 We'll welcome everyone who, to the, this is a hearing for the general housing military affairs committee. We are hearing an amendment this afternoon from representative Robb Leclerc from Berrytown on S333, which was our bill for Ejectment Moratoria that we did on the floor and passed through second reading. Representative Leclerc had an amendment and has come to share it with us. So I am going to pass the microphone right over to you, representative Leclerc, and then when you're done, we may have some questions, but then we'll have our legislative council who also wrote this amendment. David Hall joined in with his explanation. So welcome, join us. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that and thank you committee members. I'm sorry that it's a special meeting, but I promise that I can get this done in less than two hours, I'm sure. My amendment is fairly straightforward. It does nothing to affect this legislation during the emergency period. So everything that was in the legislation pertaining to the emergency period stays. My concern is the first instance of amendment would be pertaining to, well, it's on the first page, I guess it's under section one, part one here, basically saying that no action can happen after the emergency period is lifted for 30 days. That to me, as you heard yesterday, testimony that we're concerned from two perspectives. One is the landlord. A lot of the landlords in Vermont, in fact, most of the landlords that I know are average remoders just like myself. And we're all being affected by this. And because the housing stock in Vermont is very old, a lot of the rental properties are older buildings that have been at one time were single-family homes that have been converted into multi-families. But quite often, in order for that to happen, the landlords and like all the units that I have, I pay all the utilities. I pay the power, I pay the heat, I pay the sewer and water, I pay everything. So my concern about this is that with this process going on as long as it has, and if you've already got a tenant that's behind on the rent, now we're gonna push it out an additional 30 days before I as a landlord could even start the process of eviction. Which means that I've got a lot more financial investment going on there. And so does the tenant quite honestly. And as you can imagine, we're always gonna be having the dialogue. So my amendment basically just says that you do not have that 30-day window period. As soon as the emergency order is lifted, then the landlord can take the appropriate action that they need to. And as you can imagine, anybody that's ever been through this process, which I have a time or two, thankfully not that often, there is nothing quick about it. It's very expensive, especially on the landlord's part. So by pushing it out an additional 30 days, I just don't feel that it's appropriate for the landlord. And I don't think it helps the process. The other part of this amendment is it addresses basically section G, and it's got to do with the 45 days. And I'll be honest with you, it takes a process that I look at is can be fairly complicated to begin with and makes it even more complicated. And I'm trying to understand, but if we push this thing out to where I as a landlord can't address the issue until 30 days, and then it looks like that the judge has got potentially 45 days after that before they even have to have a hearing around the escrow of the rent. And if I understand this correctly, it sounds like we could push this thing out upwards of 75 days after I've already had lack of rent for a month, two months, whatever, however long this period may last. And one of the things that we as landlords need, like everybody else, we do a little predictability here. And so I would look to strike that where we keep the process that we have in place where as a landlord in my tenants, we can sit down, we can talk about this if we can work out a payment plan and then the judge approves it, that's fine. But this gives in my opinion, the judge with much latitude up to an including that if they deem that the tenant can't or shouldn't pay rent, they don't have to. And I could be out thousands of dollars, I and other landlords as well. So again, this doesn't do anything to affect anything why the emergency order is in place, but it either lets the existing process that's in place stand, but more importantly, it removes that 30 day window there so that we can start the process immediately after the emergency order has been lifted. And that's kind of it in a nutshell, Mr. Chair. Okay, thank you so much for sharing that representative Triano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for bringing us in, Representative O'Claire. I appreciate it. The first question I had when I read this, Rob, was my thoughts around the 30 day waiting period were that if businesses reopen and people become employed at that 30 day window is more likely to provide some income for any consideration as to payment of the rent after that 30 days. So my question is what do you think we would gain by eliminating that 30 day process and have people who were just going back to work or just coming off a layoff, being able to any more able to pay rent or make an agreement to pay rent than they would after 30 days? What do we gain by that, Rob? Sure. What does the time gain by that, I should say? That's a very fair question. One obviously is the amount of debt that we're talking about, whether it be from the tenant's perspective or the landlords, it's always accruing. And of course, every scenario is different here, but the way that we have it set up now is that if you're laid off, in some cases, people are bringing home more money than if they were working. But the point here is that the landlord, I'm having to incur all this added expense. I'm continuing to pay all the utilities and everything while we're going on. Most landlords are happy to work with their tenants. I mean, it's in a landlord's best interest to attract and keep good tenants. That's just what having turnover is not what we want. But the reality of it is, is that you will have some tenants that just it's not a good fit, whether it's with you and them or them in the property. So, yeah, there is always that possibility chip. But as a landlord, I need to do what I have to do to protect myself and my investment. And like I said, there's a lot of landlords in Vermont that they maybe have a duplex, they live on one side and their tenants any other. We're not talking about large corporations that have thousands of apartments. We're talking about the mom and pop type of landlords that it's an investment property force. And I can assure you that we don't make a lot of money at the end of the year with these properties. You get your payments, make your mortgage payment, get your property taxes paid and you've always got to put money back into them. Because like I said earlier, most of the housing stock is quite old. There's always things that have to be done. Well, you may follow up. You may be more up on this than I am, but when I look at the papers at rental advertisements, I don't see a whole lot of them that offer all utilities paid by the landlord. But the other piece that I am a little puzzled by, we made sure that landlords were protected from foreclosure in this bill for the exact reason that you're speaking of. We don't want landlords to lose their property because of the lack of payment of rent. So there are protections that we have afforded landlords in this that hasn't gotten a lot of discussion at this point. So I understand that most landlords are not corporations, I agree. But it seems to me that outside of paying utilities that the protections that are afforded by this bill to landlords against foreclosure on their mortgages is something that we thought about and something that hasn't been considered a great deal. Well, that's a good point, Chip, but it really isn't really a protection for the landlord because yes, I may not get foreclosed on, but I'm still gonna have to owe the bank or whatever finance institution I have the mortgage