Senate committee reviews omnibus housing bill; House kept 5‑year loan option and added 30% set‑aside

Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs reviewed the housing omnibus (H.479), comparing the committee’s draft with the version passed by the House and noting several substantive policy and appropriation differences.

The committee opened by agreeing to work from the bill as introduced to identify points that need further testimony, then run through items stripped by House Ways and Means and Appropriations. "For the record, Cameron Wood, office of legislative council. What I'm sharing is side by side comparison. Again, this is draft," said Cameron Wood, identifying the document the committee used.

Why it matters: the differences affect how rehabilitation funds are delivered and which households are prioritized. The House kept a five‑year forgivable loan option targeted to households exiting homelessness and required the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) to set a minimum annual allocation to serve those populations; the Senate draft removed the five‑year option and emphasized 10‑year forgivable loans tied to HUD fair market rent.

Key details and committee discussion

- Rental Housing Improvement Program: The House version preserves a five‑year forgivable loan option and grants that would require landlords to reserve units for specified populations (for example, people exiting homelessness or those displaced by climate events). The Senate draft removes the five‑year option and relies on grants or 10‑year forgivable loans with conditions that units remain at HUD fair market rent.

- 30% minimum set‑aside: The House added a statutory minimum that DHCD "shall establish a minimum allocation funding set aside to be used for the 5 year grants or forgivable loans to serve eligible households pursuant to subsection E." The committee discussed a 30% floor in committee drafts and asked DHCD and the Agency of Human Services for data on the capacity of landlords to take those units. The committee noted the House language contemplates annual consultation with AHS and local coordinated entry agencies and allows unused set‑aside funds to be made available for 10‑year loans the following year.

- Reporting and data: The House added annual reporting requirements asking DHCD to report units funded, rehabilitated, post‑lease outcomes for tenants in grant/forgivable‑loan units, rent charged after 10‑year terms expire, and turnover rates. Committee members stressed limits in mandatory data collection and that post‑expiration disclosures would be largely voluntary.

- Appropriations and examples: Committee members noted that FY2026 appropriations discussed on the House side would provide an example: the House budget included $4,000,000 for the program in FY2026, which committee staff said would require a 30% set‑aside under the House language (about $1.2 million in that example). Members asked whether the statutory set‑aside could be changed by a future Legislature and were told it would require legislation to alter.

- Manufactured home repair, land‑bank study, brownfields: The manufactured home improvement and repair program showed no substantive differences between the two versions. The bill requires DHCD to study land‑bank models and report legislative language options for statewide, regional, or municipal land banks and identify funding approaches. Brownfields language on prioritizing sites that contain or are planned for housing is similar in both bills; the House added wording explicitly mentioning planned housing construction.

- Infrastructure sustainability fund and indexing: The House recommended $15,000,000 for the Infrastructure Sustainability Fund; the Senate draft differs only in application criteria. The House removed a provision that would have used the Vermont Department of Finance and Management "Vermont Community Index" as a ranking criterion; committee members flagged that change and asked to hear from the official who requested the index’s use.

- Landlord certificate, property tax data and GRAMA: The House included additional language requiring municipalities to provide extracts of assessor databases (computer assisted mass appraisal systems) to support a rental‑housing database effort. Committee members requested testimony from the Department of Taxes, the new tax commissioner, and VHFA on the data and privacy implications and how this would relate to the landlord certificate enacted previously (Act 181 changes were discussed).

- Short‑term rental/local rooms tax: The House version proposed authority for municipalities to propose a 1% tax on short‑term rentals to voters, but Ways and Means and Appropriations removed the section; committee members noted the item did not survive in the House‑passed bill.

- VHFA off‑site construction report and appropriation: The House Appropriations Committee struck a $250,000 appropriation for a VHFA off‑site construction report; the House language makes the report discretionary if funds are not appropriated.

Committee follow‑up and next steps

Committee members repeatedly asked for data and invited testimony from DHCD, the Agency of Human Services, VHFA, the Department of Taxes, and officials linked to the statewide building‑code and energy‑code study (including staff identified as Damien Leonard and chairs Scott Campbell and Michael Gaughn). On procedural points, staff confirmed there are two side‑by‑side drafts (committee introduced vs. as passed) and recommended walking through the introduced text and annotating decision points.

The chair directed staff to schedule witnesses on Tuesday to address appeals, manufactured housing by‑right questions, and the outstanding landlord‑tenant and appeals sections.

Ending

The committee did not take votes in this session. Members left with defined follow‑up: hearings with DHCD and AHS on the 30% set‑aside, testimony from the Department of Taxes and VHFA on data and assessor extracts, and conversations with the statewide energy‑code study group to avoid duplicative work on universal design or building code matters.