[0:29] If folks are ready to

[4:05] at least turn their

[7:41] cameras on, you all

[7:42] have to unmute it

[7:43] once. So call to

[7:45] order an introduction.

[7:46] I guess to call to

[7:47] order is that we're

[7:48] here for our fees and

[7:51] residential rental

[7:52] agreements. Work

[7:53] group meeting. This

[7:54] is our third or

[7:55] fourth or fifth, I

[7:56] can't tell. They're

[7:57] all starting to blur

[7:58] together, but we are

[7:59] moving towards

[8:01] consensus. So I'm not

[8:03] gonna have everybody

[8:04] go around. We all

[8:05] know who each other

[8:06] are. I think for the

[8:07] most part by now,

[8:08] unless there's

[8:09] anybody who's brand

[8:09] new on the on the

[8:11] zoom, I will say I am

[8:12] here with Christy Ma.

[8:13] That's why my name

[8:14] shows as both. She's

[8:15] got a meeting later,

[8:16] so I figured we would

[8:17] kick the kick this

[8:19] meeting off together.

[8:21] >> So Mister Chair.

[8:23] >> Yep. PJ.

[8:25] >> We do have

[8:25] somebody new with us.

[8:27] Our associate

[8:29] legislative can't

[8:29] call our council yet

[8:30] because we're waiting

[8:31] on the bar results.

[8:32] But Katie Bortz has

[8:33] joined our team, so

[8:35] she is on the Zoom as

[8:36] part of our

[8:38] legislative soon to

[8:39] be knock on Wood

[8:40] Council pending those

[8:41] bar results. But so

[8:42] Katie is joining us.

[8:43] >> Welcome, Katie.

[8:45] October 9th is only

[8:46] so many days away.

[8:47] I'm sure you're

[8:48] counting down. We've

[8:48] got some associates

[8:49] in our firm who are

[8:50] are also looking

[8:51] forward to that

[8:52] October 9th date.

[8:53] >> Very much. Yes.

[8:55] >> All right. So with

[8:56] that we're going to

[8:58] kick it into SB 349.

[9:04] I think what we were

[9:05] trying to do,

[9:06] Jessica's get a draft

[9:07] that captured the

[9:07] things that there

[9:08] weren't any

[9:09] disagreement on. And

[9:09] then you also sent

[9:10] out some materials

[9:11] that sort of

[9:12] highlight the areas

[9:13] where there are is a

[9:15] lack of consensus.

[9:16] And then the realtors

[9:17] sent us over another

[9:18] note where some areas

[9:19] we thought we had

[9:20] consensus, but they

[9:21] decided that we don't

[9:22] anymore. I'm giving

[9:22] them a hard time here.

[9:24] So we'll look at

[9:25] those sections as

[9:27] well. I think my goal,

[9:28] hopefully for this

[9:29] meeting, is to get to

[9:29] a point where at

[9:31] least we know where

[9:32] we're going to get

[9:33] consensus, and we

[9:33] also maybe know that

[9:34] where we won't. And

[9:35] so we have something

[9:37] to present to the

[9:37] full housing

[9:38] Commission where we

[9:39] can say, hey, you

[9:40] know, a bill that

[9:41] just did these things

[9:42] would have

[9:42] everybody's universal

[9:44] support. And then

[9:44] here are the areas of,

[9:46] you know, potential

[9:48] disagreement. And we

[9:48] can decide what the

[9:49] Housing Commission

[9:50] wants to weigh in on

[9:52] that or not weigh in

[9:53] on those and leave

[9:54] those for somebody

[9:55] else's bill. So

[9:56] that's sort of, I

[9:56] think, what we're

[9:57] trying to get. I

[9:58] think we'd like to

[9:59] get as much consensus

[10:01] as we can, as always,

[10:02] the goal. So with

[10:03] that, Jessica, do we

[10:03] have a starting place

[10:05] that you wanted to go?

[10:06] Or if I summed it up

[10:07] pretty accurately.

[10:08] >> I guess that was a

[10:09] that was a great

[10:10] summary. I can start

[10:11] by sharing the bill

[10:12] or sharing the

[10:13] language

[10:14] considerations. There

[10:15] are some that I've

[10:16] altered in response

[10:17] to the realtors

[10:18] comments that. Around

[10:19] last night from

[10:19] additional workgroup

[10:20] members. So. However,

[10:21] the group would like

[10:22] to address. If you

[10:23] want to go down piece

[10:24] by piece and the

[10:25] items of non

[10:26] consensus and the

[10:27] realtors comments,

[10:27] then present

[10:28] alternative language

[10:28] from there.

[10:30] >> Let's start. Let

[10:31] me start actually

[10:31] with.

[10:34] >> 777 through 785.

[10:35] The security deposit

[10:36] language generally,

[10:37] because I had that.

[10:39] And if you want to go

[10:40] ahead, Jessica, pull

[10:41] up the bill and we'll

[10:42] zoom in on those.

[10:43] I've got it up on a

[10:44] larger screen here

[10:45] for myself, so I

[10:46] don't have to lean in

[10:48] too far and stare at

[10:48] the at your screen.

[10:50] But if folks have it

[10:51] printed out or

[10:52] whatever, you,

[10:53] however you all

[10:53] handle it. If you

[10:54] want to go to mine, I

[10:56] think line 777 is

[10:57] still the right line,

[10:58] which is on page 2030,

[11:01] page 30 of this one.

[11:02] That's why I didn't

[11:03] print it. So we we

[11:08] have, we use a

[11:08] current language, I

[11:09] guess we went around

[11:10] with in a workgroup

[11:11] is a current language.

[11:13] So the consensus

[11:14] language, right, that

[11:14] we have here in the

[11:16] draft is what we see

[11:17] in front of us is

[11:18] that. And that's just

[11:19] is that new language

[11:20] or is that pretty

[11:21] close to what's in

[11:22] the current statute?

[11:23] Or is that.

[11:24] >> This is the new as

[11:25] of the what we what

[11:27] was consensus draft?

[11:28] So the, the 721

[11:30] version I sent around

[11:31] yesterday.

[11:33] >> Gotcha. And who's

[11:34] on from who wants to

[11:35] sort of explain what

[11:36] they're suggesting? I

[11:37] don't think I think

[11:38] we're pretty close. I

[11:39] think the realtors

[11:40] also had some

[11:40] thoughts about this

[11:41] paragraph too, which

[11:42] I want to just sort

[11:43] of do this one, if we

[11:44] can. But I think the

[11:47] idea was that we were

[11:48] trying to capture the

[11:49] idea of

[11:51] non-contracted for

[11:52] repairs, right? So

[11:52] the issue we had was,

[11:53] hey, you've got to

[11:54] provide receipts. And

[11:55] I think that the

[11:56] pushback we're

[11:57] getting a little bit

[11:58] from from the

[11:59] realtors is what if

[12:01] they do, you know,

[12:02] what about DIY type

[12:03] of fixes? How do we

[12:04] address those if

[12:05] there are no receipts

[12:06] because you didn't

[12:06] contract with

[12:07] somebody for things?

[12:08] I think that's the

[12:09] basic problem we're

[12:09] trying to solve.

[12:10] Emily.

[12:12] >> Thank you, Mister

[12:13] Chair. Yeah, I can

[12:14] speak to the intent.

[12:15] This was language

[12:16] that we put in. Of

[12:17] course, there's the

[12:18] first part of it

[12:19] discussing the return

[12:20] of the security

[12:21] deposit, which in

[12:22] code was originally

[12:23] 45 days. Our office

[12:25] proposed 30 days. We

[12:26] came to this

[12:28] compromise of 15 days.

[12:29] If there are no

[12:30] damages, 45 days. If

[12:31] there. Our. The

[12:33] second part of this

[12:34] that we put in is

[12:35] just ensuring that

[12:37] any deductions from

[12:38] the security deposit

[12:39] are matching the

[12:40] actual costs of

[12:41] repairing physical

[12:42] damages. And then we

[12:44] added that language

[12:45] related to invoices

[12:46] and receipts. That

[12:48] way there is

[12:49] documentation showing

[12:50] what that costs

[12:51] invoices slightly

[12:54] more forgiving if

[12:54] you're performing it

[12:56] yourself, or receipts

[12:56] for professional

[12:58] contractors. After

[13:00] reviewing some of the

[13:01] concerns from the

[13:02] realtors, our office

[13:04] spoke to Varma and

[13:06] had additional kind

[13:07] of recommendations as

[13:08] to how we can

[13:09] reformat this section

[13:10] to make it more clear.

[13:12] Happy to share that

[13:13] now. And Patrick, if

[13:14] you want to share

[13:15] that, but if the

[13:16] realtors wanted to

[13:16] speak to their

[13:17] concerns beforehand,

[13:19] our intention is just

[13:20] to make sure that

[13:21] deductions match the

[13:22] cost of repairs. And

[13:23] they have that

[13:24] documentation showing

[13:24] what that cost is.

[13:26] >> All right. So,

[13:26] Emily, you and

[13:27] Patrick have talked

[13:28] about this language

[13:28] that's before us, and

[13:29] you guys are in

[13:30] agreement about this.

[13:31] >> Yes. Him and I

[13:32] spoke this morning

[13:33] and reformatted it.

[13:34] And hopefully in a

[13:35] way to make it more

[13:37] clear. But Patrick,

[13:38] if you wanted to

[13:39] present this.

[13:40] >> That I agreed with

[13:41] some of the realtors

[13:43] comments that it was

[13:44] a little confusing

[13:46] because it kind of

[13:47] seemed to reference

[13:48] Itemization in two

[13:49] different ways and

[13:51] deductions. So what I

[13:53] suggested doing is

[13:54] first part, break it

[13:55] apart into two

[13:56] paragraphs to make it

[13:57] cleaner. Because look,

[13:58] if there's no damage,

[13:59] it's very simple. You

[14:00] return the security

[14:02] deposit, there's no

[14:02] itemization, you just

[14:03] return the deposit.

[14:04] So paragraph B is now

[14:06] all about no damage.

[14:09] Paragraph C takes the

[14:11] damaged section and

[14:12] it kind of rewords it

[14:14] in A or reorders it

[14:15] in a fashion that I

[14:17] think is a little

[14:18] easier to understand

[14:20] laying out. If you

[14:21] find the damage, you

[14:22] have 45 days and then

[14:24] it says you have to

[14:25] return the

[14:27] itemization and then

[14:28] it says how the

[14:30] itemization shall be

[14:31] structured. And what

[14:32] we did is then moved

[14:33] to the bottom, what

[14:35] things the landlord

[14:36] cannot do. So that's

[14:38] in the very bottom of

[14:39] the paragraph. So I

[14:40] think it takes the

[14:41] original paragraph

[14:42] and just makes it a

[14:43] lot easier to read

[14:46] and follow from a

[14:48] process.

[14:48] >> So we broke that.

[14:49] And then there'll be

[14:50] a new D for I guess

[14:52] for the as of the

[14:53] termination date.

[14:53] Correct. 793 but

[14:54] that's fine. So you

[14:55] guys decided to add a

[14:56] new E? Well, we'll

[14:57] just, we'll just keep

[14:59] relocating the rest

[15:01] of the way through.

[15:03] Okay, so you guys

[15:04] have said I like b, I

[15:06] mean, right, this is

[15:07] really clean, right?

[15:08] And it's its own

[15:10] paragraph. There's no

[15:10] damage. You got 15

[15:11] days to give it back.

[15:13] And then what we did

[15:14] with C was, was just,

[15:15] I'm just restating

[15:16] what you said, just

[15:18] go through. So I'll

[15:19] let everybody who

[15:20] hasn't seen this

[15:21] before take a minute

[15:22] to take a look at

[15:23] that DJ or Katie,

[15:25] does this address. I

[15:27] suspect we're Aaron's

[15:28] concerns or y'all's

[15:29] concerns.

[15:32] >> I know Aaron's

[15:33] working on getting on

[15:34] that. She just walked

[15:35] in. So I know Aaron's

[15:36] working on getting on

[15:37] the call. The receipt

[15:40] indicating that we've

[15:41] had services done.

[15:42] Aaron's flagging. Yes,

[15:44] I saw your text. I

[15:46] just I'm sorry guys.

[15:52] >> Okay.

[15:52] >> Aaron, Aaron said

[15:53] receipt indicates

[15:54] we've had services

[15:54] done and paid. And

[15:55] the only other thing

[15:56] I would just flag is

[15:58] we talked about 15

[15:59] business days versus

[15:59] 15 days, realizing

[16:02] there's no damage

[16:02] done, but just

[16:04] flagging that also.

[16:06] >> Gotcha.

[16:06] >> All right.

[16:10] >> So but what

[16:12] Patrick sorry, what

[16:12] Patrick's done here

[16:13] with the pulling out

[16:14] that makes, I mean,

[16:15] to the non-lawyer in

[16:16] me, that makes sense.

[16:17] >> So the itemization

[16:18] has to include the

[16:19] cost of services

[16:20] provided to the cost

[16:22] of materials used.

[16:22] Three the number of

[16:23] hours and the hourly

[16:24] free labor charge to

[16:25] the same. It doesn't

[16:26] talk about receipt

[16:28] anymore, it just

[16:29] talks about

[16:30] Itemization.

[16:33] >> I guess I don't

[16:34] understand the. So.

[16:40] Is it is it

[16:41] conflicting because C

[16:43] one says you must

[16:45] include the cost of

[16:46] any professional

[16:47] services performed by

[16:47] a third party, and

[16:49] then it says the

[16:50] landlord shall not

[16:51] apply the security

[16:52] deposit to the cost

[16:53] of professional

[16:54] services. So I find

[16:56] that a little bit

[16:57] unclear. But again,

[16:58] it's the first time

[16:59] I'm seeing it.

