[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6268545,"mediaKeyId","3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738","parentId",3055193,"title","Senate committee weighs H.479 revisions, keeps 5-year grant set-aside and clarifies VHIP rules","audioSeconds",1988,"startMs",352000,"endMs",2340000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738&start=352&end=2340","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738/thumbnail_352000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6268545/Vermont/Senate-committee-weighs-H479-revisions-keeps-5-year-grant-set-aside-and-clarifies-VHIP-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268545-d6342dbf3ab3854cc72dbe94c812ec26/orig.mp4?Expires=1770742459&Signature=PuFzPq~CfISeYEpc6wVhbpj~~nkkYMdvbmbPlT5S3ley21vgSP9Hql7-UEVEBTjMndfEVHh5fKQOicQGEQKOANPVEWxDs8rB2diX9A8xoOBN23Bqxz9Syc3MaxowtiSu4RVK6EvvldmzponzIOutHVocxkQfNhgvusVTwiGN5tH8pxKrRe8sAqNU3rp97P2MJh6mXftAbVQW0i~BMnEFmTJguNRawNXxHd2yyE2eL1Sq--OZGkqzyMotU1er37Ozoc6Yo2HBwGSVsKzndrAGg5cqaBdVN-hpUHNqT7QltOdbhBc0E~vYSiRFU~lAZ5TI4RHEGqD9L7dpefJ0gIOnrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-19T00:13:59.79Z","article","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 18 reviewed differences between the House and Senate versions of H.479 and discussed detailed changes to the Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP). Committee counsel and Department of Housing and Community Development staff described how the versions differ on forgivable‑loan options, eligibility requirements and a department set‑aside for shorter compliance grants.

The committee focused on three near‑term, actionable items: whether to retain the House’s 5‑year forgivable‑loan option, whether to require landlords participating in VHIP to accept housing choice vouchers, and how to structure a department set‑aside for grants. “There are technically three options … a grant, a five‑year forgivable loan, or a 10‑year forgivable loan,” Sean Gilpin, director of the Housing Division at the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the committee. He described the program’s original design (instituted in statute in 2022) and how recent amendments changed compliance periods and tenant‑selection requirements.

The Senate draft described by counsel would remove the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and let landlords choose either a grant (with five‑year affordability/tenant requirements) or a 10‑year forgivable loan (with 10‑year affordability requirements). The House version retains the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and adds an annual department requirement to reserve a minimum percentage of funds for grants or five‑year loans. Committee members flagged that the House language includes a minimum set‑aside of 30% for five‑year grants; staff and Gilpin said current uptake on the five‑year pathway is roughly 30–35% of awarded funds, so a 30% set‑aside “is probably about right,” but the committee discussed trigger language to reallocate unused set‑aside funds more quickly than the bill’s one‑year fallback.

Committee counsel and staff proposed a shorter automatic reallocation trigger (for example, unused set‑aside funds becoming available after nine or ten months, rather than 12) to avoid leaving funds idle late in a fiscal year. Gilpin described program operations: applications are handled regionally by five homeownership centers; an award decision typically occurs within six weeks after a completed application; projects generally complete between nine and 18 months (the program allows up to 18 months, with limited extensions); the average VHIP award is about $38,000; and the program requires a minimum 20% private match (though staff said actual matches often differ in practice).

The committee also discussed reinstating statutory language that requires landlords participating in the 10‑year program to accept housing vouchers. Counsel recommended retaining the voucher‑acceptance provision to give clear direction to landlords, even if federal or other state anti‑discrimination rules might already prohibit voucher denial. The committee agreed to reinstate that language.

Other technical items covered: whether to label returned or repaid funds a “revolving fund” (counsel said the heading is drafting style and can be renamed), clarifying that grants for up to $30,000 cover units up to three bedrooms and up to $50,000 for three‑plus bedrooms or new units (including ADUs or conversions), and keeping quarterly online reporting while the House asked for an annual report; staff said a web dashboard and interactive map are being deployed to display awards and unit locations.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the discussion. Members asked staff to prepare side‑by‑side language that: (1) retains voucher acceptance language; (2) preserves the House set‑aside but adds a shorter reallocation trigger (e.g., nine or ten months); and (3) clarifies headings and revolving‑fund language. Staff and counsel agreed to return with revised text and suggested drafting for the natural‑disaster/climate‑displacement language, and to coordinate with the Agency of Digital Services on the public dashboard.

