 Okay. Well, thank you. We're just trying to struggle a little bit through this technology, but what we're going to do for the next hour or so is go through some landlord tenant issues in terms of what the status of the court orders are right now vis-a-vis evictions and foreclosures. And I wanted also, we've been mostly looking at residential evictions and residential foreclosures, but it's come to light that there's similar issues existing in the commercial area as well. So we want to get our bearings on what's going on now and what, if anything, the legislature can do. We have at least one person from the administration here. I know that they're looking at this issue very closely as well. Several states have instituted moratoriums. So we're going to try and collect information in the next hour, 15 minutes from various witnesses. And then probably next week we'll decide what, if anything, we're going to do further than the efforts that the court has been able to do. So I'd like to start with Judge Greerson. You've testified before, before our committee. I know there's been a subsequent amendment to the administrative order and where we are now. And I know I wrote you and I am a little confused between the process of starting eviction and arid of possession. And once arid of possession is on track, is there any way to slow that down and how there could be some intervention. If you don't mind in educating us a little bit, Judge Greerson, that would be great. Oh, there shall. So I will try and thank the committee for allowing me to appear today and asking me to appear the Supreme Court, although they have issued a 049 and have also amended that. I think we're up to at least four amendments, possibly five as of this morning. None of those amendments would have a direct bearing on eviction proceedings. So in that sense, the testimony I've given previously remains the same and that is the Supreme Court has not issued any directive. I should put it that way. They have not imposed any stay on these proceedings. The trial judges have reviewed their authority under the AO 49 and their position has been that eviction proceedings in and of themselves are not considered emergency hearings. So that if a new eviction is filed, they are not taking any action on that to set, for instance, arrest rent escrow order. We're talking about a residential eviction now. That's usually the first step in the process. They are not scheduling those. Either a landlord or a tenant seeks additional relief from the court, asserting or alleging that there is an emergency situation that requires the court to act. So those, to the extent those are filed, the court will consider those on an individual case by case basis. So there is no blanket order either by the Supreme Court or the trial bench. Regarding all evictions, they will continue to handle them on a case by case basis. In any of the cases that are pending, if they have gone, if they prior to the pandemic, if they have gone to the next step, which is a rent escrow order. If an individual tenant stops paying rent under that order, the landlord is entitled to seek a writ of possession for the premises, if the rent is not paid. And those orders presently under the current statutory framework can be issued without the necessity of a hearing being held. And I think that's what I had addressed in my earlier testimony, and I believe in response to the written request. Senator Sorotkin that I was just going to try to track that down. Let me see if I can find that. Well, while you're doing that, let me ask a question. I fully understand the court's position that if we were going to do any, if there were to be any moratorium on these kinds of proceedings. That should come from the executive branch or the legislature. Yes. However, it seems like the court has taken a position that would result in other than an emergency situations. Evictions are being stayed. So I was curious as to why that can't be pushed up one level to this ministerial act of a writ of possession to say that if execution of a writ of possession. Take place, but only on an emergency basis and after a hearing which hearings would be allowed. If an if an emergency was suggested. So I want to make sure I understand your question you're asking me if, if we get to the writ of possession stage that there could be a hearing. I honor and respect. You're keeping a distance from the policy. And the way you've done it so far is where the court, the administrative order has done it so far is generically saying that unless there's a trial judges have said, unless there's an emergency, we're not going to take up eviction proceedings. I'm just trying to understand why that philosophy couldn't be bumped up one level to rid of possession. The best answer I can give you senator is that the way the statute currently reads that the rid of possession is something that's already in place and it's just issued without the necessity of hearing so as we look at the scope of our AO 49. That, at least at this point is not considered an emergency. Okay, I'm not sure. So I want to, I want to make sure I'm answering your question that's, I guess the follow up question would be under a o 49 you're saying a writ of possession is not considered an emergency. And so, but no one has to ask for a hearing. And that's why Right, but you're, you're saying that. I mean it's it's sort of a what I'm suggesting is somewhat of a middle ground between a moratorium that I guess passed by statute by us ordered somehow by the executive. This is sort of a middle ground where it says, you know, there may be individual cases and trusting the judges and the judiciary to sort that through that warrant the writ of possession to go through served and enforced. But if there was a, if we could have the ability for the litigants to ask or need to ask for a hearing to get that to happen that there's an emergency on either side that would require the writ of possession to go forward. I wouldn't be shutting down all evictions but we give people an ability to continue to argue the case given the, given the virus. Some of these written possessions were in process before the virus came upon us so it seems like same kind of rationale you're, you're in. Imposing for new cases that are starting on failing to understand why you couldn't do that same thing for cases that are in the pipeline. Yeah, I'm just so I understand the question the problem is that the Supreme Court, as I've said has not weighed in on a on a blanket or state proceeding so that the decision would be left up to the individual judges. Whether it's on whether or not they determine that as a result of a filing an eviction. There are issues that create the emergency that allow them to have a hearing, or if someone were to bring the issue of the writ of possession to the attention of the court on an emergency basis, then under the a o 49. They could consider it that way, but trial in a position to issue a, a blanket position on these guidance from the court. I appreciate that so you're so I guess what I was looking for is already possible that somebody who has a crisis situation that is already subject to a rid of possession could go into court and get an emergency hearing to have that rid of possession state. That's what I've said let me let me read. I did find the earlier response I gave you and hopefully it'll give the committee some further direction