with. And they always have the protection of that mortgage where I as the landlord in my tenant, I have no protections at all, none, other than if I have to, we have to start the eviction process. That's the only protection that I as a landlord have. And that's why I'm looking to minimize my exposure in one, two, I'm not saying to expedite the process, but to at least leave the process as it is in place. Contrary to some prior statements, there's very little that's fair about this process or this relationship. Again, I as a landlord, the only thing that I have available is the eviction process. And if you've ever been through it, it can cost you thousands of dollars. It can take months to go through. And I finally get to the point with some tenants where I've literally just said, listen, I will pay you, I will forgive the back rent, I will pay you to go. And I end up saving money that way. So I'm just looking to try to get the field a little more even around this particular situation. Certainly I appreciate that, Rob, but just as the last point that I wanted to make is that with the courts having been closed for four months, the notion that a hearing might be expedited in any way and any eviction process seems to be a somewhat of a misconception as well. I certainly think that that's the startup of the courts are gonna start in criminal court and family court and that tenant landlord disputes may be put on back burner and many of these courts. So I'm not sure how that would happen. You're absolutely right Chip. And maybe I picked the wrong word. There's nothing expedited about this. In fact, because of that, I'm saying you don't need this language because the process itself is just gonna take whatever time it's gonna take. But if some fluke that you could get something on track, that's a more reasonable process timeline, that would be more appropriate, I believe. Okay, thanks Rob. Thank you Chip. Representative Byron. Thank you. Apologize for my tardiness. I got hung up on a call. It's like a beach. Yeah, no, no, it's kind of my home away from another long time. So anyway, so for clarity, so essentially you're asking to lift the 30 window moving through the city over after being... I'm sorry, there's somebody talking in a background and I can't hear you at all. Cool. So you're asking to lift the 30 day continuation of the moratorium after the emergency order is lifted. Yes. Okay. And then what was the other component of the bill? The other, the 45 day for the rent escrow. I'll confess I'm a little confused is that in conjunction to the 30 days so that technically this could get pushed out 45 days on after the 30 days where a judge wouldn't have to make a ruling on the escrow. And so again is the clock continuing to tick there where we're both incurring more and more added expense, the tenant and the landlord. So I'm looking to have that 45 days removed and just go revert back to the process as it currently is. So you're looking to lift both these extensions, the 30 and the 45 and just have it be like a hard stop at the end of the emergency order. Well, that the process would start. Well, the moratorium is that like a hard stop to be considered. Yes, exactly. So, okay, cool. I just wanted clarity on that. And I guess I'm gonna throw like a little anecdotal piece out. So I also own a handful of units myself. And with layoffs and everything of that nature, I was working with a good tenant of mine who also does have health issues. So his capacity to work has been limited. And he finally got his UI and his Fed 600 and everything to come through. And he showed up with like a really big check and the biggest smile on his face yesterday. So I think as much as we do have to take into consideration a lot of this, there's a lot of renters out there who are gonna do the right thing with the money as it comes in. Absolutely. Most will. I have a young couple that's been with me for a few years. They have two kids, had the kids young. One of them is autistic. They're doing everything you could expect them to do. They owe me thousands of dollars of back rent. But I'm okay with that because we had that conversation and they're doing what I could expect them to do. We're trying not to dig the hole any deeper here, but like I said earlier, it's in every landlord's best interest to attract and keep good tenants. That's what we want. I don't know, I totally agree. And that's something, I actually, my wife and I as partners with this, like one of our philosophies is, we do sort of like a percentage under what like our area baseline is for our units because it helps retract and retain good tenants. So we'd actually rather have like a slightly smaller margin knowing that we have like longevity and quality out of our tenants. But that's, I mean, that's just a personal philosophy, but I have several tenants. I've never given a rent increase to some that I've had for 15 years. They've never had a rent increase because it's just, it's great having them. Okay. No, cool. And we thank you for the clarity on those two pieces. And I just wanted to sort of, you know, throw that recent life experience with this, you know, our COVID rental scenarios out there. You're good. Thank you. Representative Kolecki. Thank you. Rob, one of the things we were trying to do when we heard from Judge Gerson was to standardize it for the state. For instance, up here in Chittenden County, the judge here stayed all evictions and foreclosures on March 31st for 90 days. And now four or five other counties have followed suit, but the rest haven't. So this will be, your proposal will be out of alignment with a kind of statewide consistency that the bill is trying to get to. And so I don't, what's happening in your county? Like what are your courts if they say evictions? I have not heard that the courts have done anything. I mean, quite honestly, they're not operating. So just by default, they have stayed everything. I would say that if you had the language reflect that when the emergency disorder got lifted, then statewide everything else happens as it always has recognizing that the process just by its nature is very slow, it's not quick. And I'm sure that you're talking the 30 plus days or more anyway. Right, Helen Tore and Chittin and did on March 30th, 90 days. So that's even longer than what this bill is proposing if the emergency equation ends May 15th. Yeah, thankfully I don't have any rental properties in Chittin and County. None, none whatsoever. And Chair, I don't know the other counties, but do you know the other counties? I think you mentioned it yesterday. The other counties that have been put some form of moratory on of their own accord were Washington County, Franklin and Grand Isle, Windsor and Linda. All right, next up I have Representative Gamash and before I do that, I just wanna throw out there and I'll ask Representative Leclerc if through your work as a landlord in your business as a landlord, have you been kept up to speed or have you found out what possible rental arrearages or rental assistance that may be available through the CARES Act or through the existing hop of arrearages that maybe, and we took testimony from Josh Hanford from DHCD way back, I think it was in March at the beginning of this process. And we spent the last couple of weeks dealing with foreclosure language, but if I'm not mistaken one of, and I don't know this for fact that where we're going with the CARES money and how the federal money can be used, but there was talk back then that some of this money would be used for back rent purposes. I mean, we took a lot of meaningful testimony from folks who were trying to get more money in the arrearage program because we learned that 70% of all eviction cases have to do with back rent and that usually if rent back rent were available that a lot of these evictions would go away. But at any rate, have you heard about any of the federal money that may be available to landlords? I mean, again, this is stuff that we're trying to, when we try to craft landlord tenant law, we're trying to do it through our committee. We're trying to make sure there's