[17:00] >> It's it has the

[17:02] less reasonable wear

[17:03] and tear has been

[17:04] moved to the very

[17:05] bottom. So it allows

[17:06] the exclusion based

[17:07] upon the reasonable

[17:08] wear and tear.

[17:09] >> But I right, I see

[17:12] the intent and I

[17:13] don't disagree with

[17:14] the intent. I just

[17:15] think this is a

[17:16] little bit confusing,

[17:18] right.

[17:18] >> And line I think

[17:19] what we're talking

[17:19] about Aaron on line

[17:21] 789 receipt indicates

[17:22] that the services

[17:23] have been performed.

[17:26] Not like here's

[17:27] what's going to

[17:28] charge to fix your

[17:29] unit, like you know,

[17:30] or fix the stove or

[17:31] like, except like

[17:32] receipt indicates,

[17:33] like I have paid for

[17:34] these, here's the,

[17:35] here's the.

[17:37] >> Emily, did you

[17:38] want to weigh in.

[17:39] >> On that?

[17:39] >> I see what you're

[17:41] saying.

[17:41] >> Yeah. So, so

[17:42] Kristi's point. So it

[17:43] does. It does say

[17:47] Itemization. And that

[17:48] was this language

[17:49] hasn't actually

[17:50] changed in terms of

[17:50] the content from the

[17:52] pre from the

[17:53] consensus draft. The

[17:54] actual language

[17:55] itself is the same.

[17:56] We've just reordered

[17:56] it. So that language

[17:58] at the end, Christie

[17:59] hopefully kind of

[18:00] gets to your point of

[18:01] it does say shall not

[18:02] apply any portion of

[18:03] the security deposit

[18:04] toward essentially A

[18:05] and B, but it does

[18:06] state unless they are

[18:07] reasonably necessary

[18:08] to return it to the

[18:09] same condition. So

[18:10] there's that caveat

[18:11] of you can it just

[18:12] needs to be necessary.

[18:14] >> Okay. All right.

[18:16] >> I'm okay. So the

[18:18] realtors point into

[18:19] Jay's point. This is

[18:20] something that you

[18:20] would provide after

[18:22] 45 days. And the

[18:23] intention here is

[18:24] just to ensure, you

[18:25] know, already in code,

[18:27] you have to return

[18:28] the security deposit

[18:29] within 45 days. I

[18:30] think, you know, I

[18:31] was speaking to

[18:31] Patrick, there might

[18:32] be that extra 15 days

[18:33] if you have to hire a

[18:35] contractor, but this

[18:37] is if you're removing

[18:39] if you're providing

[18:40] the security deposit

[18:41] back within 45 days.

[18:43] From our

[18:44] understanding, it

[18:44] doesn't quite make

[18:45] sense logically, that

[18:46] you would only

[18:47] provide an estimate

[18:48] of what these costs

[18:49] are. If you're if

[18:51] you're returning the

[18:52] security deposit, the

[18:53] hope would be that

[18:54] you're giving the

[18:55] exact amount back

[18:56] that you already know

[18:57] what that cost is

[18:58] because that service

[18:59] was already performed

[19:01] within that 45 days.

[19:04] Whereas from our

[19:05] understanding,

[19:05] stating that you

[19:06] would be giving them

[19:07] an estimate is

[19:07] implying that that

[19:08] work has not been

[19:09] done and that

[19:10] therefore the amount

[19:11] returned would not

[19:12] necessarily actually

[19:14] equal what is

[19:15] necessary to perform

[19:16] that service. And

[19:17] that's our intent, is

[19:17] to make sure that

[19:18] they are getting back

[19:19] what is actually used.

[19:21] >> So the the.

[19:22] >> Trade off is more

[19:23] time, right? So we

[19:23] could get it back to

[19:25] them faster. If you

[19:26] let us give them an

[19:27] estimate or an

[19:28] invoice, as opposed

[19:29] to a receipt showing

[19:30] it was already done.

[19:31] You guys are saying

[19:32] willing to sacrifice

[19:33] the time for some

[19:34] certainty that this

[19:35] is the actual cost

[19:36] that was actually

[19:37] done.

[19:38] >> And I think it's

[19:39] important to note

[19:40] that the code does

[19:41] give an extra 15 days.

[19:42] If you do have to use

[19:43] a third party

[19:45] contractor. All right.

[19:46] So it changes that

[19:47] from 45 to 60.

[19:48] >> Aaron, you have

[19:49] your hand up.

[19:51] >> Yeah. Sorry. I

[19:53] think it's absolutely

[19:56] happens a lot that

[19:58] they are not able to

[19:59] get the contractor

[20:01] out and get it done

[20:03] and have a receipt in

[20:05] time in 45 days. And

[20:07] I would hate for a

[20:09] landlord to be stuck

[20:10] with that cost based

[20:12] on a third party. So

[20:15] I understand what

[20:16] we're trying to get

[20:17] at. And I wish we

[20:18] were in a world where

[20:19] we could knock all

[20:20] that stuff off. We

[20:21] run into it in the

[20:22] courts all the time

[20:25] with, you know, the

[20:26] courts saying, you

[20:27] don't have a receipt,

[20:28] you can't, you know,

[20:29] charge for this. And

[20:30] and we can leave that

[20:31] to the judge. But our

[20:34] members have

[20:36] consistently said

[20:37] that they are having

[20:39] issues with getting

[20:40] contractors out there,

[20:42] whether, you know, so

[20:43] they get the

[20:43] contractor out within

[20:44] 10 or 15 days, but

[20:46] then they need to get

[20:48] additional work or

[20:48] order a part. 45 days

[20:51] just does not always

[20:52] work. And, you know,

[20:53] I would say an

[20:54] estimate should be

[20:55] just as good as long

[20:56] as it's itemized with

[20:58] all of these cost of

[21:00] materials, labor and

[21:01] all of that other

[21:02] stuff, which is more

[21:03] than the code calls

[21:05] for now.

[21:10] >> I think.

[21:12] >> Mr. Chair.

[21:13] >> Go ahead. Emily.

[21:15] >> Yeah, I understand

[21:16] that. And that is,

[21:18] you know, to

[21:19] Patrick's point, the

[21:20] receipt is it's

[21:22] exclusively for the

[21:24] contract, like third

[21:24] party contractors,

[21:25] whereas for labor

[21:26] perform themselves,

[21:27] it's an invoice. I

[21:29] guess I'm a little

[21:30] confused as to how

[21:31] that works

[21:31] functionally right

[21:32] now, because even in

[21:33] code right now, you

[21:34] have 45 days to

[21:35] return the security

[21:36] deposit. And so I

[21:38] guess I'm wondering

[21:39] if that work is not

[21:40] being performed

[21:41] within 45 days, but

[21:42] there's currently the

[21:43] requirement that the

[21:44] deposit be returned

[21:45] within 45 days. How

[21:47] are those deductions

[21:48] being calculated at

[21:49] the moment? If that

[21:51] work is not being

[21:52] done? And, you know,

[21:53] our intention is just

[21:54] to ensure that

[21:56] there's some

[21:57] accountability and

[21:57] that they are getting

[21:58] back what is unused.

[22:02] I you know, we were.

[22:03] >> Hopeful to answer

[22:04] your question. I

[22:05] think what happens

[22:06] usually this is not

[22:06] for good or for bad.

[22:08] What happens usually

[22:09] is the estimate far

[22:09] exceeds the amount of

[22:10] the security deposit.

[22:11] And they use that as

[22:12] the as the reason to

[22:14] keep the whole thing.

[22:15] I mean, that's my

[22:16] experience is you got

[22:17] $2,500 security

[22:17] deposit. They come up

[22:18] with an estimate for

[22:19] $3,000 worth of stuff.

[22:20] And then they say,

[22:21] you just, you don't

[22:22] get any back because

[22:23] it's going to cost us

[22:24] more than your

[22:25] deposit.

[22:25] >> Right. But and.

[22:26] >> I mean, I think

[22:28] the way that it's

[22:29] happening now is, for

[22:30] better or for worse,

[22:31] not all property

[22:32] managers have an on

[22:33] site maintenance team

[22:34] or an on site

[22:36] contractor, and so

[22:36] they are forced to

[22:38] hire a third party

[22:40] and they're doing

[22:41] their best to get it

[22:42] done. But in the case

[22:43] that they can't,

[22:44] they're providing

[22:45] what the code

[22:46] currently requires,

[22:47] which is an

[22:49] Itemization the code

[22:50] does not currently

[22:52] require a receipt,

[22:53] meaning that the word

[22:54] work is done and paid

[22:55] for.

[22:56] >> Right.

[22:56] >> Christy? Thank you,

[22:58] Mr. Chairman. I think

[22:59] there are two

[22:59] separate issues. So,

[23:00] Emily, and to your

[23:02] point about does it

[23:03] say 45 days now,

[23:04] there is a provision

[23:05] that I don't think

[23:06] anyone is suggesting

[23:08] that we change and

[23:10] it's down in around

[23:12] line 848 of the draft

[23:15] that Jessica most

[23:17] recently sent. And it

[23:18] talks about, I guess

[23:19] it's 852, but it

[23:21] talks about, in

[23:22] certain circumstances,

[23:23] getting an additional

[23:24] 15 days. So that's

[23:26] there. I don't think

[23:27] anyone's suggesting

[23:27] we take it out. And I

[23:29] think that should

[23:30] address your concern.

[23:32] Aaron and I, I would

[23:34] just say there's to

[23:35] me a big difference

[23:36] between getting a

[23:37] receipt for work

[23:38] performed and an

[23:39] estimate. And it's

[23:40] not about ill intent.

[23:42] Even the best

[23:44] intended landlords

[23:45] are going to get it

[23:46] wrong sometimes. So

[23:47] let's wait and see

[23:48] what it actually

[23:49] costs and then use

[23:50] that. I just don't

[23:51] see the need to to do

[23:53] an estimate.

[23:54] >> So let me make

[23:55] sure I understand

[23:56] where we are real

[23:57] quick. So the two

[23:58] friction points seem

[23:59] to be if they're more,

[24:01] let me know. And then

[24:02] we can come back to

[24:03] this particular one.

[24:04] So we got 15 calendar

[24:05] days versus business

[24:07] days. And then we've

[24:08] got the question of

[24:11] receipts. Is there

[24:11] anything else other

[24:13] than receipts, Aaron,

[24:15] that you have or

[24:16] anybody has, or those

[24:17] the two remaining

[24:19] controversies. That

[24:20] others. Aaron. Are

[24:21] there others? And

[24:21] with this with this

[24:22] section.

[24:22] >> Oh, with that

[24:23] section.

[24:24] >> Well, I mean, in

[24:25] this particular

[24:25] section, I don't I

[24:26] sent that email

[24:28] yesterday. So I don't

[24:29] let me look.

[24:40] >> Oh, this is our

[24:41] main instead of a

[24:42] shell somewhere that

[24:43] you wanted to do or

[24:44] is that in a

[24:45] different part?

[24:46] >> It's an under

[24:47] security deposit.

[24:49] >> That very small

[24:50] changes usually

[24:51] pretty significant

[24:52] when we're doing that

[24:53] particular one.

[24:53] >> I did just really

[24:55] just want to clarify

[24:56] before we go on what

[24:58] Christy was just

[24:59] saying, because there

[24:59] is that section that

[25:00] allows 15 additional

[25:02] days, but that's only

[25:03] if you think the

[25:05] damages are going to

[25:06] exceed the security

[25:08] deposit. That's the

[25:09] only time you can do

[25:10] that if it exceeds

[25:11] the security deposit.

[25:12] And if you need to

[25:13] hire a third party

[25:14] contractor.

[25:16] >> If you think it's

[25:17] going to be less,

[25:18] there's still some

[25:19] money. Here's an

[25:19] estimate. We still

[25:20] have some money

[25:21] coming back to you.

[25:22] Even if it's a dollar,

[25:23] you don't get the

[25:24] extra time.

[25:25] >> Correct.

[25:25] >> Okay. All right.

[25:26] Back to so what?

[25:27] You're what the beef

[25:28] on 768. So this is

[25:33] landlord should not

[25:34] be deemed to receive

[25:36] a security deposit.

[25:36] However denominated

[25:37] in any amount. This

[25:38] is back in a. So did

[25:40] we change. This is a.

[25:41] Okay, so it's above

[25:43] this part, but it's

[25:43] still about the

[25:44] security deposit.

[25:52] Upon termination of

[25:52] the tenancy or the

[25:54] date that vacates

[25:54] unit, whichever is

[25:55] last security

[25:56] deposits.

[25:57] >> It's still higher

[25:58] than that.

[26:00] >> Keep going up.

[26:01] >> There it is. All

[26:03] right. Yeah. Okay.

[26:04] >> No landlord may

[26:04] demand to receive a

[26:05] security deposit in

[26:06] an amount in excess

[26:07] of two months.

[26:08] Periodic rent.

[26:11] Security deposit. May

[26:14] be applied by the

[26:16] landlord solely to

[26:17] instead of shall be

[26:18] applied solely to.

[26:19] >> And, Mr. Chair,

[26:20] I'm happy to explain.

[26:21] >> Why to versus

[26:22] shall be applied.

[26:23] Okay.

[26:24] >> I'm happy to

[26:25] explain.

[26:25] >> Yeah.

