[{"_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",6221657,"mediaKeyId","3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb","parentId",3611727,"title","House narrows but‑for exemption and raises housing floor‑area threshold in conference text for S.127","audioSeconds",59,"startMs",544550,"endMs",604520,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb&start=544&end=604","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb/thumbnail_544550.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6221657/Vermont/House-narrows-butfor-exemption-and-raises-housing-floorarea-threshold-in-conference-text-for-S127","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221657-552c7db8ed9a4c70414829f9c4e8d4cf/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135144&Signature=UfpqhzHiOTjaQRiR0N7MW9v9q9zcaJJX3oXsbrSiTZ0IQtfdk~YysvF66sgCfSXrMFLLjqkTsdJasoj4~ooj4dNEK-BePQv6L1~S2npGs4GcRcHkF2vG2de4bHjt4yr-EDHs1k8PpCpJYeE4kUjKrJQ8mDMWbGdENgCbX1lN6UFpbbF-FdBlsTN7w8uipwBkv5dAWEyIfewdsBOJRZ4H12SslSoGZ4RB4o~7mLmPAxtArF3SRRkW74sqUDq5E9ipHQ0AAEAfwST1x3HnavEHg2-POLC5QU5DpbZkDLJ4NSwPkp8lwa56Azd5H-BSUi-GOoJetftm2RkOqzzN5OeQEg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-05-30T17:21:27.453Z","article","During the Jan. 27 House–Senate conference on S.127, staff summarized changes to the bill’s eligibility tests for projects seeking incremental retention and other program benefits.

John Gray, Office of Legislative Council, told conferees the House is proposing to exempt only “affordable housing developments” — not moderate‑income housing developments — from the but‑for test. Gray described the but‑for test discussion as a point of negotiation between House and Senate proposals.

On project criteria, the House conference text raises a floor‑area threshold: where the Senate had proposed a 51% threshold and the House had earlier proposed 65%, the House counteroffer now proposes 60% as the threshold for “mostly housing.” Gray said the draft also retains an alternative, flexible determination for projects that meaningfully address housing even if they do not meet the floor‑area percentage, which accommodates common mixed‑use configurations (for example commercial on the ground floor with residential above).

Committee participants noted that a 60% floor‑area requirement is intended to ensure a project is “mostly housing” while preserving flexibility for rural or mixed‑use developments.

The conference discussion did not record any final vote in the excerpt provided; conferees agreed to continue refining language and to circulate updated drafts.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","S.127 Committee of Conference – 2025-05-29 – 2:10PM","oneSentenceSummary","Legislative counsel said the House proposal narrows an exemption from the but‑for test to affordable housing developments only and raises the project floor‑area threshold to 60%, while preserving a flexible alternative test for mixed‑use configurations.","taxTitle","General & Housing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30954,"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},6221663,"Conference draft keeps incremental tax‑retention cap, sets five‑year review and new annual reporting for S.127",400,739030,1139080,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb&start=739&end=1139","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb/thumbnail_739030.jpg","/articles/6221663/Vermont/Conference-draft-keeps-incremental-taxretention-cap-sets-fiveyear-review-and-new-annual-reporting-for-S127","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221663-6e3777815cc9b4de1d820032cb2b6661/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135144&Signature=m7nhguWURwmKoZ6jiMqFH2YouGq2NmmxdjzUDmVKfaZD2Rk5wKeU2LQQ~soqpJw2bsR2PJhWuloSQy7AhLaB4tIoEkF5oXTcSxQGoJHPY02BhNtge-Kzy9BWQ519X85G3PTFQRDfVF~OKy1YA2PwVGOBshfidANlMkW6JkAE42MfUhy14v3d49dOZpdX-kofS~xfdmxhDCK7FWVrK7xZm9XoXbMqumUHR3FgTBxOaxbmEgxAeKjXgRiaDVyPgwZj7-N~9MQklYqP6szekBTHx93s~2OaFn5-FBBHQLh5BPyc1hCrmwNFTax6cwsj2-mquCE3RQ~cSUryDO-Wt0oVOw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Conference committee discussion of S.127 on Jan. 27 left a cap on incremental retention in place in the House counteroffer and added several implementation provisions, committee participants said.

The House draft proposes that the cap remain but asks the administering agency to return to the committees of jurisdiction after the program’s first years with a recommendation on an appropriate limit based on actual annual approvals. Committee staff said the text also contains a $5 million “booster” available if the agency (referred to in the transcript as “Pepsi/Vepcie”) finds the cap insufficient.