as to where we're headed. Okay, after meeting and discussing this issue with the trial judges. There is a consensus and I use the term consensus because there are 34 trial judges independently appointed. They are able to exercise their own discretion. The consensus is didn't hear from everyone, but the, as a result of the limitations brought about by a o 49. They would alter their procedure this is in relation specifically to risk of possession in the following manner. If it wants to any motion for a default judgment, a rid of possession or other relief that include the issuance of a rid of possession the court will schedule those hearings after April 15. They may be continued that that's the that's the deadline of a o 49. So essentially they would not be holding those hearings or something that would trigger the rid of possession until after April 15. That gives some relaxation of the current rule but maybe not as far as other individuals would want to go. In the interim request for emergency relief filed by either landlords attendance maybe filed seeking more immediate relief motions would be handled as I said earlier on a case by case basis. So I think there's no provision. The trial judge does not feel that it's an emergency. They can refer it to me, and I determine not the merits of the proceeding, whether or not. I apologize. This is faith Brown speaking I'm the moderator on the call. Could we ask people to mute their phones. If they're not on and or their speakers on their computers if they're not on, and any people that came in that I have phone numbers we'd like to identify who is on the call. So, if we could just pause a moment to find out who five, the 3450 number is and the 6018. I apologize. 34050 is Wendy Morgan. Thank you Wendy. Thank you 6018 is Jamie fiend faith. Thank you. So, and for those of us who are not lawyers, the rid of possession is, is, is the point at which a tenant is informed of a decision. Tell us quickly what that is because you're using a term that is, I'm beginning to understand it in the discussion, but it would be helpful for those of us who aren't lawyers to understand that if the rent isn't paid according to the escrow order, the rid of possession can issue that allows the person to be dispossessed from the, from their, from their apartment. In other words, it gives the court the, the sheriff, the authority to issue the writ saying possession of the property now belongs to the landlord. Thank you. It's the, it's the ultimate relief in an eviction proceeding. In other words, it removes the landlord, removes the tenant from the property. Thank you. So, Senators Rock and I. That is, that is the sense from the trial bench that if these matters come in. Other relief that include the issuance of the rid of possession, or seeking rid of possession, the court will hold hearings after the date of this. A O 49 order. Okay, so the, the, the point in time that I am and other people are concerned with are whether a someone who's in violation of a back rent order has already reduced that order to a writ of possession that's in the sheriff's hands or on its way. We've had an intervening event here of COVID-19. And there may be new factors that would justify slowing that process down, just as there are factors that are justifying slowing the process down. So I understand that somebody might have an opportunity, even in this late stage to go ask for a hearing and say, I'm going to be homeless and spread the disease. But how would they know that they would have that opportunity to go to a judge trial judge and say, this rid of possession is happening now and I have some circumstances here that it's not good for anybody to take me out or whatever. Is there a way we can somehow require the act of the legislature to at least get notice out to these folks directing the sheriff's before they serve the rid of possession to say to give some sort of notice to say if you feel you have a circumstances here you could always apply on an emergency basis to a superior court judge. I mean, obviously that's something that the committee has to consider how to get that type of notice out. In mind that a large majority of the individuals we're talking about are self represented litigants so their population that the most part does not have access to attorneys in many of the counties through legal aid or local buyer associations. They do provide limited representation at the beginning of a hearing in other words at the rent escrow stage at the very beginning. We have some programs that provide them with legal counsel but only for that limited hearing, which often results in an agreement to pay rent and pay rent into court. But once that order is in effect. The understanding is that the legal representation for the most part ends with that hearing and the attorneys may not continue to be involved in the representation at a point when a rid of possession could be ordered. So I'm not sure how that word would get out to individuals unless at the very beginning of the case they're given that advice. That's the benefit of counsel. Okay, so essentially, what you're saying is there's the courts do not want to get involved in this policy decision. There is nothing more that we can expect forthcoming from the courts in terms of notice for slowing these rits of possession down. You know the legis. I guess the executive branch could do this fairly clean and swiftly if they wanted to and I know they're looking at it. The legislative process tends to be a little more clunky. So I'm just trying to see what our options are so am I correct in saying that. At least in from where you sit you don't see the court able to do anything more in this area other than what you've already done. The short answer to that senator would be yes but let me qualify it a little bit. These are essentially policy decisions which as you know, the court, and I certainly don't get involved in. And although I'm appearing for the for the judiciary. There are levels of authority. In the court process and if the Supreme Court has not and has not taken that position to impose a stay in these proceedings and I think you understand from my prior testimony that they do not view that as something they can do it. They view that as a executive or legislative decision. So you go to the next level of authority and although in my role as chief superior judge. I have some authority if you will over the trial bench. Keep in mind that they are as I've indicated independently appointed judges who exercise their individual discretion and I'm not in a position to issue a blanket order as to how they should handle these cases and that's why at this point. The court is handled on a on a case by case individual basis. And I, at this point I would have to say I don't see anything changing but I will tell you that the court spring court meet almost daily with themselves and and with the the trial bench. So these, these are not discussions that are closed. We continue to talk about these issues. And we'll continue to do so. So let me just wrap up judge Chris and I very much appreciate your testimony. You've been very clear, I guess, from a lay perspective, I would say I find some inconsistency in the fact that the Supreme Court has effectively stayed these eviction proceedings in their initial stages, but has not stayed them to the extent there. And I assume that the original thing was stayed because