a balance and this was one of the balances that we worked on early on. I guess I'll take the latter part of your question first and that no, I have not heard of anything. I mean, I know everything is kind of fluid and in flux and people are still trying to figure out what rules came along with that. I would agree with the vast majority, you're right, of the evictions are due to back rent. And if there was some funding available for landlords that they could rely on, we would certainly be happy to work with our tenants. But that's where I guess, baby, when I will differ a little bit and I don't think that there's balance to the process. The landlord has everything at stake, tenants, yes, it's where they live, but they've made a conscious choice to not pay the rent or not work it out with the landlord. Okay, thank you. Representative Gommash. First, I'd like to say if some woman talking in the background somewhere. I'm gonna mute. Oh, it's you. Yes, it's, we've got three calls all on the first floor here. Okay, okay. All right, I wanted to first comment on Representative Leclerc and Representative Byron's comments. I would like to add to their comments or support, I would say, their comments regarding tenant situations. I formally, in my life, I have owned rental property. I have worked with tenants who have run into situations where there was a financial issue because of illness, because of job loss, because of many things. And my experience is that tenants who are basically good tenants. And by that, I mean not only paying the rent, but respecting the property because that is a huge issue. My experience has shown that when, so people who have that attitude and who will first contact the landlord in most instances, something can be worked out. I always was able, not always, most of the time was able to work with the tenant on kind of a catch-up basis because obviously when there's, if there's a large enough financial problem, even if their intention is to pay back rent and keep up with current rent, sometimes that financial hole that they find themselves in just realistically doesn't allow for it. I have in the past, I've come close to having to do an eviction, but I was able to fall short of that because the tenant found another living situation. It happened actually twice here in Vermont. So I haven't gone through the process, but I've known people, landlord property owners who have, and it's a very long process. And it's a very expensive procedure. So while I understand, none of us wants to throw people out on the street, the reality in an eviction process is there are typically, I've been told six, eight, 10 months, sometimes longer than that until a tenant actually has to leave the premises. That's a very long amount of time. So I understand representatives with Claire's concern about the process itself takes a long time, but then when you add to that, a delay after the crisis passes, you're adding another month or more before you can even start the process of eviction. I understand and I can agree with that from that perspective because nobody is gonna be shortly, quickly thrown out on the street. It just doesn't work that way. So I'll put my two cents in. Thank you. And I just would go, let's go back to the beginning of what this bill, prior to Representative LeClaire's amendment, the bill is specific, doesn't change underlying statute, right? Number one, that's an important thing to remember. So as this bill is constructed, when the emergency period ends, we go back to the status quo as it is now, which is what Representative LeClaire is essentially asking for as soon as the emergency period is declared over now. We don't know if that's gonna be May 15th. We don't know if that's gonna be May 31st. We don't know if that's gonna be June 30th. I mean, we don't know. And but what we've established over hearing testimony on this bill over the last six or seven weeks is that because this is session one, it's specific to number one, it's specific to this crisis, which we know nothing, none of us know anything about how this is gonna sugar off in terms of, if it sugars off before, or if it ends before the, say the July 31st deadline on the extra $600 that's coming in unemployment for the people who are unemployed, does that mean rent will more easily be paid? Yes, of course, because they will have been essentially made whole. Folks who are unemployed will be made whole. And committee, correct me if I'm remembering this incorrectly in terms of the reasoning we put the 30 and the 45 days to make, and the 45 days is it necessarily a stretch out if I'm not, and David Hoff can probably get to this when we get to him. The escrow hearings, right? This is G and H are about escrow hearings. This is about putting the money into escrow. And what it does is to give the courts, there's the 30 days, and then if there's an escrow hearing within those 45 days after the hearing, so I'm not sure if they're concurrent or not, we'll get a clarification on that, but that the judge can decide not that the tenant isn't supposed to pay or isn't going to pay the full back rent. It's a question of getting the back rent into escrow. And I realized that there's a point of contention here about that, but we made these assumptions based on the fact that after that it was gonna take a while for people to get their jobs back, it was gonna give people time for people to set up the program through the state about getting rent payback that there was gonna be a timeframe after this was done where things can happen. So that's just, I'm just remembering this from the way we set up this of the ejectment process. So I'm gonna go to Representative Triano. And so I just this idea, just to finish the idea that this is, discusses the larger landlord tenant issues that we consistently discuss in our committee and we address them one by one over time. This is specifically about this period of time starting on May, March 13th, core processes that were in place at the time and then core processes that may have started during, since that time. So I just wanna remind us that this is the timeframe we're looking at, not the larger picture of landlord tenant experience, which I totally appreciate. Representative Triano, one minute. Are you muted? Well, you are muted. Yeah. So I guess I wanted to say to you Rob is, this is the reason I'm not a landlord. And I never even thought about being one. But I guess, you know, one of the, just to finish this off a little bit is, you know, one of the considerations for me is that bad credit, in other words, lack of rent payment is the largest or the biggest reason for people to be unable to obtain new rentals. And that's reasonably so. I mean, I'm not suggesting that that's not right. But if you've got, if you're in a rear five or six months of your rent, the next place that you go to will know that. And so, you know, what we're doing, right now we're paying for 1700 Vermonters to be lodged in motel rooms and feeding them three times a day as a result of their homelessness. So when we put these two issues together where mis-rent payments and bad credit are the major issue for getting into new rentals, and we have to ask ourselves if this doesn't begin the spiraling of the downhill spiral into homelessness that could create much more expense to the state of Vermont than we may be looking at as far as hopefully helping to pay their arrears, you know? I mean, I would hope that that would be the case. That would be my objective in this whole thing. And we can hope that it will happen. But, you know, I just have to make that point that, you know, homelessness is not shrinking in Vermont. It's growing. It's totally stable right now. And it's costing us a ton of money to try and maintain housing for these homeless Vermonters. I totally agree with you, Chip. You know, we're, as landlord, surely not looking to exacerbate the problem. But, you know, what I do hear that we're spending upwards of $1,000 a week on campers to keep people that are homeless housed. There's probably more cost-effective ways. And Tom has heard me make this statement