Speakers argued over how the cap affects broader revenue flows. One committee member said, “30% of something is better than 0%,” urging that incremental retention that supports housing can still increase consumption taxes that benefit the education fund. Other members said they remain concerned the cap could limit housing growth and suggested exempting affordable and moderate projects, but committee staff said that full exemption was not included in the offer presented at the conference.

The conference draft raises the standard project increment‑retention rate to 70% and makes portable projects eligible for 80%, according to the staff summary; this is a change from earlier House positions (65%/80%) and from other proposals that suggested 75%/90%.

The draft also adds a reporting requirement: the agency’s annual report must include the aggregate lifetime education and property tax increment retention approved in that year, a figure intended to make clear how much lifetime retention the committee is authorizing in a single year. Committee members discussed whether that reporting could be folded into existing TIF reports and concluded it could be done later in the TIF reporting process.

Finally, staff said the House proposal aligns the TIF district sunset with the CHIP final application deadline now listed in the conference draft as 02/1935 (conference transcript notation). The conferees did not record a final vote in the provided excerpt; staff said co‑chairs would continue circulating edits.","The House counteroffer retains a cap on incremental tax retention, includes a five‑year review, a $5 million booster option and asks for annual reporting of aggregate lifetime education and property tax increment retention approved in the year.",{"_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},6221668,"House conference text applies same durational primary‑residence rule to owner‑occupied and rental housing",253,48125,302055,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb&start=48&end=302","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3611727-f7b6f254f117f49760b0ffa66df360bb/thumbnail_48125.jpg","/articles/6221668/Vermont/House-conference-text-applies-same-durational-primaryresidence-rule-to-owneroccupied-and-rental-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6221668-97776aa7deaba26a7f2c53640f98f4c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135144&Signature=oRswtJVjcYdpnMd~wndmNiPD2h~puoXygvJsB29Il-jKWmRbGvuyCtRCb59UwAjds0-1J-XaA957FmoLwCt7SqwwDoy7dMkBwlkTinu4LxSsRxSYfohJtLwEfrsk6uZ7X4E90q0D3np74Bhil9VkJDmYQTiXczTC1DFVicO8Wf9ArJ6c~rEDeCPKaj5QMuF~22fR1GJFPoKAIc4ZaMC5NdQR6ArpkqaOfAeAA84W351WsvAoJCZuo3K9zJdPYoo3baHTsw0rM1Ipsbe31hRceNMovHW~ggKA4UOviaMsiiCoZG8s-00b0krsdvl7U2vQByFM3Ha0r7gGByxsev8YKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","In the Jan. 27 House–Senate conference on S.127, John Gray of the Office of Legislative Council said the House is proposing that any housing unit subject to a housing infrastructure agreement be offered exclusively as a primary residence “until all indebtedness for the housing infrastructure project of which that housing development is part has been retired.”

The provision replaces an earlier two‑pronged approach that treated owner‑occupied and rental housing differently by applying the same durational requirement to both categories, Gray said. The change appears in the conference draft’s housing infrastructure agreement section and is intended to match the durational test the Senate had proposed for rental housing.

Committee members said the conference language gives municipalities options for how to satisfy and enforce the requirement. Under the House text, a municipality may elect to require a covenant that “runs with the land” in a developer contract, or the municipality can adopt an ordinance to enforce primary‑residence conditions. Gray noted the covenant option was included to provide a mechanism that binds future owners without requiring the municipality to enact an ordinance.

Committee members discussed administrative proof of primary residency. One member said the current practical method used in property‑transfer tax filings — a landlord certificate or homestead declaration — is the only reliable verification mechanism the state currently uses to check that a unit is not a second home. The conference draft therefore preserves language allowing the condition to be satisfied by such documentation.

Speakers also flagged enforcement questions. Committee remarks clarified that a municipality could enforce the covenant if a neighbor complains and that a private enforcement mechanism might also exist; the transcript shows participants debating whether enforcement should be exclusively municipal or allow private rights of action.

No formal vote was recorded in the conference call excerpt. Committee staff said they would circulate additional revised language and that further review would occur when the co‑chairs reconvened.

The discussion on primary‑residence requirements occurred during the House–Senate conference on S.127 and was procedural: committee participants described the conference draft language and the enforcement options being retained or clarified.","Conference committee staff said the House counteroffer to the Senate would require that units in housing infrastructure agreements be offered as primary residences until project indebtedness is retired, and would allow municipalities flexibility on enforcement mechanisms.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House narrows but‑for exemption and raises housing floor‑area threshold in conference text for S.127

Conference draft keeps incremental tax‑retention cap, sets five‑year review and new annual reporting for S.127

House conference text applies same durational primary‑residence rule to owner‑occupied and rental housing