of the virus and resources and and things like that to protect people and others. Cases that are a little bit further down the line. They have not stayed so I find something consistent here and I believe I have a big fan of the courts, as you know, an individual judges making decisions, but my suggestion, and maybe you can bring it to the court is it's not a blanket stay. It's a, there's still the still be the ability for people to go to court to lift the whole suspension of executions of the rich of possession. There could be a case by case basis it's not a moratorium on any evictions, some could go forward. And, but it would be the default position would be that they would be stayed just like you're doing for new evictions. Yeah, let me just clarify one part of what you said the Supreme Court has not imposed a stay of any kind. What they have said is, in particular with respect to landlord tenant matters. So, 49 sets forth that all proceedings are suspended except emergency proceedings and then they give a list of what those proceedings are included in that list is emergency landlord tenant hearings in the discretion of the judge meaning the trial judge. There is no stay on eviction proceedings trial judges are interpreting a o 49 and that clause to be that an eviction proceeding filed. If one is filed today. The court the trial court will not take that up not because it's, there's a stay imposed, but they will not take it up because they do not view it as an emergency proceeding that they have to take up under this a o 49. Right, I understand that I'm using the word stay loosely that's all. Yeah, I understand and I think I've been guilty of that probably myself. I guess I have one last question. How does our discussion fit in with commercial landlord tenant relationships like restaurants that are leasing property and have now been shut down. This is a big issue with the other parts of our jurisdiction. A lot of our businesses this is a big a big concern for many restaurants. I understand and I, my answer in many respects would be the same senators rock and and Senator Clarkson because the reason I mean the court is a neutral party. And therefore the the approach they take on these cases is not one that favors landlords or tenants whether it's in a commercial setting or residential setting. And that's why I just wanted to make sure that al 49 when they say, leave it to the judge to determine whether it's an emergency or not that applies to both commercial landlord tenant and residential landlord and the way I'm reading it and this would be my interpretation when it says emergency landlord tenant. I read that broadly. There's nothing in here that otherwise says this is how we're going to handle residential. This is how we're going to handle commercial scenes I view that as landlord tenant, whether your commercial or residential. If if that became an issue and I'm not aware that it has been. I mean I certainly haven't heard about it, then we could go back to the court, Supreme Court for clarification but I view landlord tenant in the context of a 49 as either commercial or residential. And judge, Michael may ask a question. Judge Greer said, how, just to give those of us who don't deal with this on a day to day basis, a notion of how far along in a rental dispute, how far along in that proceeding, would it even get to court. I mean, we're dealing hopefully with a matter of two or three months. Ideally, if there are rental issues now that have just cropped up as a result of COVID-19. What's your, what's the timing. I mean how, how far along in a proceeding is when it actually goes gets to court. Well, if the issues arise today, obviously we don't control when they come into court so if you're saying that the issues arise today and someone files an action today. So 49 of the trial judges do not view that as an emergency that would require any action at this point. Right, I get that. I get that. The question is, from the beginning of a rental problem, how many months and maybe Wendy could answer this or somebody else. I just would love, I think all of us would love a sense of the, of how long it takes to actually get to court. When you say get to court, you're talking about getting to a final hearing. Is that what you're asking? Because on a landlord tenant, the traditional residential setting. The issues generally speaking are not that complicated. A commercial landlord tenant dispute could have significant issues that take months, if not longer to resolve. Yeah. But a residential proceeding we have normally that quick hearing right away on the issue of paying rent into court. And that obviously speeds up the process in terms of how long the the tenant can continue to pay right before this rid of possession may issue. But those are the hearings that we are not scheduling. Right. I understand. I'm just trying to get a sense of timing with rent. Maybe we can ask Wendy that question. Judge, I really appreciate your time. And we may take this up again next week. I don't know if we'll have to hear from you yet again. I think we've, we've got a good picture of things where they stand right now from the judiciary's perspective. So thank you very much. Yes. I'm, frankly, I'm encouraged by what I've heard from Judge Greerson today that judges are making decisions as opposed to following a blanket rule of one kind or another. You recognize, and we should, that we want to protect people who are financially imperiled because of the COVID-19 situation on the one hand, but on the other hand, we recognize that landlords are people too. And that particularly our small landlords are faced with some of these same financial issues. We need to have balance. And I believe that that balance ought to come from the judiciary. Unless and until we do something in the legislature and that's something whether it be providing some, some set of circumstances under which an eviction can in fact be stayed. I'm not sure that we're ready to do that or need to do that at this point, since it seems that we've accomplished what we, what we're seeking to do based on the way the judiciary is currently handling it. But the thing that I want to emphasize is I think the judiciary should be the one on a case by case basis who handles these things and not us. Thank you. Okay, Judge, do you have anything more you'd like to say? I don't, Senator. I understand that, you know, circumstances are changing daily, sometimes hourly, certainly on our end. And if other information comes my way, I'll provide it to the committee. I'm available. Continue to have hearings to participate and I'm glad to make myself available. Thank you so much. So I want to move to Wendy Morgan. I know. Wendy, are you there? I am here. Okay, are you going to be testifying today this morning? No, I think you are all going to learn more from Jean Murray, who is an attorney who handles these cases on the ground and she can answer some of the questions that you have been asking. That would be my recommendation. Also, we're trying to cover House general at the same time. Is she on the line right now? I believe so. Can we hear from her? Can you hear me? Yes. Can you hear me? Yeah, speak up a little bit. This is Jean Murray. I'm an attorney at Vermont legal aid. I'm sorry, I joined your call just a little bit late. I don't. I don't know what question you was before the committee. But I would like to take the