before that there is capacity out there in regular traditional housing. But if the process was more user-friendly, especially towards the landlord, one of my units I have is a four-partment building that has three bedrooms in each apartment. I could and would take a homeless family if I had a true partner that if it didn't quite work out, as we hoped that it would, because let's be clear, when you take somebody in like that, there's usually other issues with them that I'm probably not equipped to deal with. But if somebody else is, but let's just say that if it didn't work, then, you know, we could end the relationship appropriately. But the way the process is now, I am much better off to have an apartment sit vacant for a month or two than to take any risk at all. And that really isn't, I don't think that's what we want. I know I've looked into becoming a landlord for Department of Corrections, people transitioning. You could probably relate to this, Chip. And what I had found out was that if I was a transition housing for them, that if they had somebody come in and they were transitioning through, but it wasn't a good fit, I could make a call. And if what they found was if what I said was accurate, they're not there in 24 hours. Now, I'm not advocating for a system like that here, but there's things that we need to do to make what we have in place work better for everyone that's more cost-effective and that we get people housed. It certainly is striking to me what you say, Rob, as far as being a landlord and thinking in terms of having a three bedroom apartment vacant rather than face eviction issues. You know, that's another issue entirely, but it certainly is striking that I certainly don't disagree with you. Yeah, and you made a comment there about advertising. I've been a landlord for, I don't know, 10 or 15 years. I've never once advertised, never once have had to. It's always been word of mouth. Well, I was just mentioning the notion that when I see ads for apartments in the paper, sure, sometimes utilities are not included. That was my only point. Yeah, no, no, and that's true. That's fair. Thank you, Rob. Thank you. Representative Kolecki and then Gonzalez. I'm still trying to make the alignment of all the timing work because if I understand all the courts have suspended hearings through May 31st is what my understanding is. And then over and Senate economic developments, the agency of commerce and community development said they are planning to get money from this CARES Act for rental assistance, but it will not be set up till July 1st. And so by doing without this bridging time, landlords are gonna be further screwed to be a little colloquial about it and that by being a little more patient to July 1st, there actually will be federal money that will come to you so you're not caught up short. And so I'm just, I think we're all trying to balance landlord and tenant rights and all of this. And I think we're trying to invent this thing as we're flying it or whatever that everyone's talking about. But I think we have to just understand that this process is coming in at different times. And so if the agency can have your rental assistance program up by July 1st, I think this bill is strong and your amendment would actually make you more at risk as a landlord. So I think we provide more protection. I guess I don't follow that logic at all, but I can appreciate that. The longer that I have to wait to start the process and the longer it takes me to get through the process, the more expense that I'm gonna incur, the more financial risk I have and other landlords and the more financial risk the tenant has as well. Now I hope what you're saying comes to fruition, that would be fantastic. And I and I know tons of other landlords, if we had some assurance that that was gonna happen, we'd be glad to work with people. But we're incurring expenses while this is going on. We're paying our mortgage payments, we're paying our property taxes, we're paying our utility bills. So we're continuing to make enormous investments into this process. You know, and you're saying that the state doesn't have the money, they don't. Well, what makes folks think that landlords do as well? But you will have the money, according to John Hanford, available July 1st. So if you evict someone on May 20th, you will not have the money. That's the only point I'm trying to make. I think you're more protective with this July 1st kind of, this is not my program, this is my understanding from John Hanford. Sure. Okay, thank you. Representative Gonzalez. Thank you, chair. I am wondering if we could move towards hearing from David Hall and it's representative Leclerc has shared a lot and intensified about the amendment. And I'm wondering if we can end that testimony and move towards hearing from the lawyer, from our lawyer about what this amendment is. Sure. Representative Hango had just put her hand up. I'll just check in. Representative Hango, are you good with that? Or do you want to ask a question right now? I just have a clarification to what representative Kalaki was just saying. We have not heard that July 1st is a definite date nor have we heard how much money is coming to us. So I just want to be clear about that, that we really don't know anything about this federal money that could supposedly go to landlords and whether it's really going to be July 1st or not. And that is also reiterated in the letter we got from Chief Murray today. So I just want to be clear that we really don't do that. Yep. Yep. All right. Let's pass the microphone over to David Hall. David, welcome. Hello, you are unmuted. And so you've heard conversation basically, I think if you want to clarify what the proposed amendment itself does, and then if you can, I suppose compare and contrast between what's being proposed in this amendment versus what we have in S333, that would be great. Sure, my pleasure. David Hall, legislative councils S333. What I am showing you on my screen I just think the easiest way for you to see what's going on in the proposed amendment is to see how it changes these two specific subsections in your bill, and then you can compare them. So let me start with the bill as it currently stands out of your committee and what it does. And then I can tell you how it changes. So remember that you have defined the emergency period to be from March 13th until the date the governor declares the emergency ended. And again, the governor has to issue some sort of declaration to say, this is over. And I anticipate that the governor will specifically address of these moratoria, assuming this passes and say the time for that is over as well from the state's perspective. Please understand that it doesn't end there as emergency period is defined. The declaration happens and the emergency period as you defined it is an additional 30 days, right? So, and the broadest sense your bill creates moratoria on both foreclosure actions and ejection actions during the emergency period, which includes the state of emergency plus the 30 days. So I want to highlight that subsection G and the 45 days there, it's not an additional 45 days for the emergency period. Okay, that 45 day clock starts to run at the end of the emergency period. Okay, fine. What does the clock run? What does it do? Why do we have 45 days? So this is what's really critical to understand. For hearings that occur within those first 45 days, there is a different set of rules governing rent escrow hearings than what is the current law and underlying statute in title 12. Okay, so right now in title 12, if you had a situation where there was nonpayment of rent, then a landlord could go in the course of this ejection action and say, this is ejection for nonpayment of rent. I would like to move the court to order my tenant to pay back rent into the court in escrow. So during the period that this action for ejection is pending, as that rent continues to accrue, the tenant would have to pay into the court instead of to the landlord. First, second, the tenant would also have to pay back rent due to the landlord since the ejection action