[26:27] >> This this is not

[26:28] like a stakeholder

[26:30] thing. This is just

[26:30] good. This is just

[26:31] good law writing. If

[26:32] we say shall be

[26:34] applied solely and

[26:35] then we list three

[26:37] romanists. That's the

[26:38] only way you can do

[26:39] it. And giving it

[26:40] back to the tenant is

[26:42] not included. I know

[26:43] everyone thinks

[26:44] that's silly, but

[26:45] it's just it should

[26:47] be May because they

[26:48] can do one of those

[26:50] things or they can

[26:51] give it back to the

[26:52] tenant. It's I don't

[26:53] know why we're

[26:54] changing it. I mean,

[26:55] I know what we're

[26:56] trying to get at, but

[26:57] that's just.

[26:58] >> Well, it's weird,

[26:59] I get it. It's may

[27:00] solely versus shall

[27:01] or the two ways of

[27:02] saying the same thing.

[27:03] Jessica, you have

[27:04] some thoughts.

[27:04] >> Yes. I sent DLS

[27:06] approved

[27:07] clarification

[27:08] language to you all

[27:08] in August. That

[27:10] provides two options.

[27:11] We can sort of

[27:12] clarify this section.

[27:14] The first is adding

[27:16] after in charges we

[27:18] add together with any

[27:20] amount still due to

[27:21] the tenant after such

[27:22] itemization. To be

[27:24] clear on that. And

[27:25] the second is we

[27:26] could amend the

[27:26] definition of

[27:27] security deposit to

[27:28] specify its return to

[27:29] the tenant after

[27:30] tenancy. But right

[27:31] here. Damages and

[27:35] charges adding

[27:36] together with any

[27:37] amount still due to

[27:37] the tenant after such

[27:39] itemization. That's

[27:40] all in your inboxes

[27:40] from a previous email

[27:42] I sent as well.

[27:43] >> Gotcha. So there

[27:43] are a couple other we

[27:45] could, we could, we

[27:46] could, we could fix

[27:47] it by adding more

[27:48] words or we could fix

[27:49] it by. I well,

[27:51] personally, I prefer

[27:52] Aaron's solution,

[27:53] which is to just go

[27:54] to, to say may only

[27:55] instead of shall,

[27:56] which I think means

[27:57] the same thing with

[27:58] fewer words. But go

[27:59] ahead, Christy. And

[28:00] then Emily.

[28:00] >> And the what I

[28:02] think we're trying to

[28:03] get at here is to be

[28:05] very clear that this

[28:08] is what's going to

[28:09] happen with the

[28:10] security deposit and

[28:12] as opposed to the May,

[28:14] which is, I think,

[28:16] sometimes interpreted

[28:17] as well. We don't

[28:18] have to apply it to

[28:19] any of these things

[28:20] because that's a may.

[28:21] So we want to make it

[28:22] clear, I think, that,

[28:23] yes, if you've got

[28:24] any of these charges,

[28:26] you must apply the

[28:27] security deposit to

[28:28] those charges rather

[28:30] than sue the tenant

[28:33] right to Aaron's

[28:36] point, which is a

[28:37] good one. I think

[28:38] there first of all,

[28:39] I'd love to hear

[28:40] Jessica or have

[28:41] Jessica remind me of

[28:42] the second option of

[28:44] redefining security

[28:45] deposit, because that

[28:46] might solve it. Or.

[28:49] Yeah, adding language

[28:51] as either, as Jessica

[28:52] just suggested, or

[28:53] even in a final Roman

[28:56] numeral or another

[28:58] sentence that says

[28:59] the balance after

[29:00] such payment shall be

[29:02] returned to the

[29:03] tenant in accordance

[29:04] with the following

[29:06] paragraph.

[29:08] >> Mr.

[29:09] >> Emily yeah.

[29:12] Building off of

[29:12] Kristi's point, our

[29:13] intention here was

[29:14] just to ensure that

[29:15] the security deposit

[29:17] is only going to be

[29:17] used for these things.

[29:19] And to Erin's point,

[29:20] there is language

[29:20] already in this code

[29:22] section explicitly

[29:23] stating that the

[29:24] security deposit

[29:24] shall be returned to

[29:26] the tenant. Any

[29:28] unused portion that

[29:29] is currently on line

[29:30] 778 per Patrick's

[29:32] message.

[29:32] >> Totally agree.

[29:33] >> That just

[29:34] contradicts the shell

[29:35] though. That's where

[29:35] I'm getting stuck.

[29:36] Again, not a

[29:37] stakeholder issue.

[29:38] It's a drafting issue.

[29:40] >> All right. Okay. I,

[29:45] I get where you guys

[29:46] are saying I get the

[29:47] folks that are saying

[29:48] shell sounds stronger

[29:49] and seems better. And

[29:51] I, I appreciate that

[29:52] concern. I, I, you

[29:54] know, the lawyer in

[29:55] me just feels like

[29:56] may only and shall

[29:57] mean the same thing,

[29:58] but I don't want to

[29:59] get hung up over it.

[30:00] You know, if you guys

[30:02] want to add another

[30:03] sentence, like I

[30:03] again for the third

[30:04] time saying any

[30:05] excess goes back to

[30:06] the tenant, I guess

[30:08] we could do that too.

[30:10] >> I could do that.

[30:11] Yeah.

[30:11] >> I'd like to do

[30:12] again, as long as

[30:13] we're getting really

[30:14] picky about the words,

[30:15] I think part of

[30:16] what's hanging us up

[30:17] is just the awkward

[30:18] phrasing of putting

[30:19] solely way here.

[30:20] After things we got

[30:21] struck the word

[30:22] solely and and put

[30:24] after the word shall

[30:25] only so strike solely

[30:26] and only after shall

[30:27] right. So it becomes

[30:28] shall only be applied

[30:29] by the landlord. Two

[30:30] as opposed to be

[30:31] applied by the solely

[30:32] to does that. You

[30:33] know what I mean?

[30:34] >> Yeah, that makes

[30:35] sense. And we're

[30:36] happy if we need to

[30:37] add another romanet

[30:38] in addition to that,

[30:39] that's totally fine.

[30:40] >> And then did you

[30:41] have you had another

[30:42] Romanet, Jessica, to

[30:43] add for, for the what

[30:44] the, where the

[30:45] balance could go?

[30:47] >> Yeah. It together

[30:48] with any amount still

[30:49] due to the tenant

[30:50] after such

[30:51] itemization.

[30:52] >> What would that.

[30:53] >> Go.

[30:54] >> After deductions,

[30:55] damages and charges.

[30:59] >> So be a new

[31:01] Romanet for yeah.

[31:05] We're comfortable

[31:06] with that. Yeah. If

[31:07] we're do shell only

[31:08] and then add that

[31:09] romanet that should

[31:10] be fine for us.

[31:12] >> All right.

[31:15] >> The five we'll

[31:16] we'll see it again at

[31:17] the full. But I think

[31:18] if we can get that

[31:19] that takes care of

[31:20] that particular issue

[31:21] I think for now. All

[31:23] right. So what else

[31:24] do we have that's in

[31:25] this section before

[31:26] we come back to

[31:28] figuring out how

[31:29] we're going to deal

[31:30] with a potential

[31:31] minority reports. 768

[31:37] we talked about that.

[31:38] 774 to 92 that's the

[31:40] whole thing.

[31:40] >> I think we're.

[31:41] >> Good on this

[31:42] section.

[31:43] >> Okay. So now the

[31:45] 15 days are business

[31:46] days. Are you guys

[31:48] going to hold up your

[31:49] your support over the

[31:50] word business days?

[31:52] Make you be the bad

[31:54] guys?

[31:54] >> Or are you

[31:55] indicating that's our

[31:56] sole issue?

[31:58] >> Well, if that one

[31:59] left and then we've

[31:59] got I mean, I know

[32:01] you guys may want to

[32:02] be a minority on the

[32:03] whole thing. I'm

[32:04] trying to, you know,

[32:05] give you guys as much

[32:06] as we can here. So

[32:07] the two outstanding

[32:08] issues are 15 whether

[32:09] it's business or

[32:10] calendar. I, I think

[32:11] most everybody else's

[32:12] comfortable with

[32:13] calendar. And then

[32:13] the other one is this

[32:15] last issue that we're

[32:16] talking about, which

[32:17] was the word receipt

[32:21] or not being receipt

[32:23] versus receipt or

[32:25] estimate, right.

[32:26] Those are the two

[32:27] issues that we have

[32:28] left to deal with.

[32:31] >> In this section.

[32:34] Yes.

[32:34] >> This section.

[32:37] >> Okay.

[32:38] >> I've got.

[32:39] >> Mr. Chair. I've

[32:40] got a question. Maybe

[32:41] the moments coming

[32:42] past or maybe I

[32:42] missed it. So going

[32:45] back to the proposed

[32:46] language, I guess

[32:48] it's on the one of

[32:49] the attachments. 922

[32:50] language

[32:51] considerations. The

[32:51] first section blue.

[32:53] So is the landlord

[32:55] expected to come?

[32:58] Solidate take all the

[32:59] different invoices

[33:00] and receipts. We'll

[33:01] just set aside,

[33:02] whether it's invoice

[33:02] or receipt or

[33:03] whatever, and prepare

[33:04] their own itemization

[33:06] that then is given to

[33:07] landlord or is it

[33:08] consolidated? So I

[33:10] read this now is that

[33:10] the landlord gets all

[33:12] this stuff done and

[33:14] has to provide the

[33:15] itemized receipt that

[33:18] shows the cost,

[33:19] accompanied by

[33:19] receipts for any

[33:20] professional services

[33:21] performed by third

[33:22] party contractor, the

[33:23] cost of the materials

[33:25] used and the number

[33:25] of labor hours and

[33:26] hourly rates charge.

[33:28] So is that a document

[33:29] produced by the

[33:30] landlord, or are

[33:30] those documents that

[33:31] you can. Basically, I

[33:33] go to a cleaning

[33:34] person. They say, hey,

[33:35] I worked for five

[33:36] hours. I cleaned it

[33:37] and they flip it over.

[33:39] I could read that

[33:40] both ways. The second

[33:42] thing, I was going to

[33:43] flag a third party

[33:44] contractor. Not all

[33:45] these people are

[33:46] going to be

[33:46] contractors. I mean,

[33:48] you know, cleaning

[33:49] person is not

[33:50] necessarily a

[33:51] contractor. Some

[33:52] other repairs aren't

[33:53] going to be

[33:54] considered contractor.

[33:55] I hate to nitpick,

[33:56] but like, I don't

[33:57] know, I see Christy,

[34:00] I see Christy as a

[34:01] response.

[34:03] >> On that issue. I

[34:04] think contractor here

[34:06] is not being used in

[34:07] that very specific

[34:09] sense that you're

[34:10] thinking of. Andrew.

[34:11] I think it's just

[34:13] anyone who enters

[34:13] into a contract with

[34:15] the landlord to

[34:16] perform a service.

[34:17] >> So not a.

[34:19] >> Word, not employee,

[34:20] I think is what

[34:21] you're targeting that

[34:21] kind of contractor as

[34:22] opposed to.

[34:23] >> Okay.

[34:23] >> Gotcha. Yes.

[34:24] >> So I guess my, my

[34:26] question there is, is

[34:27] one, is it is it a

[34:28] document generated or

[34:29] produced by the

[34:30] landlord based on the

[34:32] receipts and invoices,

[34:34] etc. that were

[34:34] produced by the

[34:35] people that were

[34:36] hired? And then, you

[34:39] know, some of the

[34:41] services that

[34:42] somebody, a landlord

[34:42] could have brought in.

[34:45] I'm trying to think

[34:46] of a good example.

[34:47] Like there seems like

[34:49] that sentence could

[34:50] benefit from a as

[34:52] applicable, right?

[34:52] Because a cleaning

[34:53] person is not going

[34:54] to charge you for

[34:55] necessarily the cost

[34:56] of materials or

[34:56] number of that would

[34:58] work cost of

[34:59] materials. So there

[35:01] needs to be some

[35:02] flexibility to say

[35:03] like right now it

[35:04] reads, says landlord

[35:06] produces all this,

[35:07] and you got to give

[35:08] all three of those

[35:09] items, but some are

[35:10] not always going to

[35:11] apply depending on

[35:13] the with the repairs

[35:15] being done or the

[35:18] work being done.

[35:19] >> Gotcha.

[35:19] >> Emily.

[35:20] >> Yeah. So to that

[35:22] question, aren't so

[35:24] landlords, this new

[35:26] section and you know,

[35:26] the language that

[35:27] Jessica pulls up the

[35:28] such itemization

[35:30] shall include. So

[35:31] this is just

[35:32] specifying what needs

[35:33] to be in that

[35:34] Itemization our

[35:34] intention is to state,

[35:36] if you are

[35:37] contracting with a

[35:37] third party to

[35:38] provide or to repair

[35:40] these damages, then

[35:41] you must provide a

[35:42] receipt as the

[35:43] Itemization because

[35:44] you should have

[35:44] access to that. Like

[35:45] if you're hiring, you

[35:46] know, somebody to

[35:49] replace the carpets,

[35:49] you should have a

[35:50] receipt reflecting

[35:51] that if you, as the

[35:52] landlord are doing

[35:53] that work yourself,

[35:54] then that is when you

[35:55] would provide like an

[35:56] invoice saying the

[35:57] cost of materials

[35:58] used and the number

[35:59] of hours and hourly

[36:00] rate, because it's

[36:00] not a clear cut

[36:01] receipt. This is a

[36:02] little confusing. Our

[36:03] intention original,

[36:05] the original language

[36:06] that we proposed to

[36:07] the group or not, it

[36:09] was maybe the

[36:10] language that we

[36:11] proposed to the group

[36:12] was slightly more

[36:13] kind of explicit in

[36:16] that if you contract

[36:17] with a third party,

[36:18] you provide a receipt.

