increases, good cause eviction policies, and stability retention services. This type of carve out for housing providers, which would be mostly the nonprofit housing providers that have these practices could be made separate from the existing bill, as a way to to address these landlord and community safety needs without the cascading impacts of other changes proposed in this bill. Additionally, we think that any expedited process for landlords should be matched by expedited hearings for tenants, especially in cases involving habitability or landlord noncompliance. And we highly support right to legal representation for tenants and eviction cases as well as funding for rental arrears. So we're not support supportive of the bill as written. However, if it is to move forward, there are a few fundamental changes, related to termination notices and eviction timelines that would preserve tenants' rights and due process while addressing the stated landlord desires to expedite the eviction process in certain extreme situations. So we would, you know, I've got a couple specific lines that I wanted to comment on. So on on page one, you know, the the removing the the all the the new language added to the bill. I think existing statute does a good job of of of defining actual notice, including the delivered by sheriff service isn't necessary. That's already included under hand delivered. That would be included. So and then moving on to to to to to, online page I'm sorry. I'm losing track of my notes here. That it's a long bell. So we we also would highly recommend keeping the existing notice timelines for nonpayment of rent, which is currently fourteen days in statute, and for breach of rental agreement, which is thirty days in statute. Those are those work. I think they work for tenants. Generally, they work for landlords as well. We would like to see on page seven removing repeated late payments as a cause for termination. You know, this is it's a cause cost of doing business. We would also like to see the on page eight, line 10, removing the tenant refusal to grant access as a cause for termination. On page eight, looking at restoring the words criminal, criminal activity, and adding actual or imminent threat to refer to the definition section. I also wanna note, just to uplift, senator Vyhovsky's point about how you define threat. You know? And and and threat using the word threat could be an opportunity for bias or discrimination. We just wanted to flag flag that. So it's important to have that that defined well. Also on page eight, line 17, we would like to see the overly broad wording or other activities removed. This could make it easier to discriminate against people with disabilities, BIPOC, LGBTQ plus folks, and others in protected classes that other activities is too vague and not a rationale for eviction. Yeah. As I mentioned earlier, we would we would support a carve out for certain housing providers who have 10 who have good tenant protection policies to have an expedited eviction process. However, we still believe that five days is far too short. So I'm on page nine, line one.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: You know,

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: fourteen days and fourteen days is what's written in existing statute. Five days is far too short. That's not enough time to ensure due process and access to support, especially for people with disabilities, folks whose first language is in English, and other vulnerable populations. So for example, if the actual notice was given on a Thursday, five days would take it to Tuesday. That gives a maximum of three business days to seek support, legal assistance, etcetera. It's just not enough. Know, we would would support something shorter than fourteen days, but definitely not as short as five. On page nine, line four, we'd suggest adding under the threat of perjury, to that that paragraph to make it clear that a landlord can't just make up a reason for for that.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry, which page and line number was that?

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: I'm sorry, page nine, line four. So that's the the section that talks about the attestation. And let's see on page 10, lines seven to eight and also 21, we would remove government notice to vacate from that list. That's unnecessary since state and local inspectors already have the power to to order a tenant to to vacate if there are habitability issues. And let's see. Page 11, line four. We would remove or repurposed. That's as as as a as a vague term. And there are a number other line edits that we would make in this bill, but I thought that those were most relevant to your to your discussion today. Any questions on those?

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I think just regarding page nine, line four, you're referring to the actual notice required under the subsection shall be accompanied by an affidavit. And I don't know that it's necessary to create the risk of burglary there because if you're that's inherent in filing this you know it's a sworn affidavit for filing that with the court I believe there's already inherent risk of perjury if you're lying on an affidavit you know yeah good point Just one small point that was impactful.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Sorry did you have anything else Brittney do you want?