began. All right, so if the landlord comes to court and says, I want an order to pay rent into court, if the court finds that the tenant owes rent and has not paid it, statute says the court shall require the tenant to pay rent into court as it accrues and whatever is behind since the action was filed, okay? So in the world of COVID-19, what that could mean potentially is that, let's say the period runs from March until October, October comes and whenever the hearing for this order comes to the court and the court's operating again and blah, blah, blah, and a landlord files this motion, if the tenant is behind on rent, the court under the current law does not have discretion to change the amount of rent that that tenant has to pay into court. The court would have to require that tenant to pay not only the rent as it's gonna continue to accrue as long as the action's going on, but also unpaid rent since March. So the problem that G is trying to solve is to avoid that situation where a tenant who is behind on rent shows up to court and has to immediately fork over six months of rent or lose possession of housing effective immediately because the last part of that section of law entitled 12 currently says, if the tenant fails to pay the back rent into court as required by the order, then the court shall immediately issue a writ of possession forthwith and the tenant will be displaced not earlier than five days after the writ. If it's a mobile home park, it's actually 30 days, but for everybody else it's five days. And again, the court does not have the discretion to say, you know, to reduce the amount of rent that's due or to change that in any way. I suppose it is possible the parties could try to stipulate some sort of agreement so the court didn't have to act under that section. That's possibility, but otherwise the statute is clear to this is, it's a shout, it's not a main. So what G does is this, it says, if our hearing for a motion to pay rent into court comes up in the first 45 days after the emergency period ends a different set of rules will apply. All right, so it says in that case for those hearings first 45 days after the emergency period ends, the court will order the tenant to pay rent into court as are the crews and then back rent essentially from the end of the emergency period rather than from whenever the action begins, right? And then the second piece, and that's in G2 here is discretion in the court to reduce the amount of rent that the defendant would have to pay in the court after considering A, the tenant's inability to pay due to circumstances arising in the emergency period and B, whether the tenant may good pay the temps to secure available emergency rental payment funds. So it does give the court flexibility and discretion to reduce the amount of rent that must be paid into court based on basically the evidence that's presented by the parties concerning tenants ability to pay due to circumstances arising in the emergency period and whether the tenant may good faith attempts to secure available emergency funds. That is a different legal process and standard that supplants the existing law for the first 45 days after the emergency period ends. So it does not, this subsection alone does not delay when the landlord could bring this type of motion. It does not extend the emergency period. It is a different and temporary set of rules governing this process for the first 45 days after the emergency period ends. So that's what G does. Now H resumption of actions makes an exception to the general rule about moratoria, the moratorium on ejection actions. As I said in the beginning, you have defined an emergency period to be the state of declaration plus 30 days. And your bill says ejection actions and foreclosure actions are paused during the emergency period. H carves out an exception to that rule and says notwithstanding that general principle, if the ejection action is for the breach of a rental agreement pursuant to 9VSA 4467D, it may proceed in court when the governor terminates the state of emergency by declaration. So it takes away that extra 30 days and says if the basis of ejection is a material breach and incidentally this also includes violence, drug activity, illegal activity, or other activity that threatens to help and safety of other residents. If it's any of those bases, then that action can begin immediately upon termination of the emergency. You do not have to wait the extra 30 days, okay? So now I'm gonna show you how Representative LeClaire's amendment would change those two subsections. So it would strike G in its entirety, right? So the alternative slate of rules concerning motions to pay rent into court, that would disappear and it would just be governed by current law, which I previously described. That's the first change. And then the second change would replace that and add in one more piece to the resumption of actions. So remember that in Title IX, this is in section 4467, it specifies all the different reasons a landlord could terminate the tenancy and how much time, how much notice is required to be given to the tenant that they're being terminated. And that's governed by the basis of the termination. So if you fail to pay your rent, landlord can commence terminating the lease agreement and can move to do the ejectment within 14 days. And under 4467B, the material breach, the legal activity and all that, well, that's it. For the material breach, it's 30 days, legal activities also. The point here, the change here says, adds an additional basis for being able to immediately resume an ejection action. And so whereas your bill underline only has ejectment actions for breach of a rental agreement under 4467B, Representative LeClaire's amendment would add to that ejectment actions for non-payment of rent under 4467A. So that the consequence being a landlord could resume an action for ejectment as of the date the governor declares the emergency ended, rather than having to wait the extra 30 days as emergency period is defined. Let me say that one more time. The change in subsection G basically creates another exception to the moratorium that runs for the whole emergency period, which includes the 30 extra days, and says instead that two kinds of actions may resume immediately as soon as the governor declares the emergency ended. Those two kinds of actions are ejectment for non-payment of rents and ejectment for breach of a rental agreement under 4467B. Hope that helps. That's all I got. Okay. Chair, I have a question for the attorney. Would it be appropriate? You are the first hand up on my participant list. So yes, please feel free. Thank you. David, so the way that this legislation reads currently, if I can't start the ejectment action until 30 days after the emergency order is lifted, then wouldn't it be the 45 days for the escrow hearing isn't gonna happen within that 30 days? It would happen after that, wouldn't it? I don't know if I'm following your question, but the answer is no action can happen until the emergency period ends. So that includes the 30 days. Correct. And when that 30 days is over, you can file or resume, it would be resume the ejectment action and also you could file your motion for an order to pay rent in the court. But the court wouldn't hear either the action or this motion until the emergency period ends, which includes the 30 days. Correct. So hypothetically, you could not have an escrow hearing until the 74th day after the emergency order has been lifted. No, no, the governor would declare the emergency over and let's say that happens on June 1st. Yep. Okay, so June 1st is the day that the emergency is declared over. The emergency period is defined in this bill would run another 30 days, so through the rest of June. So on July the 1st, the court could open up all of these actions immediately and that could include you filing a motion to order a defendant to pay rent into court. Now, if you do that on July the 1st and the hearing for it occurs in those first 45 days after July the 1st, so until August 15th, then a different set of rules governing the motion to order a defendant to pay rent in the court applies. It would be the rules here in G rather than the rules in Title 12. That's those first 45 days. So after August 15th, we revert back to the underlying law. Correct. But during that time period, we could, it could be upwards of 74 or 75 days after the lifting of the emergency if we're talking just that timeframe. I don't know. I'm not following where the 75 number comes from. Well, because you can't start the process until 30 days after the emergency order is lifted, correct? That's correct. And then the judge has got a 45 day window there with which they can schedule a hearing for the escrow. The scheduling of when this hearing occurs is not in any way affected by this bill. I mean, there's a separate reality and a separate set of laws and rules that govern scheduling and those are all gonna be the same. The court's probably gonna have a huge backlog. So I can't tell you how long that period will be. 45 days doesn't extend any period for action or inaction. 