Why it matters: VHIP is the state’s program to rehabilitate vacant, blighted or noncompliant properties and bring them back into the rental market with affordability requirements attached to grants or forgivable loans. Changes to compliance periods, set‑asides and tenant prioritization affect how much of the program’s funding will serve households exiting homelessness, refugees or other prioritized groups versus serving units at fair‑market rent available to voucher holders.

The committee scheduled follow‑up work: finalizing a side‑by‑side reconciliation of H.479, confirming statutory language on voucher acceptance, and drafting clearer language on the natural‑disaster criterion used to prioritize applicants.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Economic Development - 2025-04-18-9:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 18 reviewed differences between the House and Senate versions of H.479 and discussed detailed changes to the Vermont Housing Improvement Program, including whether to retain a five‑year forgivable‑loan option, voucher acceptance requirements and a 30% set‑aside for five‑year grants.","taxTitle","Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",37662,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6268535,"Treasurer’s office updates committee on Vermont Saves auto‑IRA rollout; enrollment and outreach remain priorities",1284,4020000,5304000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738&start=4020&end=5304","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738/thumbnail_4020000.jpg","/articles/6268535/Vermont/Treasurers-office-updates-committee-on-Vermont-Saves-autoIRA-rollout-enrollment-and-outreach-remain-priorities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268535-8872995a7b221a4f61c38dbc5ea96c85/orig.mp4?Expires=1770742459&Signature=Z3QIRWsovLit9MvY48Ta2N4KVV-lv~BjM7i6jP5QL67TsgAP-Jw~Jk7CrgrJb02y9QYB7wpQKgi4QZ~WeXvH6l~PcDvGpNeqkeieFEW78MS7LgtQOCZezS3xo5Cbf9n1suFpTxVTtspk5xWlXShPdgVJRbsdaTtGeuRHjCMbHgRQ7dM70LWOztOfGMRxypPIoZ-ooLndtBreXTVXSgMN3APP~fl8ENosncOUwsRmpOgArNhmzTPx~6QW-nU7ceE~5MrQ3O69NuxcU2AhcTi4woeECy6owTgWhLRSkxUbFBS3UEhcmI5VULN1g93~gNSHZsiz2NNkU9zqhl~lHbctkA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","State Treasurer’s Office staff briefed the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 18 about Vermont Saves, the state’s auto‑IRA program for workers whose employers do not offer workplace retirement plans, and about related policy work on baby bonds and rental payment reporting.

Becky Wasserman of the Treasurer’s Office (presenting the item) said Vermont Saves requires employers with five or more employees who do not offer a retirement plan to register and automatically enroll eligible employees in a Roth IRA with an opt‑out. Eligible workers must be 18 or older and have a Social Security number or ITIN. The program launched a pilot in October, opened to the public December 1 and had an official enrollment period through February; the treasurer’s staff are now following up with employers who have not engaged.

Early program metrics reported to the committee: roughly 1,622 funded employee accounts as of the update, about 1,300 additional accounts in the pending 30‑day decision window, and about 1,000 employers registered or otherwise responded (the office reported a roughly 53% response rate among employers initially contacted). Treasurer’s staff estimated approximately 75,000–85,000 Vermonters lack access to workplace retirement plans—an estimate used to justify the program’s public‑good rationale.

Default rules: automatic enrollment at a 5% deduction with an auto‑escalation provision of 1% per year up to 8% (staff proposed raising the statutory maximum auto‑escalation cap to 10% to align with federal changes and consortium practice); initial deposits are held in a capital‑preservation money‑market vehicle for 30 days before being placed into a target‑date suite if the employee takes no action. The treasurer explained employees may opt out by visiting the portal or by calling a support line; employers and staff noted some constituents were surprised by automatic enrollment and suggested more outreach and clearer onboarding communications. The treasurer’s office is part of a multistate consortium (Colorado, Delaware, Maine and others) that operates similar auto‑IRA programs.

Committee members asked how many employees opted out versus stayed in; staff said current figures categorize employers’ responses and that employee opt‑out rates were about 25–30% of those receiving enrollment notices in early data, while noting timing lags between employer registration, the 30‑day employee decision window and first payroll deductions. Members urged additional targeted outreach, clearer employer communications and potentially another enrollment push.