[36:19] If you do it yourself,

[36:20] you provide an

[36:21] invoice with the

[36:23] materials and hourly

[36:24] rate. So that was

[36:26] kind of the

[36:27] distinction is the

[36:29] Itemization is based

[36:30] on the type of

[36:31] services and who is

[36:32] providing those

[36:33] services. If we need

[36:34] to make that more

[36:35] clear, we can. But

[36:36] that was the

[36:37] intention is to

[36:39] receipts. If it's

[36:40] somebody who would

[36:40] give you a receipt

[36:41] invoice, if it's

[36:42] something that you're

[36:43] doing and there's not

[36:44] the ability to get

[36:45] like a clear cut

[36:46] receipt, and we can

[36:47] clarify that if that

[36:48] would be helpful.

[36:49] >> And I, I agree

[36:50] with the, I agree

[36:51] with the intent. I

[36:52] was just saying from

[36:53] like the, you know,

[36:54] for the people out

[36:55] there who all of a

[36:56] sudden say, oh, we

[36:57] got a new law I got

[36:59] to comply with. And

[37:00] they read it. This

[37:01] could be it.

[37:01] >> So yeah, I see

[37:03] what you're saying by

[37:04] saying like two,

[37:04] three having it right

[37:05] after receipt. Maybe

[37:06] it's could be

[37:07] interpreted as you

[37:08] need to provide this

[37:09] receipt. You need to

[37:10] say how much

[37:10] materials this third

[37:11] party contractor used,

[37:12] whatever that makes

[37:13] sense. And I'm open

[37:15] to making that more

[37:17] explicit. If we need

[37:18] to distinguish

[37:18] between those two, if.

[37:19] >> That would be.

[37:20] >> Detained up for a

[37:21] while.

[37:21] >> Yeah.

[37:22] >> It's going to say

[37:24] I, I, I can see where

[37:25] the confusion is. The

[37:26] intent was this to be

[37:27] like a services

[37:28] invoice, where

[37:29] typically in the

[37:30] business world, if

[37:32] you have out of

[37:33] pocket expenses, you

[37:34] have to put those on

[37:35] the invoices, show

[37:36] the receipt, and then

[37:37] you would show your

[37:38] internal hours and

[37:39] then you would show

[37:41] your internal

[37:43] materials cost. So

[37:44] it's basically three,

[37:46] two and three are

[37:47] kind of you do it

[37:49] in-house. One is the

[37:51] third party, but I

[37:52] can, I can see where

[37:53] that could

[37:54] potentially be a

[37:54] little confusing.

[37:57] >> Okay.

[37:58] >> So it sounds like,

[37:59] Aaron, do you have

[38:00] something else you

[38:01] want to say on that?

[38:02] >> Yeah, I was just

[38:03] going to say I hadn't

[38:04] actually thought

[38:05] about that, but I

[38:06] think Andrew is 100%

[38:07] right the way that

[38:08] that's written this,

[38:09] and this is kind of

[38:10] what you get into

[38:11] when you try and

[38:12] specify stuff more.

[38:14] You get into a

[38:15] position where things

[38:16] are excluded, things

[38:18] are included. This

[38:20] absolutely says you

[38:20] have to have a

[38:22] receipt with the cost

[38:23] of materials used and

[38:24] the number of hours.

[38:25] And in the case of,

[38:26] say, a cleaning

[38:28] company, which I know,

[38:29] you know, this would

[38:29] be over and above

[38:31] wear and tear.

[38:32] They're not going to

[38:32] have materials used.

[38:35] So a landlord is

[38:36] going to read that as

[38:39] now I can't submit.

[38:41] Whereas the previous

[38:42] language did say

[38:44] itemization, I

[38:46] understand, I guess

[38:46] you guys are having

[38:47] some problems with

[38:48] some of the landlords

[38:49] itemizing, but by

[38:50] going this specific,

[38:51] I think we're going

[38:52] to run into some

[38:54] unintentional

[38:55] consequences.

[38:55] >> Okay, Christy.

[38:56] >> If I may, I think

[38:58] there's a really

[38:59] simple fix. I agree

[39:00] with what's being

[39:01] said. I think it

[39:02] needs to be

[39:03] distinguished. But if

[39:04] we just said

[39:05] something to the

[39:07] effect of that, the,

[39:10] you know, they

[39:12] provide a in the

[39:14] event of services

[39:16] done pursuant to a

[39:17] third party contract,

[39:19] the landlord must

[39:21] provide the receipt

[39:23] and not saying it

[39:23] well or if not, if a

[39:26] third party contract

[39:27] is not used, they

[39:29] must provide two and

[39:31] three. But but I

[39:32] think that's what I

[39:33] hear you saying.

[39:33] That's what I hear

[39:34] Andrew saying.

[39:35] >> Well, 2 or 3 is as

[39:37] applicable, right? I

[39:37] mean, I think.

[39:38] >> It's applicable,

[39:39] yes.

[39:39] >> But then the is

[39:40] the as applicable,

[39:41] the big exception

[39:42] that you can drive a

[39:43] hole through because.

[39:44] Yeah. But yeah, I

[39:45] mean, we don't want

[39:46] cleaners saying, you

[39:47] know, I use, you know,

[39:48] four ounces of dish

[39:49] soap and three ounces

[39:50] of mop floor fluid

[39:51] and whatnot. We want

[39:52] them to just they

[39:53] generally charge an

[39:54] hourly rate, right?

[39:54] Aaron.

[39:56] >> Yeah. No, I think

[39:57] we're we're confusing

[39:59] the issue between

[40:00] third party

[40:01] contractor and not

[40:03] and a receipt listing

[40:05] materials and not

[40:05] like I could have an

[40:06] on site person that's

[40:08] not a third party

[40:09] contractor. And this

[40:11] would still say, I

[40:12] need to list the cost

[40:14] of materials used. So

[40:18] I don't think it's

[40:19] the distinction

[40:20] between third party

[40:21] and non third party,

[40:22] at least for me. It's

[40:23] not I don't know if

[40:24] it is for Andrew.

[40:25] It's the not every

[40:26] contractor is going

[40:27] to be listing cost of

[40:29] materials used.

[40:31] >> Well some some

[40:33] contractors it's not

[40:34] going to be the cost

[40:35] of materials

[40:37] necessarily. I

[40:37] dropped some language

[40:38] in the chat. I don't

[40:39] know, take this off.

[40:40] I don't want to send

[40:41] that in the wrong

[40:42] direction. I agree

[40:43] again, I'm going to

[40:44] reiterate agree with

[40:45] the intent. I'm just

[40:46] trying to get some

[40:47] cleaner language here.

[40:48] So don't read into

[40:50] anything that's maybe

[40:52] off, but trying to

[40:53] just make it, trying

[40:55] to not give the

[40:56] wiggle room, just

[40:57] saying, you know, as

[40:58] applicable, copies

[41:04] invoices or receipts

[41:05] for a third party

[41:06] service. So somebody

[41:07] that comes in, in a

[41:08] number of labor hours,

[41:09] their hourly rate for

[41:10] work performed by

[41:12] landlord or the

[41:14] employee, the

[41:14] landlord that

[41:15] probably needs to get

[41:16] switched to be a

[41:17] third party, but I

[41:19] don't know, just

[41:20] something where the,

[41:20] the average person

[41:22] who's managing a

[41:22] couple properties

[41:23] knows, here's what I

[41:24] gotta do. I gotta get

[41:25] some.

[41:26] >> If I may. I like

[41:28] that language, Andrew.

[41:29] What I'm concerned

[41:31] about, and I know

[41:32] this is key to it is

[41:34] as applicable only

[41:35] because I'm concerned

[41:36] that the less

[41:37] professional

[41:38] landlords will say,

[41:39] nah, none of it's

[41:41] applicable. I don't

[41:42] need to, you know, do

[41:43] anything. And I

[41:44] wonder if just adding

[41:45] a sentence that, you

[41:47] know, I don't know

[41:48] how it would read,

[41:49] but basically you

[41:51] cannot keep the

[41:53] security deposit or

[41:54] charge extra without

[41:56] sufficient

[41:57] documentation. And

[41:58] then it's still

[42:00] flexible enough

[42:01] because sufficient is

[42:03] subjective, but it's

[42:04] clear that some

[42:05] documentation has to

[42:06] be provided. And I

[42:07] think that's a big

[42:08] piece of what we want.

[42:10] >> Patrick.

[42:14] >> I was just going

[42:15] to say operationally,

[42:16] the way things

[42:18] transact in the

[42:18] rental housing

[42:19] industry, at least a

[42:20] lot of our members, I

[42:22] may hire a third

[42:23] party company to do

[42:24] the carpet cleaning,

[42:25] so I will have an

[42:27] invoice for the

[42:28] carpet cleaning.

[42:29] However, my internal

[42:30] maintenance staff

[42:31] will go in and maybe

[42:32] a light switch needs

[42:33] to be replaced. So

[42:34] there'll be a cost on

[42:36] the light switch. And

[42:37] there's certainly

[42:37] time that I used. So

[42:38] that's the

[42:40] operational logistics

[42:41] that's happening on

[42:42] site. How I think

[42:44] what we're trying to

[42:45] do and what I hear

[42:46] Christy trying to do,

[42:47] I think, is to say,

[42:49] okay, if we want to

[42:50] see the copy of the

[42:51] invoice for that

[42:52] third party

[42:52] contractor that you

[42:54] had, and then also

[42:55] what your internal

[42:56] costs were, and the

[42:57] tenant should be able

[42:58] to see all of that.

[43:00] Did I, did I state

[43:01] that? Correct.

[43:02] Christy.

[43:03] >> Thank you. Patrick.

[43:04] I think it's one or

[43:05] the other. I think if

[43:06] you are charging, if

[43:07] you have if you're

[43:08] charging the tenant

[43:09] for something that a

[43:10] third party

[43:12] contractor did, like

[43:14] replacing the carpet,

[43:15] let's say, then I

[43:16] think the receipt

[43:17] showing what you

[43:18] actually paid the

[43:18] third party

[43:19] contractor is

[43:20] sufficient. It should

[43:21] include everything.

[43:22] If you're doing it in

[43:23] house, then I think

[43:24] it's other

[43:25] documentation because

[43:26] you're not going to

[43:27] have a receipt. And,

[43:28] and I, you know, I'm

[43:29] somewhat flexible on

[43:30] how we define that

[43:32] other documentation.

[43:33] As long as it's clear

[43:34] that the

[43:35] documentation is

[43:36] required.

[43:37] >> So I just.

[43:39] >> Go ahead. Patrick.

[43:40] >> I was just going

[43:40] to say, I think from

[43:42] a transparency point

[43:42] of view, it makes a

[43:44] whole lot easier for

[43:45] the tenant to see all

[43:46] that on one piece of

[43:47] paper of what their

[43:48] costs were. That's

[43:49] kind of where I was

[43:50] going with this is, I

[43:51] think transparency is

[43:52] key making just easy

[43:53] to see. Okay, they

[43:54] did that, that that

[43:55] done.

[43:55] >> No, I don't

[43:56] disagree with that.

[43:58] I'm just trying to

[43:59] figure out how we.

[44:00] >> Accommodate

[44:01] concerns.

[44:01] >> Yeah. So this was

[44:02] something that came

[44:03] up in the first

[44:04] meeting. And we had a

[44:05] similar conversation

[44:06] because I think

[44:07] initially we had

[44:07] essentially just said

[44:09] receipts and we

[44:10] received similar

[44:11] feedback. So Erin's

[44:13] language that she put

[44:14] in the chat is very

[44:15] similar to the

[44:16] language that we had

[44:17] in the meeting. The

[44:20] second version of the

[44:21] workgroup draft. And

[44:22] I can read out loud

[44:23] what that says. If we

[44:24] want to kind of

[44:25] revisit that and

[44:27] incorporate that or

[44:28] tweak it to make it

[44:29] more distinct. But

[44:30] what that version of

[44:31] the bill said, and

[44:33] this was created for

[44:34] the second workgroup

[44:35] meeting, is at the

[44:36] very on, and I can

[44:37] send this to the

[44:38] group, I can resend

[44:39] it, but let's see, it

[44:43] was line 851. I'm

[44:44] sure most of you. But

[44:45] it said the paragraph

[44:47] started very

[44:47] similarly where it

[44:48] said, the landlord

[44:49] shall not apply to

[44:49] any portion of the

[44:51] security or shall not

[44:52] apply any portion of

[44:52] the security deposit

[44:54] toward the cost of

[44:55] etc. and then it said,

[44:58] unless such costs are

[45:00] reasonably necessary,

[45:01] etc. and be. The

[45:03] landlord provides the

[45:04] tenant either a

[45:05] receipt reflecting

[45:06] the costs of the

[45:07] professional services

[45:09] or an invoice with an

[45:10] estimate of the cost

[45:11] of materials used to

[45:13] return the premises

[45:13] to the same condition

[45:15] as the condition of

[45:16] the premises, less

[45:17] reasonable wear and

[45:18] tear and an

[45:20] itemization of the

[45:20] number of hours and

[45:21] the hourly rate for

[45:22] any labor performed

[45:23] by the landlord or an

[45:25] employee of the

[45:25] landlord. So we did

[45:27] this because, you

[45:28] know, this feedback,

[45:29] we received the same

[45:30] feedback that it is

[45:31] difficult to know how

[45:32] much these materials

[45:34] are. If you get using

[45:35] half a gallon of

[45:36] paint, you can just

[45:37] use an estimate of

[45:38] the cost of materials.