opportunity to talk about a legislative legislation that would stay all of the eviction and foreclosure actions that get filed in the courts for the period of time that is the state of emergency and for 60 days after there's language being considered in House general that we were talking about this morning. I don't know if this committee has that language in front of them. No, no. Well, instead of talking about the language per se, unless you feel a need to do that. We'd like to just understand what the lay of the land is out there and who is in your in your opinion, your clients are presently at risk. I don't know if you heard the back and forth that I have a judge gris and but one thought short of a moratorium on evictions was somehow to to get further notice to people who may be subject to a rid of possession that they do have the right to go ask for an emergency hearing and stay eviction on a case by case basis at that point. So, this is, this is what I, I think and why we would ask for a stay of all risks that have already been issued and ask that the court suspend issuing any new risk. It's because case by case basis means that people will have to get up out of their house and figure out how to get documents into the court and perhaps go for a hearing in the court although some hearings are held by phone. And having to adjudicate something in a court right now is incredibly difficult for my client group which is low income people, because just think about how difficult it is for us to communicate with each other. And we have phones, and we have conference lines, and we have computers, all of which my clients don't have. What, and just a little bit of background and the way I think about it is in the usual course of business. There are about 1800 evictions filed a year in state fiscal year 19 there were about 1800 evictions filed. That's 150 a month that's in the usual course of business. And evictions are filed for more than one reason. Evictions are filed, certainly for non payment. But they are also filed for no cause, meaning that the landlord wants to resume possession of the property, sometimes to renovate it sometimes to move back in themselves. And then there are evictions for cause where tenant just may not be a good fit for the building I know I'm downplaying that but sometimes there are reasons that landlords want the apartment back. For all of those reasons right now during a public health crisis, there should be no evictions. And because in Vermont. All evictions go through the court. There is no self health eviction. There is no landlord calls the sheriff. All evictions have to go through the court. So the court, making a temporary legislation about saying all evictions and foreclosures is the way to stop people from being involuntarily removed from their home. During a public health crisis. There, there isn't a can't we have this exception and that exception, because everybody should stay home during a public health crisis. And so, in terms of the lay of the land. If it were the usual course of business, some, you know, the course would be processing 150 evictions a month, those are the ones that get filed right now. And for the state of emergency and while there's a public health crisis. None should be processed, everybody should just stay put, just put a pause on the whole thing. What we have thought about is, once the state of emergency is lifted, have a 60 day period after where everything is still pause to work everything out. There's other legislation there may be federal assistance coming for rental assistance money. There's more money for services or hard to house tenants. And it could, we could use the period of time. The couple months after the state of emergency is lifted to get everybody sorted out and house appropriate to what they should be some landlords would be happy to keep tenants if the tenants can keep up with rent payments. People will be able to find a place to move for those who can find a place to move. Right now, no one can find a place to move. I have clients in my caseload who had agreed to move. They can't find apartment, because nobody is meeting them an apartment and showing an apartment, because everybody has to stay home. As I say, there is language been legislative language been drafted in a bill that is before House General that describes the details of what exactly what cases should be stayed in court. And another thing that I want to mention is litigation about eviction and foreclosure requires sheriff and constables at certain points of time to go out and do what's called service in hand. During a public health crisis service in hand does not sound like a good idea. So, nothing in hand. So, the idea would be to not require service in hand to start a case that that a case could be started by filing and then postponed the deadline for getting service accomplished until after the state of emergency. Just so we're doing what we can to keep people apart. So let me ask you a question. Is there any way to know or approximate the amount of eviction residential eviction procedures that are. Judge Pearson doesn't want to refer to what the Supreme Court has done as a stay but I think it's pretty much effectively a state at least till April 15 on new evictions. How many are past the period where there's no more need for any kind of judicial intervention. I think you said 150 a month is what have been filed but do we have any idea how many are out there in the state of Vermont that haven't been executed on. Well, no, we don't know. One way to, there's other people at Vermont legal aid who are trying to figure out that information right now. Because there are people who would be willing to count through docket entries to figure out what is currently pending but that would mean. Everybody would have to share a massive amount of information with us so we can comb through it and figure it out. But there is really, there's not like a ticker. There's no data that somebody keeps on a day to day basis. It would have to be literally comb through by hand to figure out where all the cases are. You said something about the new federal law, providing rental assistance. I had read somewhere, even before it was passed yesterday that it sounds at least in terms of housing and homelessness monies. It seemed like Vermont might get a nice share of the pie there. And I asked this question in the sense of if there was some relief forthcoming whether it's to pay the back rent or to shelter somebody after they got evicted. It may make the problem lesser in the term of duration in terms of like, if we did a moratorium, it sounds like you're potentially asking for, let's say the declaration is, is last for three months and then you have 60 days after you're a five month stay and we might find ourselves in that period of time with new resources to deal with this problem in a slightly different fashion. I believe that's true. I'm not the person to talk about the more exact sources of federal funding. And my understanding is that the numbers of what federal funding is coming for rental assistance, etc. Those numbers are not definite yet. So, believe Earhart is on the call, and he could probably talk about how much money is coming and and or the state of understanding about how much money is coming. But yes, the idea is using assistance, get everybody's housing issues sorted out and try as much as possible to make essentially