Senate panel reviews S.34 to cap mobile-home lot-rent hikes, debate mediation, waivers and enforcement

Senators on the Senate Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs Committee met March 28 and reviewed S.34, a proposal to limit mobile-home park lot-rent increases to the housing component of the U.S. Consumer Price Index plus 1% and to expand mediation eligibility for any proposed increase above that threshold.

The bill matters because Vermont’s roughly 238 mobile-home parks provide a large share of the state’s affordable housing, and residents — many on fixed incomes — told the committee recent rent increases have pushed households toward unaffordability. Advocates, a park resident and the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) all urged changes to the mediation process, added capacity and clearer enforcement mechanics.

S.34 summary and how it would work

Under the version discussed, a mobile-home park owner “shall not propose an increase that is greater than 1% above the consumer price index” (housing component). If an owner does propose an increase above that threshold, the statute would make the increase eligible for petition-triggered mediation by the DHCD process; if mediation fails the owner could still implement the increase. Committee counsel Cameron Wood summarized the change as “capping what the park owner would be able to propose at that 1% over the CPI.”

The draft discussed also contains an existing separate provision allowing a temporary surcharge for documented infrastructure projects; that surcharge ends when the infrastructure cost is repaid. The bill’s text, as reviewed, also preserves an exception linked to park sales: “this section isn’t restrictive if there is a sale of a mobile home park.”

Resident and advocate testimony

Paul Valley, a resident of Richards Mobile Home Park in Bethel, told the committee his park received notices in late 2023 with increases ‘‘just under 10%’’ and said the resident petition and mediation process provided little leverage. Valley said residents managed to gather a majority petition but “the mediator is sitting at the head of the table” and the park owner “would not relinquish the increase.” The mediation ended without an agreed reduction and the rent increase went forward.

Sandrine (director of housing advocacy programs at CVOEO) told the committee that CVOEO supports S.34 with adjustments, saying the cap “strengthens the protection for mobile residents” and noting time and signature requirements make the petition process difficult for larger parks. Ryan Garrity, senior resident organizer with CVOEO’s mobile-home program, recommended a waiver mechanism for narrowly defined circumstances (for example, mission-driven nonprofit or cooperative purchases that require initial capital investment) and urged extending timeframes and simplifying petition methods.

Technical and programmatic concerns from DHCD

Sean Gilpin, DHCD housing-division director, and Scott Charlin, DHCD housing program coordinator, cautioned that allowing many more mediation requests would sharply increase DHCD workload and costs. Gilpin noted DHCD pays mediators from the mobile-home program special fund — mediators are paid up to $1,000 per case — and that the fund is largely supported by a $12-per-lot annual registration fee. He warned that if hundreds of parks sought mediation in a year it would “be crushing for the department” without additional staff or funding.

Key details and numbers discussed

- Number of parks: committee cited about 238 mobile-home parks in Vermont. - 2024 filings: committee discussion referenced that 153 of 238 parks (about 64%) increased lot rents in one recent cycle; 14 parks exceeded the CPI-plus-1 threshold; the average increase among parks that raised rents was reported as about $20.94. - Resident petition timing: current statute requires a majority-signature petition submitted within 15 days of notice to trigger mediation; witnesses said 15 days is often too short, especially in larger parks. - Mediation capacity and costs: DHCD pays mediators up to $1,000 per case from the mobile-home special fund (funded by the $12-per-lot registration fee); the mediation roster was described as roughly 10–12 mediators, and historically the program saw only a few mediation cases per year. - Historical statutory benchmark: the committee was told the CPI-plus-1 threshold has been in place since about 1998. - Example: Paul Valley said his park has 21 lots and that the park owner’s total property-tax bill (as presented at the mediation) was roughly $959,800; Valley said an Irene-related surcharge currently on lot rent in his park will end in 2028.

Questions, policy options and next steps discussed

Committee members and witnesses identified five major buckets for further committee work: (1) whether to adopt a hard cap tied to the housing CPI (and whether that national CPI slice is the best index), plus a narrowly tailored waiver process for limited circumstances; (2) mediation changes, including extending the 15-day petition window and allowing DHCD to appoint a mediator rather than requiring disputing parties to agree on one; (3) rules and criteria for infrastructure surcharges and whether those need refinement; (4) special rules for park sales, especially purchases by nonprofits or cooperatives that may require near-term revenue to address deferred maintenance; and (5) enforcement mechanics if owners exceed the CPI-plus-1 threshold (several members asked whether DHCD could enforce the cap rather than requiring tenants to pursue petitions). Scott Charlin and DHCD offered to provide detailed data on current lot rents, ownership types and mediation outcomes to inform the committee’s next steps. Committee members asked staff to solicit testimony from for-profit park owners, nonprofit portfolio owners and cooperative developers and to consider a public hearing to broaden input.

Ending

Sen. Allison Clarkson (Windsor District), chairing the panel, closed the discussion by directing staff to gather more data and stakeholder testimony and by listing the topics the committee plans to refine. No formal vote on S.34 was taken at the March 28 hearing; committee members said they expect further work, potential amendments and follow-up hearings before any floor action.