[45:39] That was why we put

[45:40] that in. And we did

[45:41] explicitly state that

[45:42] that invoice with the

[45:44] cost of materials and

[45:45] the hourly rate is

[45:46] for landlords who did

[45:48] that labor themselves.

[45:49] So if we need to kind

[45:50] of revisit that

[45:51] language or tweak

[45:52] this language to more

[45:54] closely align with

[45:55] that, we're fine with

[45:56] that. I can resend

[45:57] that language, but

[45:57] that was already

[45:58] something that we had

[46:00] discussed and tweaked

[46:01] in response to the

[46:02] very first meeting.

[46:04] >> Andrew.

[46:04] >> Hey, to, to

[46:05] address the Christy

[46:07] raised a good point

[46:08] as applicable. Kind

[46:09] of leaves it wide

[46:10] open. The language I

[46:13] just dropped in there

[46:14] maybe fixes that,

[46:15] right? So it says an

[46:16] itemized statement,

[46:18] including for

[46:19] services performed

[46:20] the copy of that

[46:21] receipt for materials,

[46:22] purchased the cost of

[46:23] those materials. So

[46:24] you get some

[46:25] discretion, right?

[46:26] Like if you have

[46:27] materials, then you

[46:28] got to report them.

[46:28] But if you don't have

[46:30] materials, then you

[46:31] don't have to report

[46:31] them that that gives

[46:32] it a little more

[46:33] structure than the as

[46:35] applicable, which is,

[46:36] you know, going to be,

[46:38] can be

[46:40] unintentionally or

[46:41] intentionally gained.

[46:43] Okay.

[46:43] >> All right. So I

[46:44] know that we guys, we

[46:45] all can't resist the,

[46:46] the, we really can't

[46:48] wordsmith this with

[46:49] this whole committee

[46:50] here. It just, it's,

[46:51] we're never going to

[46:51] get finished. I'm

[46:53] sorry. I mean, my

[46:54] impatience is showing.

[46:54] But here it is. It's

[46:56] 1040. We've been

[46:57] working on it 40

[46:58] minutes working on

[46:58] the same paragraph

[46:59] and something I think

[47:00] we all agree on.

[47:01] Right. We just need

[47:02] to figure out the

[47:03] best way to do it. So

[47:05] that's fine. We'll

[47:05] work on whether it's

[47:06] revisiting Emmeline's,

[47:07] adding incorporating

[47:08] some Andrew's, you

[47:09] know, for materials.

[47:10] I like that approach.

[47:12] We'll have staff come

[47:13] and come back to us

[47:14] at the meeting with

[47:15] something, and you

[47:15] guys will inevitably

[47:16] want to wordsmith

[47:17] that some more. And

[47:19] through the

[47:19] legislative process,

[47:20] I think the areas of,

[47:21] of disagreement are

[47:23] sort of where I want

[47:24] to focus us a little

[47:26] bit. Again, we can

[47:27] wordsmith this stuff.

[47:27] I think conceptually,

[47:29] as far as we, we, we,

[47:31] we like the idea that

[47:32] we're of what we've

[47:33] got as far as the

[47:36] itemization piece,

[47:37] the question, the two

[47:38] question within that,

[47:39] the one thing that we

[47:40] don't have consensus

[47:41] on is whether we need

[47:42] a receipt first, and

[47:43] then we don't have a

[47:44] consensus on 15 days

[47:45] being calendar or

[47:47] business, am I am I

[47:48] missing any other

[47:49] areas of disagreement

[47:51] that are not just

[47:52] sort of wordsmithing?

[47:55] >> Aaron.

[47:56] >> Are we.

[47:57] >> Still only talking

[47:58] about this section.

[47:59] >> For now for about

[48:00] two more seconds and

[48:01] I'm going to move on

[48:02] to other sections.

[48:03] Okay.

[48:03] >> Yeah that's it.

[48:04] >> There's only two.

[48:05] All right. So I'm

[48:06] prepared to to report

[48:07] on the controversy on

[48:08] the the. 15 business

[48:09] and the we use the

[48:10] word receipt when we

[48:11] present it to the

[48:12] full. And hopefully

[48:13] we can get the rest

[48:14] of those words sort

[48:15] of worked out between

[48:17] now and then. All

[48:17] right. Now on to the

[48:19] rest of the of the

[48:20] bill. Aaron, where do

[48:21] you want to start?

[48:24] Numerical order.

[48:27] >> Well, we started

[48:28] at the bottom.

[48:29] >> So the bottom of

[48:31] the meat was.

[48:32] >> Yeah. If you if

[48:33] you want to do, since

[48:35] we're already down in

[48:35] that section is what

[48:36] I was saying.

[48:37] >> Gotcha.

[48:38] >> Where do you.

[48:39] >> Want to go? The

[48:40] next one, the utility

[48:41] the utility stuff.

[48:42] The seven the line

[48:45] 762763. I sent the

[48:48] language over to Ray

[48:50] and Terry Ellis. They

[48:52] definitely have

[48:54] concerns. Want to

[48:55] hear back from their

[48:56] folks. We talked

[48:57] about this at the

[48:57] last meeting that we

[48:58] do not want to pull

[49:00] utilities in,

[49:00] specifically internet

[49:01] providers. After last

[49:02] year. This language

[49:04] seems to pull them in

[49:05] and they think it

[49:06] does.

[49:08] >> Okay, so we talked

[49:09] just about utility.

[49:10] So nothing this

[49:11] distinction between

[49:12] private owner manager,

[49:13] operator from

[49:14] including water,

[49:14] sewer, electric,

[49:15] natural gas or other

[49:16] utilities as rent.

[49:18] Chris, I know you you

[49:20] wanted in here.

[49:20] >> Go ahead.

[49:21] >> Yes. I mean, I

[49:22] think that perhaps

[49:24] we're confusing two

[49:25] different things

[49:26] because my

[49:27] understanding from

[49:27] talking to Ray during

[49:28] session was that

[49:30] their concern was

[49:31] about these bulk

[49:32] deals that they

[49:33] provide to large

[49:35] multifamily complexes

[49:36] that provide somewhat

[49:38] of a discount, at

[49:40] least to the owners

[49:41] of that complex. And

[49:43] we're not we're not

[49:44] trying to get at that

[49:45] because in that

[49:47] circumstance, the

[49:48] tenant is paying the

[49:51] provider and it's a

[49:54] fee that they haven't

[49:55] negotiated. It is it

[49:56] is its own problem.

[49:57] And we do want to

[49:58] address it at some

[49:59] point. This doesn't

[50:01] address that. This

[50:02] just says you can't

[50:03] double dip. You can't

[50:05] charge as part of the

[50:07] rent for utility

[50:09] service that the

[50:10] tenant is also paying

[50:12] for directly to the

[50:13] utility provider. So

[50:15] I just think it's a

[50:16] different thing, at

[50:17] least than what Ray

[50:18] and I talked about

[50:19] during session, which

[50:20] is much more

[50:21] complicated. I agree

[50:22] with you. This is not

[50:23] that.

[50:25] >> Jessica.

[50:26] >> I just want to

[50:27] clarify the

[50:28] conversation about

[50:29] utilities. Last

[50:29] meeting was only

[50:30] concerned with the

[50:31] Schmidt bill, which

[50:32] does veer off into

[50:33] that direction. This

[50:34] piece has never been

[50:36] discussed or an issue

[50:37] previously with this

[50:38] bill.

[50:38] >> Sorry.

[50:39] >> So yeah, just to

[50:41] separate the concepts

[50:42] of these two bills

[50:43] completely, as

[50:44] Christy said, this is

[50:45] an entirely different

[50:46] intent, does not

[50:47] intend to target

[50:48] utility agreements

[50:49] where the

[50:49] relationship between

[50:50] the tenant and

[50:51] utility in that way

[50:52] whatsoever. This is

[50:54] just what it says

[50:55] here, and I believe

[50:56] it kind of mirrors a

[50:58] different section in

[50:58] the code as well,

[50:59] where this language

[51:00] was already in use.

[51:01] And my understanding

[51:02] is that the

[51:03] definition of utility

[51:03] in the Landlord

[51:04] Tenant Act does not

[51:05] include internet

[51:06] service providers. So

[51:06] I don't really

[51:07] understand what the

[51:09] concern is on that

[51:10] front. And I've also

[51:11] reached out to the

[51:12] VTA and they can

[51:13] provide comment at

[51:14] any time. I just want

[51:15] to clarify, these two

[51:16] bills are entirely

[51:17] different and they're

[51:18] they're.

[51:18] >> Different issues.

[51:19] >> This language

[51:20] seems pretty specific

[51:20] to just not double.

[51:21] You can't charge it

[51:22] as rent. And then

[51:23] also you can't charge

[51:24] somebody water as

[51:25] part of their rent if

[51:26] they're also paying a

[51:27] water bill directly.

[51:28] >> That's awesome.

[51:32] Aaron. Yeah.

[51:33] >> The only reason I

[51:35] flagged this was in

[51:36] my very, very general

[51:38] research on utilities

[51:40] in the code. It did

[51:41] include internet. And

[51:44] so by adding that

[51:45] extra sentence, I was

[51:46] worried that we were

[51:47] pulling in

[51:49] stakeholders that

[51:49] just weren't a part

[51:50] of the conversation.

[51:51] I do see that there

[51:52] is a separate

[51:54] definition of utility

[51:57] under the VRLTA,

[51:59] which does not appear

[52:01] to include internet.

[52:03] So this this wasn't

[52:04] like a a, you know, a

[52:05] stopping point for us.

[52:07] I was just concerned

[52:08] that maybe the right

[52:09] stakeholders weren't

[52:11] here that knew the

[52:12] subject matter better

[52:14] than, than I did. So

[52:15] that was my only flag

[52:16] on this.

[52:16] >> All right. So

[52:17] we'll leave that as

[52:18] is. Let's go back up

[52:20] to moving up. DJ do

[52:25] you have the next one

[52:27] or Aaron.

[52:30] >> Miss the line 29.

[52:32] >> For the out of

[52:33] pocket expenses. Our

[52:34] members have asked

[52:36] and that's under

[52:37] admin fees or I

[52:39] believe it's under or

[52:40] maybe it's

[52:41] application fees.

[52:45] >> 329.

[52:49] >> So we deleted the

[52:52] exclusive of actual

[52:52] out of pocket

[52:53] expenses. And my

[52:54] members have just

[52:55] asked to put it back

[52:56] in. They're really

[52:57] struggling with

[52:57] fraudulent

[52:58] applications. And

[52:58] they're having to do

[52:59] a lot of additional

[53:01] verification checks

[53:02] that are costing

[53:03] additional money. And

[53:05] it's potential for

[53:06] that cost to go up.

[53:07] And so they've just

[53:08] asked that the actual

[53:10] out of pocket

[53:11] expenses paid that

[53:12] language go back in.

[53:14] >> We're going to.

[53:15] >> Go ahead. Emily.

[53:16] And then Christy and

[53:17] then Victoria.

[53:18] >> Yeah, we took that

[53:20] out because as it

[53:21] states right now in

[53:22] code, this is saying

[53:23] that you get

[53:23] essentially like, and

[53:24] I'm not saying that

[53:25] this is what always

[53:26] occurs, but you can

[53:27] kind of take a

[53:29] default $50 and then

[53:30] also charge for

[53:31] whatever your cost of

[53:32] expenses are on top

[53:33] of that. That's not

[53:34] necessarily happening

[53:35] in practice all the

[53:36] time, but that's

[53:37] something that would

[53:37] be allowed under this

[53:38] current language. We

[53:40] would I spoke to

[53:42] Patrick. If we want

[53:42] to do an application

[53:44] fee, shall not exceed

[53:46] $50 or the actual out

[53:47] of pocket expenses.

[53:49] Patrick wrote some

[53:49] language for

[53:50] consideration this

[53:51] morning related to

[53:52] that. We can do that,

[53:54] but we're not

[53:55] comfortable saying

[53:56] exclusive of any

[53:57] actual out of pocket

[53:58] expenses because

[53:59] that's $50 then, plus

[54:01] the out of pocket

[54:02] expenses. If we want

[54:03] to do either or, then

[54:05] we can do that. But

[54:05] right now it's 50

[54:07] plus and that's

[54:08] something we're not

[54:09] comfortable with.

[54:10] >> Either or is fine

[54:12] with me.

[54:13] >> Okay. Do we have

[54:14] language on how

[54:15] either or works?

[54:16] >> Patrick I think

[54:17] wrote some if he

[54:18] wanted to. Yep, it's

[54:19] right there. Perfect.

[54:21] >> So I see $50 or

[54:23] the actual out of

[54:24] pocket expenses paid

[54:25] by the landlord to a

[54:26] third party

[54:27] performing background

[54:28] credit. Okay. Got it.

[54:28] Okay. Go ahead.

[54:29] Christy.

[54:30] >> I do have a

[54:30] question about that

[54:31] specifically for

[54:32] Aaron and I may be

[54:34] misremembering our

[54:35] conversation, but I

[54:36] thought we had a

[54:37] conversation a couple

[54:38] of sessions ago in

[54:39] which we talked about

[54:41] how, given the use of

[54:43] third party tenant

[54:45] screening companies,

[54:46] many landlords are

[54:47] contracting with

[54:48] those third party

[54:49] tenant screening

[54:50] companies. So they

[54:51] get services sort of

[54:52] in bulk. Will that

[54:54] make it hard to

[54:56] determine what the

[54:57] actual cost is? And

[54:59] if so, they can just

[55:00] charge the $50. And

[55:02] that's certainly fine

[55:02] with us. But I just

[55:04] wanted to flag that

[55:06] in in and see what

[55:08] you thought about

[55:09] that. Aaron.