Wasserman also summarized requested statutory amendments: allow account holders to hold both Roth and traditional IRAs in the program so participants can receive forthcoming federal matches under Secure 2 (which places matching funds into traditional accounts), clarify employer eligibility language so businesses that no longer offer a plan may enroll, and increase the auto‑escalation cap. The treasurer’s office said it will continue outreach, refine marketing and provide updated enrollment metrics to the committee. Committee members asked the treasurer’s office to return with more detailed opt‑in/opt‑out statistics and additional outreach plans.","State treasurer’s staff briefed the Senate committee on the Vermont Saves auto‑IRA program rollout, providing early enrollment figures, default parameters, proposed statutory tweaks and outreach plans; committee members raised concerns about opt‑out implementation and requested more employee opt‑in/opt‑out data.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6268540,"Michigan land‑bank official tells Vermont committee statewide or state‑supported model can help rural communities",1314,2411000,3725000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738&start=2411&end=3725","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3055193-283d82109b2ea1c797482fead2602738/thumbnail_2411000.jpg","/articles/6268540/Vermont/Michigan-landbank-official-tells-Vermont-committee-statewide-or-statesupported-model-can-help-rural-communities","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6268540-cfcbe6c61fdeb8bf0a191763ae3a3a82/orig.mp4?Expires=1770742459&Signature=MHQj-UxqEtvQ5ZTGlez3gFKZY8lfYKyb27nw6t4K8SMFkRX41ZXYQk6pwsWib8BDR-0PgwysAQaT3qkWXwcNnGy3wdxXnyWmxMaa6dZEXTmhZT8fwL68~~5pyhmS5sEW6fDIzydPLesKM8HuBbwPE66k81jLKtFaxIHv8kDGctcMrpdqbkpQAFC5rEeoOMusxZk9RlvJ5dsH0SreqC2vQBtUamO4UvypY1yYxH97am~i6mLpXvxJ5cU39cV2Ci6yim5YhQDrJEu3OOQ0PpX638MoU100BYVObAOMGq1OmN4TUiaZva-RgHk2PqRgO6i3e4spe-VAqu6hat-ylrYblA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee heard testimony on April 18 about land banks and options for Vermont, led by James (Jim) Tishler, who runs Michigan’s state land bank.

Tishler told the committee that land banks are public or quasi‑public entities that acquire, clear title to, and rehabilitate or transfer blighted, contaminated or abandoned properties to productive uses. He described Michigan’s experience: a state‑level land bank created by statute in 2003, an initial funding mechanism generated by sale of transferred state parcels producing about $2 million, an inventory of roughly 2,600 properties statewide, and a funding tool where half of property taxes on sold properties are diverted to the land bank for five years (a “5‑year, 50%” tax capture mechanism). Michigan pairs land banking with project‑based tax increment financing (TIF) to underwrite predevelopment and due‑diligence costs.

“Land banking is excellent,” Tishler said, but its effectiveness depends on capacity: rural areas often need state involvement to support local projects. He said typical timelines vary: properties ready for development can move in two to three years; redevelopment and brownfield remediation can take five years or longer. Tishler estimated Michigan had moved roughly 500 properties to productive reuse and generated multiyear, multi‑million‑dollar valuation increases, and said job creation from those projects runs into the hundreds.

Committee members asked implementation questions: how properties enter a land bank (tax foreclosure, environmental enforcement or transfers), whether eminent domain is used (Michigan’s constitution prohibits taking property via eminent domain for this purpose), and how initial funding was sourced. Tishler summarized Michigan’s approach: a combination of property transfers, foreclosure inventories and sale proceeds; legislative authorization for tax capture on subsequent sales; and project‑based TIF as a complementary funding source.

The bill text the committee reviewed asks the Department of Housing and Community Development to produce a report by November 1 that would propose legislative language for a statewide land bank, options for regional or municipal land banks and funding proposals for each model. Committee members said the department’s earlier studies had described the benefits of land banks but did not include specific legislative proposals. The committee asked Tishler and department staff to continue the conversation and for staff to summarize options and draft legislative language in the requested report.

Why it matters: land banks can help towns remedy title problems, consolidate and rehabilitate blighted properties, and generate housing and economic development—particularly in regions where local capacity or funding is limited. The committee signaled it wants a formal analysis comparing statewide and regional models and potential funding tools before deciding whether to proceed with authorizing legislation.","James Tishler, who runs Michigan's state land bank, told the Vermont Senate committee that a state‑level land bank can provide capacity, funding tools and technical assistance to help towns repurpose blighted and tax‑foreclosed properties; he described Michigan’s funding model and recommended the department return legislative options.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate committee weighs H.479 revisions, keeps 5-year grant set-aside and clarifies VHIP rules

Treasurer’s office updates committee on Vermont Saves auto‑IRA rollout; enrollment and outreach remain priorities

Michigan land‑bank official tells Vermont committee statewide or state‑supported model can help rural communities