landlords whole for the time that they've had would have to wait through the state of emergency. Okay. More you would like to add because we're running late at this time we'll probably be taking this up next week again but if you had some more thoughts, we'd welcome them now otherwise we'll move on to the next witness. If I can send what I've said to I can email it to you in written testimony I made some this morning. And if there's no questions of me. Good to go. That would be great to send that in does anybody have any questions for Jean. Michael can can we get the language from the house bill. Yes, sure we can. I have a question that Jean. It's Allison Clarkson. Do you, could you give us a sense of of the timing on an eviction for a business or you know for commercial or for residential. I mean, how long does it rise. How long does it take to rise to the level of court action. I can only speak to residential eviction. So the, the landlord tenant law, the residential rental agreements act. If you want to look at it, it's at 9 vs a 4451, I hope, has different periods of time that are required to terminate tenancy. So termination of tenancy is a written letter sent by the landlord to a tenant. Prior to the tenancy being that terminates tenancy. It's an official thing. If it's a non payment of rent case, the, the time that the notice has to be is 14 days. If it is a for cause eviction, it has to be 30 days. And if it is a no cause eviction. It has to be somewhere between 60 and 90 days. Depending on what the, if there's a written rental agreement and depending on how long the tenant has lived there. So that period of time has to pass before a case can be filed. And once that period of time has passed, then the landlord can file a case. And that would be one thing that the legislation that we propose would preserve the landlord's right. If they have already sent a notice of termination, and the time has passed. They can go ahead and file, and then everything just stays in that status. And that's how the state of emergency happens and then they can pick up where they left off and wouldn't have to start over. And then once something gets filed in court. It depends on a number of things. There could be if there's non payment of rent, there could be a preliminary hearing that happens. It's generally within three or four weeks to order payment of rent into court, but for cases where the rent is currently being paid. My sense is the first time people usually get into court is around 30 to 45 days when the court sets a status conference, and then anywhere from 45 to 45 days later they may set a merits hearing. The reason it takes that period of time is because the court encourages parties to do discovery to have negotiation to try to resolve the cases themselves. Generally, but it's from the time of case gets filed. I believe Angela zike house key from the tennis association. I mean the landlord's association is on and she'll correct me but from the time the case gets filed until the court makes a judgment of eviction. It could be anywhere from two to six months. Thanks, that's helpful just as we look at the arc of this crisis. So, thank you, Jean. One, I guess one. Last question you guys represent folks in foreclosures as well. Not, not at this time. I don't think we're actively representing people in foreclosure, but certainly legal aid and legal services Vermont when people call having received foreclosure process we give them a lot of information and so we have in the past done foreclosure representation, we ran out of resources to do that. But when people call we still give them information and people can find information about how to defend themselves and what steps they can take on our website, which is BT law help.org. Thank you. Okay, so I'm going to move on to Angela or Chris, unless you think you have different things to say I'd rather you decide among the two of you, what you're going to say and I'd prefer it be Angela because I can't stand looking at that view behind Chris. It's really unfair. Thank you. Yeah, Angela will handle this for us. Okay. So Angela, if you can talk in general or I mean I assume you've seen the, the bill that we've just been sent. They're dealing with in the house and what are your general thoughts if you could give that to us. Thank you for allowing me to come testify regarding the situation. My name is Angela Zajkowski. I'm the director of the Vermont Landlords Association. I'm also a practicing attorney and the primary focus of my practice is representing landlords throughout the state of Vermont. So I have been in communication with many folks around the state and I will say the primary concern for landlords right now is their rent payments and whether they are going to receive those rent payments or not or how that is going to look and work. I know the bill that every house bill that everybody's been talking about has a pretty substantial. I know it's a placeholder allocation but a pretty substantial allocation that would allow tenants and presumably landlords depending on how it ultimately is crafted to request funds to have rents paid while this crisis continues. And for you know landlords are need many times that money to pay their mortgage to pay their taxes to pay the carrying costs and maintenance and any you know emergency repairs to two buildings. And so that's a critical component here. I will say that the legal aid proposal that is in that bill is actually quite fair to all of the parties. It sort of breaks out by category various points in which an eviction could be at any given time. I do have some specific feedback on some sections that I am working on crafting and can circulate that as well just related to some specifics but I think overall the sentiment of the bill is incredibly important. You know with the governor's stay home stay safe order. We can't have people being moved out of their housing right now but we need to find a mechanism so landlords are protected so tenants are protected and we have some balance for both sides. Okay. And what is the balance for the landlords as you see it in that bill given that it sounds like there is a there would be a significant stay on any evictions going forward at this point. Well the balance for the bill for the landlords is sort of twofold one it doesn't relieve tenants of their obligation to pay the rent. So the bill is very clear in that regard. The balance also comes with the funds that would be made available to tenants and landlords to help with this rent or rearage or rent or rearage issues. It also doesn't prevent landlords from sending termination notices or filing cases. So landlords can still take advantage of those processes. It just wants it hits the courthouse it stops. Okay. Okay. So it sounds like your position. Is that you recognize the public health crisis here and you want to do right by the tenants in the community and not spreading the disease but you also need some assurances that you're going to get paid. Correct. Right. Okay. Thank you very much that's helpful. Do you have anything else you'd like to add? No, I think I think this is a difficult issue and sort of unprecedented that any of us have ever dealt with or seen. And it's challenging and there's a lot of issues and there's greater issues at play here with public public health and safety. Michael, could I ask a question? Angela. Are you been saying that