[55:10] >> Yeah, no, that's

[55:11] absolutely valid. My,

[55:12] my take on that is if

[55:14] they feel like this

[55:17] expense to further

[55:19] verify applications

[55:21] is so great, right,

[55:22] that they're

[55:23] purchasing this bulk

[55:25] expense, then they're

[55:27] going to have to try

[55:28] and figure out, you

[55:29] know, if I pay for

[55:30] 100 applications and

[55:32] then it is that cost

[55:35] divided by 100, like

[55:36] that's on them. I

[55:37] just don't want to

[55:38] keep it so that they

[55:40] could never recoup

[55:41] that cost as that

[55:42] cost continues to

[55:43] grow. So I'm fine

[55:45] with that language.

[55:46] >> All right. Just

[55:46] one other point. And

[55:48] this may be what

[55:48] Victoria is going to

[55:49] say to you. The only

[55:51] other.

[55:51] >> Thing happened a

[55:52] couple of times, I

[55:53] think you've talked

[55:54] in Victoria has

[55:54] turned her hand off.

[55:55] >> But that the only

[55:57] thing that really

[55:58] other thing that

[55:58] really concerns me is

[55:59] then the lack of you

[56:00] can call it

[56:01] transparency. You can

[56:02] call it

[56:02] predictability for

[56:03] the tenant. And I

[56:04] don't know how we get

[56:05] around.

[56:06] >> Those fees have to

[56:07] be disclosed up front

[56:08] before they even hit

[56:09] the button. So.

[56:10] >> Okay, even if

[56:11] they're even if

[56:12] they're specific to

[56:13] that screening, okay.

[56:17] >> Victoria.

[56:19] >> I mean, you're

[56:20] right. I, you know,

[56:21] Christy and I in many

[56:23] ways think with one

[56:24] mind, but I, I did

[56:25] want to say the same

[56:26] thing. I'm just

[56:27] really concerned with

[56:28] all the actual cost

[56:29] things because it's

[56:30] so hard for a tenant

[56:31] to ever figure out

[56:32] what that is. And,

[56:34] you know, to Aaron's

[56:35] point, there are a

[56:36] couple other places

[56:37] in the code or in

[56:38] this draft and in

[56:41] Delegate Bennett

[56:42] Parker's bill that's

[56:42] going to go into

[56:43] effect in July,

[56:44] requiring these fees

[56:45] to be stated upfront.

[56:46] And I wouldn't want

[56:47] it to be a situation

[56:48] where we turn around

[56:49] in the landlords are

[56:50] saying something like,

[56:51] well, those fees are

[56:52] variable, so we don't

[56:53] have to disclose them

[56:54] or something like

[56:55] that. You know,

[56:55] there's no way for

[56:56] tenants to figure out

[56:57] what those fees are.

[56:58] It would be very hard

[57:00] for them to get into

[57:01] court. I'm a broken

[57:02] record on the fact

[57:03] that, like when

[57:04] landlords violate

[57:04] some of these and

[57:05] overcharge tenants,

[57:06] there are very few

[57:07] remedies for them to

[57:08] get their money back.

[57:09] And also just some of

[57:12] this cost is just the

[57:13] cost of doing

[57:14] business as a

[57:15] landlord. I mean, for

[57:16] tenants $50 already,

[57:18] they, you know,

[57:19] they're having to

[57:20] apply to sometimes

[57:21] dozens of apartments.

[57:22] And for low income

[57:23] tenants, this is a

[57:24] huge barrier. For

[57:25] example, someone with

[57:26] a section eight

[57:27] voucher has 60 days

[57:28] to find a new

[57:29] apartment. And if

[57:30] they're having to

[57:31] spend hundreds of

[57:31] dollars on these

[57:32] application fees, it

[57:33] really starts to add

[57:34] up.

[57:36] >> Aaron.

[57:37] >> Yeah. I just want

[57:38] to clarify, this

[57:39] should not be

[57:40] variable. Our members

[57:41] are taught

[57:44] unequivocally. You

[57:44] should be reviewing

[57:45] every application the

[57:47] exact same way. That

[57:48] would be a massive

[57:49] fair housing

[57:51] violation. And so

[57:52] whatever the expense

[57:53] is, is the expense.

[57:55] It's not variable

[57:56] based on what the

[57:57] application looks

[57:57] like and based on the

[57:59] rest of the code

[58:00] would have to be

[58:01] disclosed up front.

[58:01] So whether they

[58:02] choose to do that or

[58:03] not, you know, out of

[58:05] pocket or $50, they

[58:06] would have to

[58:06] disclose it upfront

[58:07] before an applicant

[58:08] hit submit.

[58:09] >> Right. Christy.

[58:10] >> I just and I know

[58:12] this is a new issue

[58:13] and you all aren't

[58:14] going to be happy

[58:15] with me, but I have

[58:16] long thought that

[58:18] charging people who

[58:19] are using housing

[58:20] choice vouchers and

[58:23] application fee of of

[58:25] $32, then plus out of

[58:26] pocket expenses makes

[58:28] it very difficult, if

[58:30] not impossible, for

[58:32] them to apply to the

[58:35] places that they want

[58:36] to apply to. $32 has

[58:38] always seemed pretty

[58:40] high to me, in light

[58:41] of what their incomes

[58:42] are relative to area

[58:44] median income,

[58:45] because we're talking

[58:46] about folks who are,

[58:47] I don't know,

[58:48] Victoria, probably 40,

[58:51] 30% ami most of the

[58:52] time. I don't know if

[58:54] we can address that

[58:55] now or if that's a,

[58:56] you know, talk to

[58:57] someone about another

[58:58] bill in 2028. But I

[58:59] just wanted to raise

[59:00] it.

[59:01] >> Yeah.

[59:01] >> I got you on the

[59:03] enforceability

[59:03] question. I just, for

[59:04] what it's worth. I'll

[59:06] briefly tell us where

[59:07] I was at the Falls

[59:08] Church Fall Festival,

[59:09] and constituent

[59:10] approached me and

[59:11] said, when are you

[59:11] guys going to do

[59:12] something about the

[59:13] these junk fees on

[59:15] apartments? I'm like,

[59:16] oh, that's timely.

[59:17] And they're like,

[59:18] yeah, we, we, we have

[59:19] to pay online through

[59:20] their portal. And it

[59:21] cost us $15

[59:22] convenience fee.

[59:22] Every time I'm like,

[59:23] no, no, no, we

[59:24] changed the law.

[59:25] We're not allowed to

[59:26] do that. They're like,

[59:27] well, they're doing

[59:28] it. What am I

[59:29] supposed to do? I'm

[59:30] like, I'll write them

[59:31] a strongly worded

[59:31] letter, but like,

[59:32] you're not going to

[59:33] go sue them over, you

[59:34] know, 15 bucks. So

[59:35] anyhow, I, I feel you

[59:37] on that. And it's a

[59:38] real problem. A real

[59:39] constituent actually

[59:39] out of the blue, you

[59:41] know, approached me

[59:41] about it. So it's not

[59:43] theoretical. Emily.

[59:44] >> Yeah. For

[59:45] clarification from my

[59:46] understanding of the

[59:47] realtor's

[59:47] recommendations, it

[59:48] said line 329, which

[59:50] applies only to the

[59:51] section stating $50.

[59:52] It did not highlight

[59:54] the $32, which is

[59:56] related to those who

[59:57] might be receiving

[59:58] Housing Choice

[59:59] vouchers. So from my

[1:00:00] understanding of the

[1:00:00] recommendation, it

[1:00:01] was not to change

[1:00:03] that second portion

[1:00:04] of the section to

[1:00:05] state that it's $32

[1:00:07] exclusive actual of

[1:00:08] actual out of pocket

[1:00:10] costs. And Aaron, you

[1:00:10] can correct me, but

[1:00:11] my understanding was

[1:00:12] you only wanted to

[1:00:13] change the first part

[1:00:15] related to $50, which

[1:00:17] doesn't fully address

[1:00:17] Christi's concerns

[1:00:19] because it's still

[1:00:20] $32. But this part,

[1:00:21] we're not saying $32

[1:00:23] or the cost of

[1:00:24] expenses. It would

[1:00:25] still be a flat $32

[1:00:26] for those individuals.

[1:00:29] >> Okay. All right.

[1:00:30] That's good. Sounds

[1:00:32] good. All right.

[1:00:34] >> Moving on up. And

[1:00:45] Patrick, I will take

[1:00:46] you up. I will let

[1:00:47] you know where they

[1:00:48] because they were

[1:00:49] going to get in touch

[1:00:50] with me for writing a

[1:00:51] letter. So I told her

[1:00:53] I'd look into it. So

[1:00:54] thank you for your

[1:00:55] offer of help on that

[1:00:56] with that constituent.

[1:00:57] All right. What else

[1:00:58] do we have?

[1:00:59] >> As far as.

[1:01:01] >> Line 304.

[1:01:04] >> Or 3? I skipped

[1:01:06] 310.

[1:01:06] >> Yeah. We don't

[1:01:07] want to skip 308 yep.

[1:01:09] >> Sorry.

[1:01:11] >> My concern with

[1:01:12] this with the

[1:01:12] application deposit

[1:01:14] is it says if they

[1:01:15] don't get the unit

[1:01:17] that they reserved

[1:01:18] with their

[1:01:19] application deposit,

[1:01:20] that the landlord

[1:01:21] shall return the

[1:01:22] application deposit.

[1:01:23] I just wanted to take

[1:01:24] into account that

[1:01:25] there could be an

[1:01:26] option. There could

[1:01:27] be a situation where

[1:01:29] the landlord says,

[1:01:30] hey, I wasn't able to

[1:01:31] keep your unit, but

[1:01:34] this unit is

[1:01:35] available if you want

[1:01:36] this one. And then

[1:01:37] the tenant says, okay.

[1:01:38] And then that that

[1:01:39] application deposit

[1:01:39] could be under

[1:01:41] current law, it would

[1:01:42] be converted into a

[1:01:43] security deposit. But

[1:01:44] the way we've written

[1:01:45] it, now, they have to

[1:01:46] send it back and get

[1:01:47] it back.

[1:01:48] >> I.

[1:01:48] >> I think as long as

[1:01:50] there's the way it's

[1:01:51] written and this, I

[1:01:52] think is what you're

[1:01:53] saying takes into

[1:01:54] account that that the

[1:01:55] tenant approves or

[1:01:56] wants or, you know, I

[1:01:57] think you're

[1:01:58] absolutely right. If

[1:01:59] there's, there's no

[1:02:00] reason to preclude

[1:02:03] saying, hey, here's

[1:02:04] another comparable

[1:02:05] unit that we just

[1:02:06] painted. Yeah, I

[1:02:08] think that's fine.

[1:02:10] >> Okay.

[1:02:11] >> Everybody happy

[1:02:12] with that. Thank you.

[1:02:13] I think that's good.

[1:02:14] I was going to have

[1:02:15] to exchange checks,

[1:02:16] which seems like it

[1:02:17] would have.

[1:02:17] >> Been silly. Silly.

[1:02:18] Yeah.

[1:02:19] >> All right. So

[1:02:20] we're going to skip

[1:02:21] that one. It was an

[1:02:22] easy one 304.

[1:02:23] >> That's an easy one.

[1:02:26] >> Prospective tenant.

[1:02:27] Everybody agree with

[1:02:28] that.

[1:02:29] >> That's fine.

[1:02:31] >> Mr. Chair.

[1:02:32] >> Really quick Emily.

[1:02:33] >> Can we go back to

[1:02:34] 308.

[1:02:35] >> No.

[1:02:37] >> This will take

[1:02:38] like one minute, I

[1:02:39] think. So we're

[1:02:40] comfortable with the

[1:02:40] intent. I think what

[1:02:42] I we're like, I think

[1:02:44] we need to be more

[1:02:46] clear that this

[1:02:46] alternative unit

[1:02:47] needs to be

[1:02:48] comparable in terms

[1:02:48] of square footage

[1:02:49] price. Because I

[1:02:50] think alternative

[1:02:51] unit, I mean, I'm

[1:02:52] just being really

[1:02:52] nitpicky now, but.

[1:02:54] >> That's right.

[1:02:54] >> But it.

[1:02:55] >> Has to agree. It's

[1:02:56] up to the tenant.

[1:02:57] >> Yeah. It's as much

[1:02:59] the prospective

[1:02:59] tenant agrees to an

[1:03:00] alternate unit.

[1:03:01] >> Right. Okay. I

[1:03:02] mean we can yeah

[1:03:03] that's fine. I think

[1:03:04] there was just

[1:03:04] concerns that if.

[1:03:06] >> You're getting

[1:03:07] sold all the time or

[1:03:07] something like that.

[1:03:08] >> I.

[1:03:09] >> I agree with Emily

[1:03:10] actually, I just

[1:03:11] thought we, I

[1:03:12] actually wrote in my

[1:03:12] notes something about

[1:03:13] add option of

[1:03:14] providing another

[1:03:16] comparable unit. Is

[1:03:17] there a problem with

[1:03:18] adding the word

[1:03:19] comparable? I think

[1:03:19] that's what's going

[1:03:20] to happen anyway.