45 days, think of an on-off switch for the rules governing motions to pay rent in the court. And this is on for 45 days and then off after that. This is just a temporary change in the rules. It's not an extension of any period having to do with court procedure. It's a change in the substantive law that governs this type of motion. Very good, thank you. Before Representative LeClaire asked his question, there were two other hands up in there. See them down now. So Representative Hango, are you okay? All right, and Representative Triano, are you okay? Or did you have a question still? Oh, the question I had was clarified by- All right, so any further questions on this amendment? Representative Byron. I mean, this is, I don't know if this is an answer, a question that necessarily has an answer. Is there any idea of what the backlog on the court systems are gonna look like? I mean, we don't know when the emergency order is gonna be lifted, obviously, but what kind of wait periods? I think the testimony that we received from Judge Greerson was pretty sobering when it comes to their capacities. Anyway, never mind the emergency, and so- I'm flashing back to that, what his genuine sort of fear and concerns were with how the backlog was gonna be pretty substantial once they got back up and running. Right, it was, and Buddy also testified that this, by having a structure like this in place, would help. No, no, no, and I see what you're saying, but it's like, in my mind, I'm thinking through it, that like these windows will probably be exceeded by the backlog, the backlog will exceed the windows, almost. Right, that's entirely possible. I mean, again, we hear again and again, not just in respect to COVID-19 crisis, but that while our statute lays out a fairly expedient process in terms of, well, if someone doesn't pay rent and you can file, you can file, you know, ejectment processes and go through, you know, on paper, it may not take all that long, but I think that the reality for landlords and tenants is that an ejectment process can go on in the normal course of business for a long time and whether, so just because of the court process, but the process can be meandering at best, yeah. Yeah, I mean, everybody has a due process, some sort or another delays that can happen, but nevertheless, in statute, the process itself is laid out. Again, the judge, I'm just basing what I remember from Judge Gerson and, you know, he, I think he, I think he said very early on that all of this is an issue with the court system. Because of the expected amount of backup that's happening right now. Correct, yeah. Yeah. And that was one of the, I mean, and they were looking for a way to sort of like buffer the backlog, right? No, I won't use those words for, I won't use those words for the judge, but I think that they were looking, number one, to have a standard set across the state was their first impression, and then the second one was to, you know, to deal with it as it came across. I don't think anybody is saying that this is gonna make life easier for anybody if these, if these ejectments get to this process, you know, this crisis is going to, it exacerbates pretty much everything. That's, that happens to people under the normal course of business. And this bill again has been crafted to try to soften that for everyone involved. Representative Gonzales, I'm sorry, Matt, are you okay? Okay, Representative Gonzales. So just in terms of process and in the Zoom land, it's so much harder to mark when we have finished with one person's testimony and moved into discussion. Just as a process point, it seems like we are moving into discussion and so great. So I just wanted to mark that and be clear that then the committee is moving into discussion after hearing the testimony from Representative LeClaire and hearing the testimony from David Hall, our attorney. So in that marking, what I want to reiterate that I understand from what this proposed amendment does is that it makes it harder for everyone to move forward and that by eliminating the flexibility of the court to allow for a different amount to go into escrow, then I really believe that it makes it just so much harder for landlords and tenants. And so I am very much against this amendment and think that we should vote against it. Okay, thank you. Representative Triano. Yes, thank you. I have a question for David. So throughout the discussion for this bill, I had envisioned that when people go back to work and have some money in their pocket, hopefully, that they will begin to pay their rent again. This is ideally, I guess, in my mind. So if your rent is $800 a month and you get your job back and the next month you make your $800 a month payment. I guess my question is, so these arrears cannot be collected through the eviction process in court and section G, as we have put it forward, would not apply. Is that accurate to say that landlord could not get this into court without an eviction action, even if the tenant has begun to pay their full amount of rent after the COVID has subsided? I should say the executive order has been moved. So if you fail to pay your rent on the date that it's due, you are in breach of your lease agreement. And that is a basis for ejectment. I mean, the landlord could start that process at any time after there's a breach by giving you notice and then after a certain period of days filing the ejectment action, so you have to give notice and then it's 14 days termination and then within 60 days you have to commence ejectment. There is a provision you're probably familiar with in Vermont law that allows a tenant to pay back rent and come back into good standing, but G does not affect any of that. G does not change any of those legal duties or processes. This bill does not absolve the tenant of his or her legal obligation under the rent agreement to pay each month's rent as it's due. And if they don't, they are in breach still. And if they remain in breach when the emergency period ends, then the landlord can, the court will start scheduling hearings, right? Because you can file, you can commence an ejectment action during the emergency period. It will just be stayed. So once the essentially the stay is lifted, the court will start scheduling hearings. And again, this G is just pegged to the rules that will apply once those hearings resume. And I gotta tell you, I mean, considering the backlog, I would imagine there's no way all of the cases are going to be heard in those first 45 days. Well, I understand what you're saying. I understand the process. I guess my question would be better phrased, maybe if a tenant in good faith gets their job back and starts paying their $800 a month rent when the executive order is lifted. And so is there another way, is there a way other than the court process to collect that back rent for the landlords? That's kind of where I'm getting at. So we've got a tenant who's in good faith now paying their rent in full, but they owe $3,000 in back rent. So should we be entertaining language that would suggest that if landlords and tenants can