Committee reviews proposal for two-year pilot to report positive rental payments to credit bureaus

The Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on April 29 considered a State Treasurer's Office proposal to create a two-year pilot program allowing participating landlords to have tenants' on-time rent payments reported to consumer credit reporting agencies.

The pilot, as presented by Becky Wasserman of the State Treasurer's Office, would contract with a third-party administrator, recruit up to 10 landlords and at least 100 tenants, and cover landlords' per-tenant fees during the two-year period. The office is seeking a $100,000 appropriation to fund administration and to pay the small monthly reporting fees for participating landlords during the pilot.

Wasserman said the treasurer's office studied the idea after a legislative request last year (Act 181) and "we would recommend being able to facilitate such a pilot." She told the committee the office modeled the proposal on a Colorado pilot and vendor practices elsewhere.

Committee members and witnesses pressed the proposal's limits and possible market effects. Senator Randy Brock raised concerns about selective reporting, saying "it is only reporting selectively those things that are positive," and warned that a system showing only positive rental payments could distort credit-file accuracy. Other members asked whether credit-reporting firms such as Experian or TransUnion would accept data that omits negative events.

Peter Butcher of the Realtors association said landlords' reporting could be "the most beneficial outcome," while Chris Deolio, president of the Vermont Bankers Association, called the measure worth trying as a pilot but urged care so that credit reports remain accurate: "I think it's a pilot program. I would agree it's probably worth taking a look at," he said, adding that both positive and negative information ideally should be visible to lenders.

Wasserman described implementation details drawn from the draft bill language shown by legislative counsel Cameron Wood. The draft would require the treasurer to contract with a third-party administrator by May 1, 2026; the contractor would recruit no more than 10 property owners and, to the extent practicable, at least 100 tenants, prioritizing populations underserved in homeownership and geographically diverse rental stock. The contractor would also offer an optional financial-education course to participating tenants.

The draft specifies that participating property owners must agree to participate for the program's duration and may not charge tenants for participation during the pilot. Contractors must establish a standard consent form and may allow tenants to cease participation at any time.

Wasserman said landlord interest in the idea appears promising: the office surveyed 67 landlords who manage from one to 1,500 rental units; respondents indicated about 1,400 units in total and reported 10 landlords that already submit positive rental-payment information. Of the 57 landlords who did not already report, 48 said they would be open to trying it if the cost were "low or negligible."

The committee examined reported results from Colorado's pilot, which the treasurer's report cites: at the pilot's end, 55% of participating tenants had a positive credit-score band change; the average starting credit score was 570 and the average ending score was 632. Committee members noted those results but also questioned how Colorado handled reporting of late or missed payments; witnesses said Colorado's implementation limited reporting to positive payments.

Members debated operational details: whether tenants who later missed payments would be disenrolled, whether future landlords could see prior disenrollments, and what grace periods would apply. The draft sets no specific grace period in the text shown but staff said unenrollment after repeated missed payments (three in Colorado's practice) is an option to consider.

Cost and who would pay long-term drew repeated questions. The treasurer's office proposed using a $100,000 appropriation for the pilot and to pay the monthly per-user fees (estimated in other jurisdictions at $1 to $5 per user per month) during the two-year pilot; California law cited by members caps landlord charges to tenants at $10 per month in statewide programs. Committee members said the legislature would decide later whether landlords, tenants or the state would pay if the program moved beyond the pilot.

Committee members agreed to seek additional vendor and credit-agency input before making a final decision. The chair asked the treasurer's office to follow up with vendors and the major credit bureaus about whether those bureaus would accept data limited to positive rental-payment information and to report back; the committee did not take final action on the bill language on April 29.

The treasurer's draft also includes reporting and oversight requirements: an interim report to the legislature in November 2027 and a final report in November 2028 with demographic breakdowns and program outcomes. The statute language shown by legislative counsel also allows the treasurer to terminate the program at any time.

At the close of the discussion, the committee deferred a vote and instructed staff to obtain vendor and credit-bureau confirmation and to return with any revised language later in the week for further consideration.