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: I just wanted to conclude by, just noting the importance of education and early intervention in any policy change. So the education that we do for renters, for landlords, for, municipal official municipal officials and others is really critical to helping everyone understand their rights and responsibilities under the law. You know, there's this link between policy, law, and education. And the more everyone understands what their rights and responsibilities are, the more the better the system works. You know, that's why we've asked for the reintroduction of some of the funding that was in the original bill, which is housing education and landlord liaisons positions to help build that educational foundation and also the relationships as as well. So we in closing, I respectfully urge the committee to protect due process and vulnerable Vermonters while addressing serious safety concerns. You know, as I said before, we do do not support the bill as written. We would support a separate carve out, that could allow for some expedited, evictions in very specific circumstances when there are other renter protections in place, but not in the context of this bigger bill that has a far too many changes to existing renter statute. So we real I really appreciate the opportunity to test testify today. I appreciate the work that the committee is doing, and I'm happy to answer any other questions or turn it over to the next to the next witness. Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Just a just a quick comment or maybe this is a question but, made me think of it regarding the educational piece that you had described and I'm wondering if pushing out the effective date by, I don't know how long, but pushing it out by a little bit in order to allow all these different organizations to update their materials and get information to their tenants, but also to allow landlords and other housing providers the opportunity to meet with their counsel and figure out what rules or how the rules are affecting them as well. And the effective date is July 1, which is pretty soon. Generally, are you would you be supportive of pushing out the effective date a little bit?

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: If if this bill passes, yes, we would absolutely wanna see the effective date pushed out. That's not enough time to get even the most basic of information out to landlords and tenants. And, you know, there's there are there are all the printed materials, information on websites, outreach that would need to happen from both the tenants advocates, landlord advocates, and other community groups that would take a significant amount of time to make sure that everyone understands these significant changes to existing statute.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Thank you. Committee, any other thoughts Senator Joseph?

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: One of the things you pointed to with the five day window being too short given that the instances are maybe only three business days to find legal counsel. Is there currently adequate legal counsel for tenants seeking support in these areas?

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: Absolutely not. There's a huge need for more representation for tenants. You know, if you if you look at the percentage of landlords who have who have legal counsel in eviction cases versus the percentage of of tenants, it's there's no comparison. I think Jean could give you the exact percentages on on those, but we're already seeing a lack of support, a lack of access to resources, and a lack of access to the legal system, from the tenant population. And so shortening the process exacerbates the existing issues that are resulting in a really unfair and unbalanced situation for renters in the courts.

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Any other questions, Senator Horace?

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Yeah, Jess. In looking at page nine of the 14 you found to be not acceptable or implied based moving from fourteen days. Of course you realize this particular notice falls under page eight line 16 and the termination is based on the health and welfare of individuals, illegal activities, so on and so forth and essentially speeds up, it's my understanding, it simply speeds up the process because the eviction notice is part of the process. It's nothing more than an invitation to please leave by this date. It still doesn't jump over the judicial review as far as obtaining a summons, a complaint, get your time in court, so on and so forth. So I can understand five days notice on this just due to circumstances here. This is not late payment of rent or anything. These are extraordinary circumstances where they may be. So I guess I'm a little concerned as to why the five days may upset upset you.

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: Yeah. That that's an an excellent point. You know? And in these extreme situations, there should be an expedited process. However, on principle, we wanna make sure that everyone has access to due process, And everyone is innocent till proven guilty in general, and so we we wouldn't wanna change that's why five days just seems far too short. But less than fourteen makes total sense. You know? So if it were, for example, seven days, that could give folks access to basic legal supports, and still shorten the process considerably.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: You're welcome. Any other questions? Great, thank you very much.