there is a need for us to go through with legislation as opposed to just report the care of this with their rule? I think what would be incredibly helpful is to have a customized and uniform approach. I appreciate the judiciary's administrative orders and I appreciate what they are attempting to do. They do have lots of other cases that they deal with. But sort of a piecemeal approach county by county and judge by judge doesn't necessarily help us in this situation. We need a statewide. This is what the rules are. This is what everybody needs to do. So we have consistency. And is your association talking with the administration about implementing this? Well, this bill is brand new. The most recent draft was only available at 9am this morning. But my association and I have been in communication with members of the associate or with members of the administration about housing related issues. Members of the administration, you said. Yes. Specifically housing and economic development. Okay, we have Josh. Okay. Well, I appreciate your time and we're going to move on with a few more witnesses that I'd like to get in in the next 20 minutes. I may jump around a little bit here. Mayor Weinberger has joined us. And I know he has a particular concern. I think that may have a little bit to do with local control. So I'd like to hear from him next. Mayor, are you there? I'm Senator Shrekin. Good. So we've been talking about the pros and cons of a moratorium. Some hybrids of that. I think you might have a slightly different local take on what you might want the legislature to do so. But you express that to the committee now. Well, great. Thank you for including me. Thank you. I think that these things are unusual and remarkable times. And so we're all moving quickly. And so, Senator, what I was mostly prepared to speak to was a related issue, a little bit longer term. I hope you do ever whatever needs to be done to ensure that evictions just cannot go forward in the immediate term while we figure out this new reality. I just think this is absolutely the wrong time for anyone to be being evicted for non payment, given the public health crisis that we're facing and the fact that people need shelter and need to be staying at home in the exact order to stay at home. We don't believe the city has the ability and our municipality to stop such evictions or it's not clear to us how we do so we've set up a resource center so that anyone who is imminently facing eviction we've asked them to contact us and we would help them on an individualized basis we haven't gotten any such calls so far I don't believe. We don't think we have the legal ability to to actually stop evictions for non payments so we are looking to the state to do that in some way I can't advise you on the best way to do it. I do have some other thoughts about that look out a little bit longer term to June and then August on and if you that would be helpful at this time I can kind of bring you into what we're thinking about on a little bit longer time frame. But if you could do that in five minutes that would be great. Great. Here's what we're thinking we think that our constituents have been hit very hard many of our constituents, maybe a majority of our constituents have been hit very hard by this economic crisis, and we would like to take bold action as a municipality to to assist them. Am I still, you guys can still hear me. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. The actions that we are considering is basically saying to any person that owes us property taxes in June on June 12 we are thinking about saying to them if you will sign an affidavit claiming. As you know stipulating that you have been impacted by the coven 19 emergency we will give you a deferral without any interest or penalty until August 12 to make your property tax payment. And this is coming back to the runner issue in a moment but let me just lay this out. Further we're looking out a little bit further and I say this this is real time I'm giving this to you we have not completed our financial analysis I'm not convinced we will be able to do this as a municipality but we're trying to do this. We would we then are looking at the August payment we think some people are going to be in no position to make a double payment in August as a result of this emergency and so at that point. We would work out with them a payment plan where they could pay off over some number of years and we haven't set the years yet. These two tax payments. And the way we would fund such action would be to go into the credit markets right now where my understanding is money can be borrowed very inexpensively. And we would borrow millions of dollars maybe tens of millions of dollars in order to fund these payment plans we would it in the August payment I envision we would require some documentation that would be means tested if you will at some level because people would have to show us that they actually you know document that they had been hit by this. We would Pat we would need to charge I think as a city for these essentially multi year loans at that point but we would do so on a very low and we would pass along our low interest. We wouldn't be borrowing we would we wouldn't try to make any money as a municipality on this so we think we could get much lower loan rates than constituents would be able to otherwise get on their own and like likelihood and so it could be valuable to them in that way. The final key piece of this that we're working out is I think we would make it clear to any property owner that had a tenant, whether it's a residential tenant or a commercial tenant a small business if they want to take advantage of this city program these deferrals and payment plan. They would have to make a binding commitment to us that they could not evict a tenant for for non payment. They could not be filled the city was made whole. Lots of details to be filled in there but that's basically what we're thinking and I'm optimistic about it seems to me like it should work, given the city's authority powers to ultimately ensure that we will be able to get payment because we have significant rights as we get paid before any other creditor so we think we could do this pretty safely without putting other property taxpayers at risk. And I say all this to you. I know you're aware we're thinking about it but I also we it would be an even more valuable and meaningful benefit to people. If we could do the same with the states Ed fund portion of the property tax, I think it could similarly be done on very safe low cost low risk basis. You would, we couldn't do that without as I understand the legalities I don't think it would be legal or appropriate or feasible for us to do that without state agreement. But I guess I didn't want to say if this was something that the legislature wanted to consider doing together or doing on a statewide basis, we'd be very interested in those conversations. So thank you very much for that and your beginning comments were appreciated as well. At the end, I was assuming that the Ed fund portion would be borrowed and paid for by the city, as well. Is that something you, is that a financial complication that obviously is more challenging but the legal problems long as somebody pays the Ed fund what what they're do. That. So my concern there is just about at some point we would probably start to run into limits of what the