[1:03:21] >> I mean, I think my

[1:03:22] concern is not like a

[1:03:24] bait and switch,

[1:03:24] right? My concern is

[1:03:25] I wasn't able to get

[1:03:27] you the unit you

[1:03:28] wanted, but I do have

[1:03:29] this unit right here.

[1:03:30] I don't know if it's

[1:03:31] comparable. Maybe

[1:03:32] it's not. But the

[1:03:33] tenant still says I'm

[1:03:34] 100% good. Switch my

[1:03:36] application deposit

[1:03:37] to a security deposit

[1:03:38] rather than send it

[1:03:39] back. Or the tenant

[1:03:40] says, forget it. I

[1:03:41] want my money back.

[1:03:42] >> Yeah, no, I

[1:03:43] totally understand

[1:03:44] and appreciate your

[1:03:44] intent. I am just

[1:03:45] always thinking about

[1:03:46] people who are not

[1:03:47] your members, who are

[1:03:48] not Patrick's members,

[1:03:50] and who see

[1:03:52] opportunity to rip

[1:03:53] our clients off in

[1:03:55] everything. And

[1:03:55] that's what we're

[1:03:56] trying to prevent.

[1:03:57] >> I think if we add

[1:03:58] the word.

[1:03:59] >> Tenant agrees

[1:04:00] change that. Can't

[1:04:00] the tenant still just

[1:04:01] say, no.

[1:04:02] >> It's there. It's a

[1:04:04] different situation

[1:04:04] when maybe this is

[1:04:05] the only place like

[1:04:06] this is where you put

[1:04:08] all your money. You

[1:04:09] have no other money.

[1:04:10] You can't really

[1:04:11] afford to wait to get

[1:04:12] that refundable

[1:04:13] application deposit

[1:04:14] back. I just, I think

[1:04:16] it protects the

[1:04:18] tenant and doesn't

[1:04:18] really hurt the

[1:04:19] landlord. To just

[1:04:20] clarify that the unit

[1:04:21] has to be comparable.

[1:04:22] >> All right. And

[1:04:24] then Patrick, whoever

[1:04:25] heard from Bisma yet?

[1:04:26] It's a new voice.

[1:04:28] >> Christy, I

[1:04:29] understand your point

[1:04:30] about comparable. I

[1:04:31] just think that, you

[1:04:32] know what? If there

[1:04:33] is no comparable unit,

[1:04:35] do they you know, is

[1:04:38] there no alternative

[1:04:39] unit, then, you know,

[1:04:40] so it doesn't really

[1:04:42] work out in the

[1:04:43] tenant's favor either,

[1:04:44] you know, and just

[1:04:45] going back to Erin's

[1:04:47] point, you know, the

[1:04:48] tenant does have the

[1:04:49] option to accept or

[1:04:51] deny, but this is

[1:04:52] just another option

[1:04:53] for them.

[1:04:55] >> Victoria.

[1:04:58] >> I think, I mean, I

[1:04:59] think when we're

[1:05:00] getting to the point

[1:05:01] of though, that like,

[1:05:02] you have to pay the

[1:05:03] application deposit

[1:05:04] to get like any unit

[1:05:05] in the building,

[1:05:06] we're kind of when we

[1:05:07] initially talked

[1:05:07] about application

[1:05:08] deposits, it was a

[1:05:09] circumstance where

[1:05:09] you wanted some very

[1:05:10] specific unit in a

[1:05:12] building, and that

[1:05:12] was the agreement

[1:05:13] between the landlord

[1:05:14] and the prospective

[1:05:16] tenant. And I think

[1:05:17] this is going back to

[1:05:18] sort of a way for

[1:05:19] landlords to just

[1:05:20] charge an application

[1:05:21] deposit to every

[1:05:21] single tenant as like

[1:05:22] an additional fee

[1:05:23] that they're always

[1:05:24] going to have to pay.

[1:05:25] And that'll be my

[1:05:26] concern with this.

[1:05:27] >> My view is to go

[1:05:28] ahead and throw in

[1:05:29] the word comparable.

[1:05:30] I don't I don't think

[1:05:31] it's necessary, but I

[1:05:32] don't think it's

[1:05:33] harmful. I think it's

[1:05:34] undefined. So I think

[1:05:35] if it makes you guys

[1:05:36] feel comfortable to

[1:05:37] have the word

[1:05:38] comparable in there

[1:05:39] agrees to a

[1:05:39] comparable

[1:05:40] alternative unit. And

[1:05:41] then let's just let's

[1:05:43] do that and move on.

[1:05:44] Again, I don't think

[1:05:45] it I, I don't know

[1:05:47] that it helps tenants,

[1:05:48] but because I think

[1:05:49] it may make landlords

[1:05:50] a little more

[1:05:52] conservative about

[1:05:52] offering that option.

[1:05:53] But if you guys want

[1:05:54] it, we'll put it in

[1:05:55] All right. So that

[1:05:58] was the one minute

[1:05:59] discussion of 308

[1:06:00] about seven minutes

[1:06:01] ago.

[1:06:03] >> It was a great one.

[1:06:04] There was one minute

[1:06:05] that we all seemed

[1:06:06] and and just like.

[1:06:08] >> Alright, so

[1:06:09] prospective tenant,

[1:06:10] we got on 304. That's

[1:06:12] still that's still an

[1:06:13] easy one, right? Yeah.

[1:06:15] 300.

[1:06:17] >> I'm fine. I think

[1:06:18] we're fine with that.

[1:06:20] We understand that

[1:06:20] there's going to be

[1:06:21] variance if this

[1:06:22] language, if we need

[1:06:23] to be more specific

[1:06:24] about the language,

[1:06:25] if people have issues

[1:06:26] with the language.

[1:06:27] But I think in

[1:06:28] practice landlords

[1:06:29] are already showing

[1:06:30] kind of a scale right

[1:06:31] now, just based on my

[1:06:32] own rental search of

[1:06:33] this is the kind of

[1:06:34] baseline, but it

[1:06:35] might change

[1:06:36] depending on your

[1:06:36] application and in

[1:06:38] the intent. We are

[1:06:39] fine with the

[1:06:40] intention of this

[1:06:41] change.

[1:06:42] >> Okay, let's leave

[1:06:43] it alone then. All

[1:06:45] right. 206 we have a

[1:06:48] whole hundred line.

[1:06:54] All right. Page eight.

[1:06:56] Security deposit.

[1:06:57] Okay.

[1:06:59] >> This is this was

[1:07:01] brought up. We

[1:07:01] brought this up in

[1:07:02] the last meeting.

[1:07:03] Just the specificity

[1:07:04] of the terminology

[1:07:05] that like if we were

[1:07:06] saying at the time,

[1:07:07] and just like Aaron

[1:07:08] has agita over like

[1:07:09] the best, like if

[1:07:11] it's this, then like

[1:07:13] if this is what we're

[1:07:14] defining it as if

[1:07:15] it's the day before,

[1:07:16] day after, etc. like

[1:07:17] it just, we don't

[1:07:18] have to be specific.

[1:07:19] Again, we're not held

[1:07:20] up on the point.

[1:07:21] That's what we're

[1:07:22] offering alternatives

[1:07:23] to it. It's just she

[1:07:23] doesn't like the

[1:07:25] specificity.

[1:07:28] >> I.

[1:07:29] >> You know, I think

[1:07:30] that goes to the

[1:07:30] heart of what we're

[1:07:32] trying to do, though,

[1:07:33] to make sure that

[1:07:34] these are charged

[1:07:35] only when there's an

[1:07:37] actual legal

[1:07:38] commitment to rent

[1:07:39] that unit. So I do

[1:07:41] have.

[1:07:42] >> Right.

[1:07:42] >> But I like it the

[1:07:44] way it is, is what

[1:07:45] I'm saying.

[1:07:45] >> That's all like an

[1:07:47] execution of rental

[1:07:47] agreement is when the

[1:07:48] tenant signs at that

[1:07:49] point they're signing

[1:07:50] the doc, right? So

[1:07:51] but if, hey, are my

[1:07:52] paychecks coming

[1:07:53] tomorrow and I bring

[1:07:54] the money tomorrow,

[1:07:55] or if they give it to

[1:07:56] us a day early, now

[1:07:57] it's an application

[1:07:58] fee.

[1:07:58] >> Well, no, then

[1:07:59] they can just sign

[1:08:00] the lease a day

[1:08:02] earlier or a day

[1:08:02] later.

[1:08:06] >> So execution is by

[1:08:07] the by the buyer

[1:08:10] because sometimes,

[1:08:12] right.

[1:08:12] >> It would be when

[1:08:13] the tenant signs it

[1:08:14] to.

[1:08:14] >> It's when the

[1:08:15] tenant signs it.

[1:08:16] >> So execution, when

[1:08:17] the tenant signs it,

[1:08:19] it's effective when

[1:08:20] the buyer sign, when

[1:08:21] the when the landlord

[1:08:22] signs it right, it's

[1:08:23] usually getting.

[1:08:24] >> And that is the

[1:08:25] only time based on

[1:08:27] the terminology at

[1:08:28] the execution rental

[1:08:29] agreement is the only

[1:08:30] time they can accept

[1:08:31] the security deposit

[1:08:32] is in that moment

[1:08:33] when they're both

[1:08:33] signing. Not a day

[1:08:34] before, not a day

[1:08:36] after.

[1:08:40] >> As opposed to, in

[1:08:41] accordance with and

[1:08:42] to secure the

[1:08:42] performances in the

[1:08:44] terms. All right.

[1:08:46] Emily.

[1:08:48] >> So I would just

[1:08:49] like to state, the

[1:08:50] reason we actually

[1:08:51] put this in was after

[1:08:52] the first meeting,

[1:08:53] because Aaron had

[1:08:54] raised concerns that

[1:08:55] without the

[1:08:55] application deposit,

[1:08:57] landlords would have

[1:08:57] to go to court in

[1:09:00] order to recoup

[1:09:01] damages. If somebody

[1:09:02] backs out of a lease

[1:09:03] agreement before they

[1:09:04] move in, or if you

[1:09:06] know they're holding

[1:09:06] this, this house for

[1:09:08] months on end, and

[1:09:09] then they back out.

[1:09:10] So we put this in in

[1:09:11] order to clarify that

[1:09:12] landlords can have

[1:09:14] tenants sign a lease

[1:09:15] months in advance and

[1:09:16] can take that

[1:09:17] security deposit at

[1:09:18] the time of lease

[1:09:19] signing so that they

[1:09:20] can use it to recoup

[1:09:21] those damages if

[1:09:22] somebody backs out.

[1:09:23] That was why we put

[1:09:24] this language in the

[1:09:25] definition to clarify

[1:09:26] that that is an

[1:09:26] option. There's

[1:09:29] already other

[1:09:29] language in the bill

[1:09:30] stating that the

[1:09:31] security deposit, the

[1:09:33] security deposit is

[1:09:34] taken at least

[1:09:35] execution. So if we

[1:09:35] want to take it out

[1:09:36] of the definition,

[1:09:38] I'm okay with it. It

[1:09:39] doesn't actually

[1:09:39] change the kind of

[1:09:41] timeline of when fees

[1:09:43] are taken, when

[1:09:43] security deposits are

[1:09:44] taken. Our intention

[1:09:46] was just to clarify,

[1:09:48] you can take the

[1:09:49] security deposit at

[1:09:50] lease lease execution,

[1:09:52] because our

[1:09:53] overarching intent

[1:09:53] with this bill was to

[1:09:55] clarify which fees

[1:09:55] and deposits you can

[1:09:56] take and at which

[1:09:57] times we can take it

[1:09:58] out of the definition.

[1:10:00] And that's totally

[1:10:00] fine with us because

[1:10:02] we have that language

[1:10:03] later on. Clarifying

[1:10:04] what fees and

[1:10:05] deposits can be taken,

[1:10:05] at least execution.

[1:10:07] But that was the

[1:10:07] reason we put it in,

[1:10:09] was to address those

[1:10:10] concerns about

[1:10:11] students. The college

[1:10:12] students. Was the

[1:10:13] example raised, right?

[1:10:14] Who may want to hold

[1:10:15] a unit for months on

[1:10:17] advance so we can

[1:10:18] take it out. It keeps

[1:10:19] them in it. We

[1:10:20] maintain the intent

[1:10:21] later in the bill. So.

[1:10:22] Okay.

[1:10:22] >> So, Mr. Chair,

[1:10:23] that. Sorry, Mr.

[1:10:25] Chair, the I know the

[1:10:26] ones underlined, but

[1:10:27] Aaron has that as an

[1:10:28] alternative. There's

[1:10:29] a definition above it.

[1:10:30] Security deposit

[1:10:30] means any refundable

[1:10:31] deposit of money

[1:10:33] that's furnished to a

[1:10:33] tenant, etc. like, I

[1:10:35] mean, I think that's

[1:10:36] Aaron's preferred

[1:10:38] route. And again, if

[1:10:39] we take that out, I

[1:10:40] think.

[1:10:42] >> Taking it out

[1:10:43] altogether without

[1:10:44] putting in accordance

[1:10:45] with.

[1:10:45] >> And yeah. See the.

[1:10:47] Yeah. Yeah. What.

[1:10:48] Yeah. What was just

[1:10:49] highlighted like that

[1:10:50] one. Like I think

[1:10:51] that's Aaron's

[1:10:51] preferred because,

[1:10:52] but again, if y'all

[1:10:54] are good with in

[1:10:55] accordance to we're

[1:10:56] not going to get held

[1:10:57] up on that.

[1:10:58] >> Okay. All right.

[1:11:00] >> Cool.

[1:11:01] >> Emily. I will take

[1:11:02] Emily's yes for as a

[1:11:03] yes.