[Jess Hyman (CVOEO)]: Okay, thank you.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Good morning. Morning. Morning. I'm Leslie Herman, I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic

[Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (Member)]: and Sexual Violence, and I'm joined by my colleague, Hi, Catarina Lasias, the advocacy and organizing manager.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And we appreciate the opportunity to share a proposed amendment to H-seven 72 of the committee. I will provide some background on the language that's specific to survivors of domestic and sexual violence that's currently in the bill. And then our proposed amendment and Katarina will walk through the language in a bit more detail. And that language is posted on the committee's website. Do you

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: have the hard copies of us? I do not,

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: but I'm happy to print some off after we have provided.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: No problem. We got hard copies, but shortly with that, just All right. Thank you.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So the intention of this proposed amendment is to clarify the protections for survivors of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking within the mill and support their continued access to housing. In 2025, the 14 member programs of the Vermont Network provided emergency housing to over a thousand individuals who are fleeing violence. Collectively, these programs serve every town in Vermont, supporting survivors through emergency shelter, motel overflow, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and assistance accessing the GA Emergency Housing Program. The linkage in July, specifically language on survivors and retaliatory conduct prohibited, termination of tenancy, and the right to bifurcate a rental agreement seeks to ensure that tenants can report incidents of violence and request assistance without risking losing their housing. It also affirms that a tenant's housing status should not be adversely affected solely because they are a target of violence. To ensure these protections are implemented as intended, we have a proposed amendment to clarify and approve them as operationalized. The proposed amendment would do a couple things. It would establish a notice of tenants rights that is provided by the landlord. It's a couple of key points in the process, including at the time of an eviction notice. It would clarify the process for lease bifurcation for survivors. And it would also adjust language, including removing one piece that was in the House passed bill to better align with our existing state and federal housing protections for survivors and also minimize any unintended consequences for survivors. These updates draw from a few different places, stakeholder feedback, some of the testimony that you all heard in this committee, as well as a bit more research and review of some existing standards and the federal violence against women act, VAWA, and current state protections for survivors in their housing currently. We appreciate the time and I now feel like I have to waste time until Emory comes back with your printouts. Or would you like us to hop into the blanket review? Can,

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: afraid he'll be back in the term. So we can hop into the language review.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Okay, perfect. Well, you. Katharina, go ahead.

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So our first suggested change, as Chellen mentioned, is a notification of the occupancy rights. We suggest the Housing Division of the Agency of Commerce and Community Development that they shall develop a notice of occupancy rights under Vermont and federal law, including information related to the right of confidentiality pursuant to nine forty four-seven-four. I'm sorry, I'm not a lawyer, but So, in order for tenants To explain why we want this, in order for tenants to be aware of various protections, we believe it's important that there be notice at key points in the process from the beginning of the rental agreement to the denial of a housing application or eviction. This language is modeled on the federal Violence Against Women's Act provision, which currently applies to tenants of public housing or who receive federal housing assistance. I'll keep moving on, but please feel free to ask questions at any time. The second language, or the next part that we'd like to add is the notice shall confide with the Office of Racial Equity's most recent language access report. So again, the notice should be accessible to all renters and language should not be a limitation. The language accessibility text this language accessibility text is used in other areas of Vermont law, so that's where we pulled it from. And then the final part of that section of the amendment is that the landlord shall provide the notice developed under this section to an applicant or tenant at the beginning, at the time the individual is admitted to the dwelling unit, at time the applicant is denied residency in the dwelling unit, or with any notification of eviction or notification of termination. As One second.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: I'm sorry, Ruth. Just a clarifying question. So Please. When you say admitted to, does that mean they've been cleared to live in the space, agreement signed?

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. That is what that means.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay. And then denied residency, how is that different from being evicted?

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That would be if there's an application process you've They just been did the So,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: does everybody get the notice or just people in the protected class?

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: We would, we think everyone should get the notice.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Okay, so in other words, if landlord has many people apply, they're required to notice everybody who doesn't get the apartment. Yes.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay, thank you.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And there is a summary at the end of our testimony of some current state and federal housing protections that are already in practice here. This notice of occupancy rights is included in federal VAWA protections, which applies to a variety of housing providers that are currently in Vermont. Anyone who lives in public housing, anyone who has a Section eight voucher or lives in a rental unit that receives federal housing assistance. And so when we were thinking about what might be feasible in protecting the rights of survivors in housing, we tried to look at what is already in practice, what landlords are already able to do. And this occupancy rights was one of the methods.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Senator Mattos. I'm curious on B there, you know, is denied residency, you have to provide notice. What type of notice can I do? Can I send a text? Can I make a call? Do I have to send a letter? What can I do?

