[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