Committee signals unfavorable position on amendment to H.772 that would enable local just-cause eviction ordinances

The House Government Operations & Military Affairs committee took a position Friday on an amendment to H.772 that would cap security deposits, permit municipalities to adopt just‑cause eviction ordinances (including via a voter opt‑in under Title 24), and incorporate charter language for Burlington, Winooski and Essex.

Representative Kate Logan, the amendment’s sponsor, told the committee that Burlington and other rental‑dense municipalities urgently need tools to prevent no‑cause evictions and ease severe rent burdens. “More than half of our residents are renters … most of the people living in rentals in Burlington pay more than 50% of their income for their rent,” Logan said, arguing the amendment would let cities implement protections the sponsor said the state has not provided.

Legislative Council staff walked the panel through the amendment’s provisions. Cameron Wood said the measure’s first instance would cap security deposits at two months’ rent in addition to first month’s rent and would require landlords to return half of the deposit 45 days before a no‑cause termination; the bill would also authorize limited municipal ordinances that are "supplemental to and not inconsistent with" the statute (section 4461, Title 24). Wood said later instances of the amendment would enact charter changes modeled on language voters approved in Burlington and proposed language for Winooski and Essex.

The amendment would also include an opt‑in mechanism in Title 24 allowing either a municipality’s legislative body or its voters to authorize an ordinance adopting just‑cause eviction protections; the draft adds neutral ballot language so the question presented to voters would focus on authority to adopt eviction procedures rather than political framing.

Members pressed for definitions and exemptions. A committee member asked whether terms such as “reasonable probationary period,” “limit unreasonable rent increases” and “reasonable and adequate notice” were defined; Wood said those items were the subject of prior negotiations and that earlier House action once limited probationary periods to a maximum of one year. Wood also described carveouts the amendment would require for owner‑occupied duplexes and triplexes, properties withdrawn from the rental market (including owner or immediate family occupancy), and dwellings needing substantial renovation that preclude occupancy.

Committee members expressed procedural concerns about folding municipal charter changes into a bill on residential rental agreements and said the broader landlord‑tenant policy work belongs in House General and Housing so the issue can be vetted more fully. Several members said they were uneasy both about inserting charter language into another bill and about the lack of recent direct municipal engagement on the current text.

The committee’s chair moved to find the amendment unfavorable and conducted a thumbs‑up straw poll; the chair reported the committee’s unfavorable position to be recorded and said the committee would report that position to the floor. The transcript does not record a formal roll‑call vote or a clear numeric tally for the straw poll.

Next steps: H.772 remains alive in the Senate, and the committee said it will report its unfavorable recommendation on this amendment to the floor. If the amendment or the underlying bill advances, the changes would affect existing leases moving forward and include the statutory references and municipal opt‑in mechanism described by Legislative Council staff.