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So I think it would depend on the exact format that ACCD would establish the notice, I would perhaps defer to other folks, legal aid, maybe Jessica at CPOEO, who have a real clear idea of this process, but I can imagine it could be a link to the notice that is posted on the ACCD website or a PDF that's attached to an email, It worked any of the nitty gritty.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: In the interest of staying in our lane as Senator this year, I do think this specific notification falls more so into economic developments jurisdiction. Not that I'm opposed to it necessarily, but I think this is something that would come more so on their committee. But I'm happy to shift gears and look at the other pieces, which I do think fall more so into our committee.

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Perfect. All right. So the next part is about bifurcation of the lease, is in a few different parts of the code. So, in termination of tenancy notice, there's language that says, currently says a landlord shall allow a protected tenant. Well, should allow a tenant, and we would like to just update that to be a protected tenant who is a victim of domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, committed by another tenant or lawful occupant, and add may request to bifurcate the rental agreement. So changing a shall to a May. We are suggesting this update to the bifurcation language so that it's better aligned with BAVA and existing state housing protections for survivors. And then as we get to the next parts I'll talk about, you'll see that slight change. But we would like to strike the next part of the termination of tenancy, and that is we added this language, this language was added in house with the intention of aligning with follow-up protections, but with further research and stakeholder feedback it doesn't accomplish what was intended, so we just ask that it be removed so it reduces any unintended consequences for survivors. So for the next part regarding bifurcation of the rental agreement, this is the bifurcation part of the bill, that we would again change a shout to a May and then authorize a protected tenant's written request to bifurcate a rental agreement language in that. So like our comments just before, we're updating the sections to reflect that the landlord may authorize bifurcation of the lease to align with the BAWA and existing state housing protections

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: for

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: survivors. The next part would be a slight change that would be allowing a protected tenant who includes with a written request a copy of a court order that requires the perpetrator to leave the premises. So a landlord shall bifurcate a rental agreement in order to eject, remove, or terminate a rental agreement to any individual who is a tenant or lawful occupant of the dwelling unit that engages in abuse, sexual assault, or stalking against the productive tenant without ejecting, removing, or terminating governmental agreement with a protected body. So this language is also drawn from existing housing protection provision in instances when a tenant has a court order requiring the perpetrator to leave the premises. So the landlord must require that bifurcation of the lease. A court order, like a relief from abuse order, already outlines a fear of future abuse and conditions to protect the plaintiff's survivor's safety, So it is critical for the safety of the survivor and their family to be able to remain housed and have conditions of relief in their order to be effectuated through their interactions with the landlord.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Questions about that? You know, have a question about the next eighteen-eighty It says nothing in the subsection shall be construed to require a landlord to request that the protected tenant submit documentation. I'm just wondering then, can the landlord deny so it it doesn't require them to request documentation. Could they, in the absence of documentation, work through the use of fiber?

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. If, let's Well, go about it the other direction so that I understand what you're saying. So if a tenant includes a written request for bifurcation and has a court order, the landlord must bifurcate. If the landlord submits a written request to bifurcate and does not have a court order, the landlord does not have to bifurcate. Or, can, I guess is the

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: So basically we're just saying the landlord is not compelled unless this ordinance is correct? And

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: you know, I think this provides the landlord with discretion and an option in the absence of a court order. And we just want be very clear that a landlord is not obligated to collect further documentation in order to grant that request. Okay.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Because it seems like it cuts the other way, like it's allowing the landlord, But it's in the section talking about a court order. So Right.