[1:11:04] >> Yeah, we can take

[1:11:05] it out. We still

[1:11:06] maintain the intent

[1:11:06] of this language

[1:11:07] later in the bill by

[1:11:08] taking it out. So

[1:11:09] we're fine with that,

[1:11:10] Emily.

[1:11:11] >> And say one more

[1:11:12] minute, it'd be

[1:11:13] really quick. Say one

[1:11:14] more minute and this

[1:11:15] will be really quick

[1:11:16] and we'll see what

[1:11:17] happens.

[1:11:17] >> All right.

[1:11:18] >> And so that was

[1:11:19] that was it from the

[1:11:20] realtors. Anybody

[1:11:21] else have any issues

[1:11:24] again. So I think the

[1:11:27] Jessica's been taking

[1:11:28] notes on the non

[1:11:29] consensus items which

[1:11:30] I'll just flag for

[1:11:30] the commission. And

[1:11:33] there's a little bit

[1:11:34] of drafting I guess

[1:11:35] left to be done. But

[1:11:36] I think we're pretty

[1:11:37] much there. All right.

[1:11:38] I'm going to close

[1:11:39] the turn the page on

[1:11:40] this particular

[1:11:41] section. We're going

[1:11:42] to get this to the

[1:11:43] full commission.

[1:11:45] Hopefully we'll have

[1:11:47] we'll be pretty close

[1:11:48] to a full consensus.

[1:11:49] We can let the full,

[1:11:50] the full group either

[1:11:52] decide to decide or

[1:11:53] not to decide on some

[1:11:54] of the. The areas of

[1:11:55] friction. All right.

[1:11:57] That brings us back

[1:11:58] to HB 1409.

[1:12:02] >> Mr. Chair.

[1:12:04] >> Yes, Emily.

[1:12:05] >> I believe that we

[1:12:06] had one more thing to

[1:12:08] discuss that we

[1:12:08] didn't touch on

[1:12:10] because we were

[1:12:11] discussing the

[1:12:11] realtors concerns,

[1:12:12] but okay, we just had

[1:12:13] I believe the last

[1:12:14] thing to discuss was

[1:12:15] the proposed language

[1:12:16] as related to the

[1:12:17] damage addendum. And

[1:12:19] I think Jessica sent

[1:12:20] that out both in

[1:12:23] August and then

[1:12:24] yesterday as well.

[1:12:25] The proposed language

[1:12:27] related to that

[1:12:28] section.

[1:12:30] >> So 55.11208 I see

[1:12:33] something there.

[1:12:34] >> Yep.

[1:12:34] >> But what lines is

[1:12:35] that in the bill we

[1:12:36] have bill number

[1:12:37] lines or is that.

[1:12:38] >> Let me see. I can

[1:12:39] try to pull up the

[1:12:41] lines.

[1:12:44] >> I can probably

[1:12:45] find it too. If I'm

[1:12:46] going at 12081204.

[1:12:50] All right. Go ahead.

[1:12:53] >> I can present the

[1:12:54] language. Or if I

[1:12:55] didn't know Jessica

[1:12:56] wanted to do that. I

[1:13:00] can present the

[1:13:01] language. So after

[1:13:02] the previous meeting,

[1:13:03] spoke to Patrick and

[1:13:05] we drafted some

[1:13:06] language, a couple of

[1:13:07] different language

[1:13:08] options, which does

[1:13:10] not flat out prohibit

[1:13:12] the usage of damage

[1:13:13] addendums. We

[1:13:14] understand that some

[1:13:15] landlords provide

[1:13:16] these as a way to

[1:13:17] give tenants an idea

[1:13:18] of what charges they

[1:13:19] may incur, should

[1:13:20] they cause physical

[1:13:21] damages. Rather, we

[1:13:22] put in this language

[1:13:23] essentially

[1:13:24] prohibiting that kind

[1:13:25] of language that was

[1:13:26] in the damage

[1:13:27] addendum saying,

[1:13:27] you're going to

[1:13:28] charge, you're going

[1:13:30] to pay either what is

[1:13:31] in this damage

[1:13:32] addendum or the cost

[1:13:33] of materials,

[1:13:34] whatever is greater.

[1:13:35] So that is the intent

[1:13:36] with this language.

[1:13:37] This would ultimately

[1:13:38] fall, I believe,

[1:13:40] probably around line

[1:13:41] 570, which is right

[1:13:42] after that move out

[1:13:44] fee language. So the

[1:13:48] two options presented.

[1:13:50] >> In addition to

[1:13:51] what's the current

[1:13:53] number eight, we

[1:13:55] would add a new

[1:13:56] number nine.

[1:13:58] >> Yes.

[1:13:58] >> Because this is

[1:13:59] that's that's all I

[1:14:00] was trying. This is

[1:14:01] new language. It's

[1:14:02] not amending anything

[1:14:03] that's already there.

[1:14:03] This is a new

[1:14:04] prohibited practice,

[1:14:05] essentially.

[1:14:05] >> Yes. Yeah. So

[1:14:08] these are the two

[1:14:09] options. I don't know

[1:14:10] if members of this

[1:14:11] workgroup had an

[1:14:12] opportunity to review

[1:14:13] those, but the

[1:14:15] intention here is

[1:14:16] just to essentially

[1:14:17] restating what is

[1:14:18] already in the bill.

[1:14:19] And that was what

[1:14:20] already was consensus,

[1:14:21] which is your only

[1:14:23] deducting what is

[1:14:24] necessary to actually

[1:14:25] make those repairs.

[1:14:26] So this is

[1:14:27] essentially just

[1:14:28] restating that to

[1:14:29] ensure that these

[1:14:30] damage addendums are

[1:14:31] not charging outside

[1:14:33] of what is necessary.

[1:14:36] >> I think option two

[1:14:38] works.

[1:14:42] >> Anybody have any

[1:14:43] objections to number

[1:14:44] two?

[1:14:47] >> Aaron had to step

[1:14:48] out for a meeting. We

[1:14:49] didn't get a chance

[1:14:50] to talk about this

[1:14:51] damage on this

[1:14:52] section. I know we

[1:14:53] had a little bit of

[1:14:55] concern when I was

[1:14:56] presented at the last

[1:14:57] meeting. So I don't

[1:14:58] know that we're not

[1:14:59] good with option two,

[1:15:00] but she didn't tell

[1:15:01] me explicitly we are

[1:15:02] okay with it. So I

[1:15:03] just kind of have to

[1:15:04] reserve back on that.

[1:15:05] >> Option two seems

[1:15:06] to include a little

[1:15:07] more stuff that you

[1:15:08] can do. So yeah, and

[1:15:11] this is those that

[1:15:12] say, and I've seen

[1:15:13] this in some leases

[1:15:14] that say, if the

[1:15:15] carpet's too dirty,

[1:15:16] you're going to pay

[1:15:17] 500 bucks for carpet

[1:15:18] cleaning, like when

[1:15:19] you sign the lease.

[1:15:20] And if we determine

[1:15:21] that there's floor,

[1:15:22] you know, filling

[1:15:25] picture holes on the

[1:15:26] wall will be $25 per

[1:15:27] picture hole or

[1:15:28] something like that.

[1:15:28] Right. You guys are

[1:15:29] saying you can't do

[1:15:30] that anymore.

[1:15:31] >> Yes. We're saying

[1:15:32] that you can provide

[1:15:33] an estimate, but you

[1:15:34] can't charge a fee

[1:15:36] that is not matched

[1:15:36] the cost of making

[1:15:37] those repairs.

[1:15:39] >> Gotcha. So

[1:15:41] estimated but not I.

[1:15:42] Gotcha. All right.

[1:15:43] >> That's good.

[1:15:44] >> Okay. All right.

[1:15:48] Now I think we're

[1:15:49] going to turn away

[1:15:50] from this bill. I'm

[1:15:51] looking for hands. I

[1:15:52] don't see any. Hands

[1:15:53] up. Alright. We got

[1:15:55] about 20 minutes left

[1:15:56] or so. I don't know

[1:15:58] how much time you all

[1:15:59] budgeted for this

[1:16:00] meeting. Some of you

[1:16:01] only are gone, so

[1:16:02] some of you only did

[1:16:03] an hour. The HB 1409.

[1:16:05] Where, where did we

[1:16:05] leave that? Is there

[1:16:06] any chance of getting

[1:16:07] to a consensus on

[1:16:08] this bill?

[1:16:10] >> Can I.

[1:16:11] >> Go, Jessica?

[1:16:11] >> Go ahead, go ahead.

[1:16:13] >> Sorry.

[1:16:13] >> We did not leave

[1:16:15] really in any sort of

[1:16:17] position in the last

[1:16:17] couple of meetings. I

[1:16:18] think that we're

[1:16:19] still very far apart.

[1:16:20] So staff didn't have

[1:16:21] much to go on as far

[1:16:22] as direction for this

[1:16:24] one. So yeah, just to

[1:16:26] set the conversation

[1:16:27] there.

[1:16:28] >> Christy, if I may,

[1:16:29] the one thing that I

[1:16:30] took away from our

[1:16:32] last discussion of

[1:16:33] this that Christy

[1:16:34] Kelly put out there

[1:16:36] that I thought was

[1:16:37] really helpful, was

[1:16:38] the distinction

[1:16:39] between those

[1:16:41] services and extra

[1:16:42] fees a tenant would

[1:16:44] opt into, because

[1:16:45] they are not included

[1:16:47] in the landlord's

[1:16:48] general obligation to

[1:16:50] maintain the unit in

[1:16:51] a habitable condition

[1:16:52] versus those that are

[1:16:55] included in that

[1:16:57] definition, which the

[1:16:58] tenant could not be

[1:16:59] charged extra for,

[1:17:01] which are mandatory

[1:17:03] already under the law.

[1:17:04] I don't know if we

[1:17:05] can there, but I

[1:17:07] think that

[1:17:08] distinction was

[1:17:08] really helpful.

[1:17:10] >> Right. I think we

[1:17:11] also probably agreed

[1:17:12] that ten was this

[1:17:15] little moment of ten

[1:17:15] was the one that

[1:17:16] required some more

[1:17:17] input from some other

[1:17:18] stakeholders. All

[1:17:19] right. Well, I don't

[1:17:20] think we're going to

[1:17:21] get there today. I'm

[1:17:22] sorry. I wish we had

[1:17:23] again, unless

[1:17:24] anybody's come up

[1:17:25] with a breakthrough

[1:17:26] that gets everybody

[1:17:26] on board and we may

[1:17:28] have to just go back.

[1:17:30] And I mean, we've

[1:17:31] done a lot of time

[1:17:32] and effort on fees

[1:17:33] and junk fees here on

[1:17:34] this particular bill

[1:17:35] for SB 349, I think,

[1:17:36] you know, given where

[1:17:37] we are in the

[1:17:38] calendar, you know,

[1:17:39] we can continue it

[1:17:40] again, you know, for

[1:17:41] further conversations

[1:17:43] next year. But I

[1:17:44] think we're probably

[1:17:44] in a position to

[1:17:45] report. I just don't

[1:17:46] think there's any

[1:17:47] real value in us

[1:17:48] going through and

[1:17:49] trying to nitpick it,

[1:17:50] because I think we're

[1:17:51] probably too far

[1:17:52] apart there. So

[1:17:52] anybody have any

[1:17:53] disagreement? I think

[1:17:54] we're close enough to

[1:17:55] make it worth a

[1:17:56] longer discussion.

[1:17:58] Alright. I think we

[1:17:59] heard the answer

[1:17:59] there or didn't hear

[1:18:00] it. Right. So with

[1:18:03] that is there, unless

[1:18:05] there's any more

[1:18:06] business to come

[1:18:06] before the whatever

[1:18:09] we are working group.

[1:18:13] Jessica.

[1:18:15] >> Apologies. Real

[1:18:15] quick, I would love

[1:18:17] potentially

[1:18:17] volunteers for a

[1:18:18] small group to

[1:18:18] workshop that section

[1:18:19] just on our Zoom

[1:18:21] meeting virtual of

[1:18:22] your time. So I'd

[1:18:24] love to email all the

[1:18:25] people who were

[1:18:25] involved in that

[1:18:26] conversation and set

[1:18:27] up a, a separate

[1:18:28] conversation from

[1:18:28] here to wordsmith

[1:18:29] that language. We can

[1:18:30] all get to a point of

[1:18:32] agreement, hopefully

[1:18:32] to present to the

[1:18:33] full commission in

[1:18:34] November just to

[1:18:35] speed up that process.

[1:18:36] So we're not all

[1:18:37] emailing back and

[1:18:37] forth.

[1:18:38] >> And when you guys

[1:18:39] get to something that

[1:18:40] you all feel like

[1:18:41] within your smaller

[1:18:42] group is, is a

[1:18:43] consensus. If you get

[1:18:44] it out to us again

[1:18:45] just before the

[1:18:46] presentation. So I

[1:18:46] don't want anybody to

[1:18:47] be looking at that

[1:18:48] language for the

[1:18:49] first time when I

[1:18:50] present it to the

[1:18:51] full commission. So

[1:18:52] the idea would be to

[1:18:53] be transparent about

[1:18:54] it. Okay. Absolutely.

[1:18:55] >> Yeah.

[1:18:55] >> All right, all

[1:18:56] right. Thank you

[1:18:57] everybody. Thanks for

[1:18:58] all your hard work.

[1:18:59] And I hope I didn't

[1:19:00] get too testy about

[1:19:01] it. All right. We'll

[1:19:03] talk

Virginia Housing Commission Fees in Residential Rental Agreements Workgroup

Transcript