arrange for payment of back rent, that would avoid this court proceeding? Or the question more or less is that if a landlord still feels they need to collect this back rent through the court, is that process eliminated by the tenant paying their rent in full at this point? I'm still not sure, I'm making it clear. So let me just say as a general premise, two people can agree to whatever they want. So if you're the landlord, no, you don't have to go to court to try to get this money back if your tenant wants to work it out with you. If you agree that they'll pay 20% of the back rent over time until it's caught up, I mean, you could of course agree to that. If they aren't going to work with you and you're the landlord, then yes, you have to go to court. That's your recourse. Okay, that clarifies its own yes. Thank you, David. Representative Hango. So thank you. Representative Treano started to verbalize something that I've been thinking about since yesterday or the day before. Representative Fagard actually mentioned it in our all house caucus meeting that if there could be some sort of language around payment plan or agreements between landlords and tenants that could be inserted in here somehow along with the directive to the courts that they would have the discretion to adjust the amount that a tenant would owe. And my suggestion is to instead of allowing them to adjust the amount, allowing them to somehow facilitate the process between a landlord and a tenant to pay rent however long it takes if it's agreeable to both parties. And the other comment I wanted to make, I think David Hall made is that there's a tremendous, there's going to be a tremendous backlog of cases and Judge Greerson did mention it to us that these cases are gonna be on a case-by-case basis and it's up to the court's discretion when they schedule them around everything else they have to schedule. So no one really knows whether any of these cases are gonna be heard within the first 45 days or not. But I would entertain changing language somehow just a thought too, because to compromise between two very opposing schools of thought, one of them that, we're gonna kick people out on day five and the other we're gonna forgive people thousands of dollars of back rent. And I don't see any way of voting for either amendment and having it really help all Vermonters. So that's it. Okay. In case I have confused anybody or anything, I just, I wanna make crystal clear that this process for requiring a tenant to pay rent into court does not relieve the tenant of the obligation to pay the back rent in any way. Nothing in this bill absolves the tenant of the duty of paying everything that is owed under the lease agreement. The reason that you created the process of paying rent into court in escrow was to expedite ejectments for non-payment of rent because if the tenant fails to pay the court pursuant to its order, then the court will grant immediate possession. And again, that is only available in the context of non-payment of rent and I mean, in a different time, there was testimony about how effective this process has been in expediting those ejectments. So I don't want anybody to be misled about anything that I've said or written this bill. No part of it absolves the legal obligation to pay your rent. You might not be able to pay it. Obviously that's a possibility, but you still have the duty to do so. Hello. And I think to the point about essentially what I heard from Representative Hange was a form of mediation between the landlord and the tenant to try to get to a different point in the process. But it is, that's a different situation. I think it actually speaks to what Representative O'Claire was saying is that when there's a relationship between the landlord and the tenant, that these things can be worked out, that the court process is really the last place where anybody wants to go, just in real life. Mr. Chair, I have a question for Mr. Hall, if I might. Actually, I have two other hands up. Did you have a question specifically to what he just was talking about? I did. All right, let's go ahead, Representative O'Claire. Well, I'm looking on page five of the bill here and where it talks about the rent crew from and when it, let me see here if I can find, if I go to part A2, it says the court may reduce the amount of rent the defendant must pay into the court under the subsection after considering and then you got all these criteria. So that tells me that the court has got the discretion that the tenant could pay, have to pay all the rent, power the rent or potentially none of the rent. Yes, in the context of that particular motion and order. So, yes, the court could receive your motion for an order to tell the defendant to pay rent into court in escrow. And as I said before, in the underlying law, the statute first mandates that the court order the tenant to pay rent into court and second, specifies exactly how much that is gonna be namely rent as it accrues and rent since the time the action commenced. And there's no discretion there. So that's in the context of that process of the motion for an order to pay rent into court. And here in that process, so at that hearing, the court could say under two, under this temporary framework, I am only going to require you to pay rent in escrow today of half or zero. But that doesn't change the fact that the ejectment action itself will continue and that the tenant still has the legal obligation to pay all of the back rent before he or she can rightfully reclaim possession of the property, which however long that ejectment action takes to play out is anybody's guess in this context. But it's changing what the court on the day of that hearing, when that motion is made and we have our hearing on how much the court's gonna require you to pay into the court right now in escrow. But it does not wipe out whatever rent is in arrears. That's still on the books. They still have that monetary obligation. And if they don't pay it, they continue to be in breach and they continue to be subject to ejectment. So let me take the scenario, the middle scenario. So instead of having to pay all and instead of paying nothing, the court says you have to pay a third. If the tenant failed to pay that third as required by the order, then the tenant would be subject to immediate possession. So that part does not change either. You still have a duty to pay something if the court requires it in a timely basis or you're subject to immediate possession by the landlord. The major shift would be if the court said you don't have to pay anything. In that case, it effectively wipes out the ability to be given immediate possession. And therefore the landlord would not be entitled to possession until the end of the action. And then remember, again, under current law, once every 12 months, a tenant can basically redeem his right to remain in the property by paying all of the back rents, all of the interest, all of the court costs, before the writ of possession is executed. You can only do that once in 12 month period. I hope that helps. Thank you. It's representative Kalaki is up and then that's followed by representative Triano. Yes. Thank you. This has been a really good conversation for me. And I clearly know that our S-333 was really set up as an emergency response to make sure no one becomes homeless during this crisis. And that's what we were trying to do. We worked with the Senate on that. It's a simple bill. We try to align with judiciary, but to have a consistency around the state. And also, I believe this, the original language we have provides an equal balance for our landlords and for our tenants. And in fact, it allows the agency of screen development to set up this program of the state money. So I feel strongly that as our bill is good, and I would actually move to find this amendment. Well, I'm great about the conversation. I would find it unfavorable. So I would move to find it unfavorable. So we have a motion on the floor. Representative Kalaki. Seconded by representative Gonzalez. Let me just check in with the clerk. Representative Howard, are