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I wonder if we make that a two and and this last part the one that's eight two eight three so that it's associated with the may rather than the shall. I think that might be where the conclusion is.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Yeah. I don't know. I'm I I think I'm clear, though. So landlord is compelled if there's an order and a request. Uh-huh. Absent court order, the landlord is not compelled. I guess it's the submitting documentation. So there is no circumstance under which the landlord has the responsive documentation. It's just a court order that they Right. So I'm confused about what documentation's role is. In other words, if there's court order, there's no need for documentation. If there's not a court order, documentation won't necessarily have

[Katarina Lisaius (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Right, it would prevent a landlord from saying, You need to prove that you're a survivor to us if you don't In have that there's court order. Right. The the event that there's a court

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: We're happy to work with Cameron on making sure that that language is very clear. We just want to ensure that the landlord does have discretion in those cases where it is a may, and that they don't feel like they have to do anything beyond that.

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: Well, I guess that's what I'm asking is, in terms of protections for the threatening person.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: In

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: the absence of a court order, the landlord doesn't have to do anything to help them.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: That's a policy decision for you all. Okay.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Senator Mattos.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: Okay. I'm just curious about the costs involved here. If it's a court order to eject that person, I'd imagine there's nothing that needs to be done landlord wise having to go through the court system or anything like that. If it gets to the point where this person doesn't leave, is the landlord on the hook for them ejecting that person? If it's a if the landlord may, is it on the landlord to go through the process to eject that person? It's just where do those costs fall

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: in the process?

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: It's a great question. So this language is modeled off of a current process that we have in Vermont law for when a survivor needs to change a lock on their rental unit for their safety. And so, it would work pretty similarly to how that process is. Exactly how that works in court procedure, I might defer to others who are more familiar.

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: I mean, would say somebody in this type of situation, but just where those costs kind of fall. Of course.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: And I would also note that there are so many individual situations that would implicate some of these tenant protections, but I'm sure in many cases the landlord is also interested in ensuring that their housing units they're providing to tenants are safe. And so this is certainly a benefit to survivor, but also giving a landlord discretion to ensure that their units are kept safe without feeling like they have to evict a survivor because that's the worst case scenario that we need think of.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: I do have one question that I think is somewhat in line with Senator Mattos' question. The acquiring this court order, the victim acquiring the court order, what does that process look like? Is there something that exists in current law for that procedure or what does that look like?

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Exactly. So that court order, I think it looked like a number of things. It could be a relief from abuse order that has had the condition, stay away or housing conditions within it. It could be conditions of release that also have a requirement for the perpetrator of harm to stay away from the premises. Maybe it could be a press pass order, depending on the individual actuation. So those are the things that we thought of when looking at the language.

[Sen. Nader Hashim (Chair)]: Okay, that's helpful because I wasn't sure if there was going to be the creation of some sort of other court order telling, okay, all right,

[Sen. Christopher Mattos (Clerk)]: that's very helpful. Senator Norris? Yeah, need a little help with this. So are you trying to, on page nine,

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: starting out on lines 14 through This

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: doesn't cover a portion or some of what you're attempting to do here, what does that mean exactly?

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So looking at page nine, line 14, a landlord shall not terminate a rental agreement of a tenant under this subsection B because the tenant is a victim of an incident or pattern of sexual assault, domestic abuse, stalking. So, that is intended to protect survivors saying because of your victimization, solely because of your victimization, you can't be evicted. And then in the next section, a landlord shall allow a tenant who is the victim of abuse sexual assault stalking committed by another tenant or occupant to bifurcate the rental agreement. So that is noting a process that is then further described in the right of bifurcation.

[Sen. Robert Norris (Vice Chair)]: Just going further than what? We're seeing

[Sen. Philip Baruth (Member)]: the bill here in what you're trying to do.

[Leslie Herman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: So this right to bifurcation rental agreement is already in the bill. We are proposing some changes to clarify. So I would say the language right now gives landlords a lot less discretion, in fact. We are saying for the benefit of survivors, for the benefit of landlords, and also to align with current federal law and state law, this is probably the best way

[Building Public Address System]: May I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? This is a building evacuation to gather your belongings