credit markets would be willing to lend to us. If it was, you know, we're talking about a lot of money. If you know if it's just the municipal side. You know, it's more than twice it would be a trip. We would be borrowing three times as much. If we were borrowing for the education side as well I'm not sure we're going to be able to do that. But, but I also think there could be. I think we have obligations. I don't understand all the legal obligations for you either. I think we have obligations to make payments to the state. Regardless of whether we've received the payments at a certain point. And so how that all works out would require additional work. Right. So I appreciate your time. Thank you. Can you keep us in the loop on your thinking. Because maybe we can spread that idea around the state I know in our finance committee we're looking you know we're looking at all different elements of people's debts and property taxes one that we just talked about yesterday so this is a pretty creative idea. I would like to keep abreast of what you're doing. Yeah, excellent. Each municipality is beginning to be in everybody's beginning to be in touch about this big issue and everybody sadly has a different payments schedule, but it your narrow your spot on this is the next huge issue other than income that people are facing financially. So I'm going to let you sign off, and thank you for coming. Okay, thanks. Bye from winter County. Yes, I send my best all of you down there. Bye. So, is Michael P check on the phone. Okay. Hi Senator I am. Oh you are. Okay. I was not entirely sure whether we invited you or to talk about vis a vis this issue whether it be foreclosures or evictions or forbearance, but I always welcome the opportunity to hear from you Michael. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that I welcome the opportunity to speak to the committee so maybe I'll just be brief and talk about the perspective from from DFR is viewpoint. So we at DFR along with our federal counterparts did issue guidance. Probably we can have to go now to our member institutions our banks and our credit unions, providing them flexibility to defer loans to, you know, have scheduled missed payments to waive fees and all of the flexibility that they need to serve their communities. Without any regulatory consequence, we also encourage them to be flexible to obviously all industries but in particular, the industries that were hit the hardest by the covert 19 pandemic obviously, you know what those industries are. So we have seen our banking and credit union institutions respond I mean we have seen that response in terms of flexibility for current clients and members. We've seen a number of institutions respond with new loan options also for new clients or new members. So that is certainly encouraging that as it equates to this issue certainly gives residential mortgage holders more flexibility. It certainly gives landlords more flexibility, and then, you know, hopefully they are passing that flexibility down to their tenants as well. So certainly on the mortgage piece, there is a willingness on our lenders and our mortgage servicers to, you know, beyond just the Vermont banks to provide flexibility. Another thing that we're doing is analyzing the federal actions to date. So there has been a moratorium on foreclosures for loans that relate to Fannie or Freddie Mac. Those we understand are at least 60% of the market nationally probably at least 50% of the market in the country. So there's already moratorium on foreclosures. I understand the federal stimulus bill will expand that to include evictions as well for 100 or I think it's a 90 day time period. So we want to get a better sense of what's happening at the federal level from that standpoint and then also what type of stimuli like I want to say those a 90 day stay on evictions. So if you are, if you're, if the loans, if somebody has a loan relating to, so if a landlord has a loan relating to Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, or various other federal loan loan. Those entities, okay. Yeah, so it's not sort of a moratorium broadly but basically if you are having your loan with any of those entities, you know, you get I think certain for you get certain flexibility so long as you don't evict. You know, that's something that we want to understand more clearly as well. And then, I guess as we view this. Oh sorry one other point on the federal action so the federal stimulus will also have, you know, obviously direct money into people's hands, potentially but also some loan forgiveness around rent and and landlord payments and costs that they might occur related to COVID-19 so we want to get a better understanding of that and how that might impact renters and landlords in Vermont. And then last, I guess we view, you know, the fact that the judiciary is structured themselves in such a way under this emergency that the normal process for evictions and foreclosures, you know, really can't proceed as it normally would. And I think that would likely keep individuals in place during the shelter at home emergency as a practical matter, but I do recognize the chair's point about foreclosures or evictions in particular that might have been underway prior to COVID-19 being declared a pandemic and the state declaring a state of emergency. Those are just the considerations that we're taking into account. I think the governor obviously is very concerned about individuals having a place to shelter during this pandemic. And, you know, we continue as we continue to get more clarity on some of those points. I think the decision making process will become more clear in the short term. So I think that's code for the fact that a moratorium is still being, is still under consideration by the administration at some future time if it's warranted. You can break my codes now I guess. One of the reasons I asked that is because I also have Josh Hanford on and trying to save some time here and that was the question. I was going to ask him but you're both representative of the administration so I just wanted to know that that's still being looked at. So I appreciate that. Okay, I appreciate your time we're going to move on to you have anything, does anybody have any questions or do you have anything more commissioners you'd like to say. No, I think that covers it but happy to answer questions here offline as well. Can you, when you get a better idea of what the federal law says vis-a-vis barons and foreclosure and victions. If you could send a summary along to us that would be great. Surely make a note of it. And also Michael any protections for landlords that are coming through the either the fed through the state. Absolutely. Great. Be well everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Jed Davis you have you hung in there the whole time. I am here yeah. Hi. My name is a CEO of the farmhouse group in Chittenden County I think I don't know if you go broader than that but he's written me a couple of emails, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to testify from perspective of a restaurant owner who has leases I guess with landlords. So, why don't you take it away yet. I mean, as we all know restaurant small business owners are in a state of panic and I'm really, I guess speaking for people other than myself, although I am in a state of panic too but there are people out there who situations are