you prepared to, I mean, conversation is still ongoing here. Okay. But are you prepared to, do you have a vote sheet ready to go? I will. Okay. So the motion on the floor made by representative Kalaki and seconded by representative Gonzalez is to find the amendment by representative to declare a very town unfavorable. Representative Triano. Yes, David, your last explanation, explanation clarified a lot. So given that under our bills, section H, the redemption action would stand and that would allow the landlord to continue or to pursue, continue to pursue the action against the tenant in spite of payment of current rent but to collect arrears in rent. So our section H would act to allow that to happen as well, correct? They could continue to seek payment, absolutely. Yes, okay. Thank you. As far as what I understand from section eight, it's simply section H is that it is about safety or violence or illegal activities. That's what section H speaks to in S333. Tommy, representative Walls, you had your hand up at some point, are you, you can unmute yourself. Can you, Tommy, I can't hear you. Sorry, forgot to unmute myself. I've raised my hand a number of times but I kept hearing answers to my questions or I kept lowering it but I hope I'm absolutely clear now because I think David Hall is really explained it. My biggest question and I think this got answered is after the emergency has been declared to no longer be in effect and the tenant resumes paying normal rent, the landlord can still have access to the courts for the arrear Jews. I wanna make sure I understood the answer was yes on that. So the landlord still has recourse. It could be through an injectment action to collect that back rent. Absolutely. Okay, I wanted to make sure I understood that. Thank you. So to be clear, if possible, on this bill, again, on the amendment, what representative Leclerc's amendment is proposing is to remove our section G and to allow an injectment action which may have been pending to proceed based on the non-payment of rent immediately after the end of the declaration at the end of the, when the governor ends the emergency period. So it basically takes away what we created which was in this case of non-payment of rent, it takes away the 30 day emergency period which is as it is defined in S333 for non-payment of rent and it allows that process to start immediately the day after to pick up after the end of the, by the declaration of the end of the emergency period. And it takes away the flexibility of the courts for the first four, for any motions in the first 45 days to allow less money, less than 100% of the rent due to go into escrow based on a couple of different, mostly financial purposes if the person does not have money. Yeah. That's, David, did I summarize that correctly? Yes. So the motion on the floor is to view that amendment by Representative Leclerc as unfavorable if there's no further conversation in a case of where we're voting on an unfavorable amendment. The question is, do you find this amendment unfavorable? So a yes vote is to say that this amendment is unfavorable and a no vote is to say that you find it favorable that you agree with the amendment, Representative Hango. I just wanna be clear that there is no opportunity at this point to come to some middle ground between the two. Is that correct? We're, yeah, I think we're voting on, we're voting on this amendment as it was prepared. If there's a different amendment that has a middle ground, I think that would be the most appropriate way to address a middle ground at which case you would, if that was something you wanted to propose you can meet with the attorney and we can try to work on it, it would be tomorrow. So seeing no further hands up at this time, the clerk, Ron, are you all set for us? As much as you need to be. Well, I have the record of action form from last week with the two previous votes. So as the clerk calls the roll, I'll can record it as well and then send her copy for confirmation, which is what I did last week. Right, and so, right. So what happened last week is after we voted then Representative Howard needed to send an email that she certified that the vote was correct. That's correct. To the clerk, to the clerk of the house. So I'm set up, I'm ready. Okay, Representative Howard, are you set? I'm ready. Representative Walls, can you hear me? You need, yes, sorry. Oh, okay. I'm gonna hold on, I'm gonna unmute everybody here. So there, everybody's unmuted. Oh, okay. No, I don't see everybody unmuted. Everybody unmute yourself, please, before your vote, before your name comes up, please. Thank you. Representative Gonzalez. I can't hear you. Yes. Okay. Representative Long. Yes. Representative Kamash. Yes. Representative Triano. Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Kalaki. Yes. Representative Zott. This case, well, just like the- Representative Zott. We made it, it has, it's a Facebook page with everything from like- One more time. From like all sorts of- Representative Zott. Big recipes. And they just sort of said like, this is all the things that we could talk about. Okay, we can call him after, at the end, one more time. Okay. Representative Byron. Yes. Representative Hango. No. Representative Stevens. Yes. Representative Zott. Does he keep saying yes. Yeah, there's a sound issue, but thank you for your vote on the chat. I'll accept that. Okay, so that was a yes. Yes. Okay. Okay, so we have 10, one, zero. And I'd like to thank Representative Leclerc for bringing this forward. This is a hard conversation. It's always been a hard conversation. Lenler Tenant Law has always been a hard conversation, but I appreciate you bringing this forward and allowing us to have a really civil conversation about the issues that are at hand here. And it was, I appreciate the vote from the committee, but I also appreciate the time that you spent putting it together and bringing it forward. So thank you. Thank you. Thank the committee. And I do appreciate it. We obviously will be talking about this again, but I would feel worse if it was a bright sunny day, but thank you very much. What? I couldn't be taking a nap or watching a movie. Come on. All right, Representative Walsh. I want to thank Representative Leclerc for bringing this because I now understand our bill. I heck of a lot better than I did before having to talk through that whole situation. So thank you. I think it helps us understand our bill better. And I also wanted to thank David Hall too. Like his explanation was great. David, good job. Yes, thanks. Thanks for bringing this. I agree with everyone else. It was a good discussion to have. Yeah. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Okay. I just want to say real quick that I had the frame of mind I was trying to look at it from a perspective like yours or Representative Leclerc as we navigated this process with the Senate and ourselves over the last, oh, I mean, how long have we been working on this? Four or five weeks now? May 12th. March 12th, March 12th. It was like, Marchuary. It was Marchuary. Yeah. So a lot of the perspective you brought, we had discussed components of that. And I just wanted to say that I totally understand your viewpoint on it. And just thank you for your time and walking us through everything. Thank you. All right. Committee, we are done for today. Tomorrow, we are on the floor tomorrow. Ron has a comment. Members, I'm going to send you a cancellation for tomorrow morning's meeting. Please don't be confused or alarmed. And then I'll send you a link for tomorrow afternoon's meeting. Okay. And so we are on the floor, excuse me, we are on the floor at 10 a.m. tomorrow. And we, I believe this bill is the only business that we have this amendment. So we'll discuss this again on the floor tomorrow. But this was a hearty conversation and appreciate everybody's time for making it happen today. So thank you for the turnout. It was great to see everybody. And we'll see you on the floor tomorrow. And then we have committee afterwards on, again, we'll be hearing from a number of witnesses on the housing situation.