more dire than mine. Restaurant small business owners. I have a question about timing. Right now, there are restaurant owners that are coming to the very quick realization that they are out of cash there they're done. They will not have cash to reopen. They will not have cash to pay rent. Therefore they will be in default of their leases that will happen. Most leases have cure periods 10 days 14 days. But if you're out of cash or out of cash commercial leases as you all know are personally guaranteed generally. And there's very real concern amongst people that I interact with a personal guarantee on a lease, essentially means if you're out of business you still always rent. It can be a truly a life altering financial event for someone, particularly as we likely enter a climate where there's not going to be a lot of market for vacant restaurant spaces. So I can easily imagine a situation where someone's paying rent to a landlord for quite a long time. I know the solution. But I do think that we just have to view this as an unacceptable outcome to be forced to close your business rightfully because of a public health concern but nonetheless to be forced to close. And then just imagine continuing to pay rent until, until you can't until something happens. All the stories are coming in. I'm getting emails from friends that are saying I got nothing left, you know, and April 1 is coming. And I just think it's, if nothing else I just want to bring to all of your attention the urgency of that, of that issue. Thank you. Our own constituents and businesses in our areas are making this very clear to us. So as I understand it, it's probably unlikely that any kind of eviction is going to start or proceed going forward as the court's order applies to commercial evictions as well. And that at least goes forward until April 15 and I assume will be extended to the extent the COVID-19 issues continue, which sounds like they will. So, one of the dilemmas we face obviously and you face firsthand is, it's really hard to understand at this point, a few arrows after I don't even know if the bills been signed yet but there's a lot of pieces moving pieces of 600 page bill. And I just hope there's some relief for for small businesses like your own in there but until we get a real handle on that. It's hard to see what if any role states or municipalities might have in fixing the problem but rest assured that we're aware of it. So I thank you for for writing and for staying in the loop and encourage you to stay in touch. Thank you. Does anybody have you. Anybody have any other questions for Jed. Chris you're our last witness, but three of us have already heard from you in finance and you're getting in the way of our bathroom break so I think we know what you're going to say and we thank you for the forbearance that your members are showing and we'll probably be taking this up again next week and we can have you and then I hope that's okay with you. Yeah, that'd be great. I would really like to visit with the committee and give you more detailed information foreclosure is completely different from eviction. This is in Vermont take a heck of a lot longer, and I can assure you we're not throwing people out on the street. So blanket moratoriums become a little bit of a challenge because we're now not able to direct resources to where they were absolutely needed so I very much would like to meet with the committee. I'm going to take it up next week because there is a lot more information that's happened since we last met with the finance committee so I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, so committee. Why don't we take 12 minutes to 135. I guess, faith of you on we just hang up and diet go through the process again. Center circuit did you want me to try to be available again. This is Commissioner Hanford. Well, we can hear from you now, Josh. I was basically going to try and ask you about the administration's position. I think that that from Mike. So sure. Well, I think we have some, you know, spoken directly about it quite a bit. I know that the EO is still being considered the governor's and looking at it as well as thinking about how to add in this commercial lease piece, but the legal aid proposal that's in the house bill. There's a few concerns that we want to make sure is addressed. It's for all evictions. There's a public safety element to this that we've been receiving issues daily from someone running a mobile home, you know, with unsafe person that's, you know, destroying other people's property and how are they going to be evicted so there's concerns that for some public safety, there may need to be evictions that proceed for lack of payment that that's completely understood. So that's an item I just wanted to put on the table that should be considered as well as the language from the federal bill that just was approved. There's a 120 day suspension of all landlords prohibiting initial legal action to recover possession of a rental unit to charge a fee penalty or other charges related to non payment where the landlords mortgage on the properties are guaranteed supplemented or protected or assisted in any way by HUD Fannie Freddie rule housing voucher program or violence against Women's Act. So there is a potential that there's a number of properties that will be protected by that federal issue. As well as the funding that may come through. The other piece that we're concerned about is many of these programs that come from federal funds or that even the house 5 million that's there that probably is not nearly enough. How those get transferred to the 80% of rental property owners that are the smaller private that, you know, during this period of not collecting rent, you know how they filling up the oil tank or, you know, just necessary repair some sort of program to offer assistance, you know, 0% loan grants, whatever it is, it needs to be developed to go along with the rental assistance that looks like some of that is coming in the federal relief, it probably will go out as housing vouchers, which has a process through the public housing authorities and state housing authority that would need to be developed. So that's sort of my high level just adding on to what you've already heard. Josh, that's very helpful. And we'll definitely will have you in next week. I mean, we've gotten some emails as well from neighbors of tenants that are like creating a nuisance or party house or things like that that have nothing to do with non payment of rent where they, you know, in some ways are causing a health issue of another kind so there may need to be some flexibility built into this though, obviously, it's a balancing act. So we'll hear from you next week and we'll see what the also what the house is planning on doing as to whether they're going to send something over, or we need to act first. But I appreciate your time and everybody's all the witnesses times. And if we could take 10 minutes now and be back at, let's take 13 minutes and be back at 140. And that means you got to get back on at 135 for all the time. You could just stay on. You could just keep it going and then go off and do it whatever you're doing. Faith told me she didn't want to do that. This is faith you can stay on I'm going to shut the YouTube video down and then pick it up again when you start so everybody else can just stay on the line. Right, so you don't have to resign in.