Committee reviews Senate housing draft: affordability tied to debt, residency rules, universal-design study pushed

During a meeting of the House Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee (date not specified), staff and legislators reviewed a Senate draft of a housing infrastructure bill that would change how long units must remain affordable, tighten primary-residency rules for state-funded housing, and direct a new study group on universal design.

The proposal circulated by Senate staff would make affordability commitments last until all indebtedness on a housing infrastructure project is retired rather than in perpetuity, and would require units sold for owner-occupancy to be “initially offered exclusively as a primary residence,” while rental units would be required to be offered as primary-residence housing until indebtedness is retired. Committee staff presented the changes and walked members through differences from the House version.

Committee staff summarized the durational change as moving the affordability requirement from a perpetual covenant to a time-limited requirement tied to the life of project debt. The committee also discussed enforcement language for rental projects that would allow evidence such as a landlord certificate or homestead declaration to satisfy the primary-residency requirement for the duration of indebtedness.

Members discussed changes to program design and incentives. The Senate draft removes a previously proposed $40,000,000 cap, sets the project-area dedication threshold at a lower majority (51 percent) option, and replaces the House’s 65/80 increment-retention structure with a proposed 75 percent retention for standard projects and 90 percent for projects meeting affordable criteria. The latest draft also proposes a flat 90-day review period for project decisions, replacing a 60-day baseline plus a 30-day extension for extenuating circumstances.

The Senate draft would also carve out qualifying affordable projects from the but-for (BUC 4) test used to evaluate impacts on other sites, meaning projects that meet the program’s affordable housing criteria would not have to pass that particular test. Committee staff said that provision is intended to incentivize affordable development by exempting those projects from the but-for review.

On administration and timing, staff said the proposed CHIP (housing infrastructure) program’s final application period is extended through the end of 2035 and the final program evaluation is scheduled to be submitted on or before Jan. 15, 2035. Rulemaking guidance deadlines were moved to Nov. 15 of the year in question; committee staff noted the legislative drafting deadline of Dec. 1 for final language.

Committee members raised several policy and process concerns during the discussion. Staff reported that testimony to the Senate Natural Resources and Energy committee raised constitutional issues and that some senators prefer to start with review and recommendations from LERB (the Land Use/Accessibility review body referenced in committee discussion) before adding municipal-appeals language to statute. Committee staff said the Senate position currently favors asking the advisory body to report back in the fall and then deciding whether statutory appeals should be added.

Representative Elizabeth Burrows spoke at length about universal design and the composition of the Vermont Access Board and other stakeholder bodies. She said the study committee would be a more appropriate venue to define accessibility and universal-design standards, and raised concerns about relying on the Vermont Center for Independent Living for lived-experience representation because, she said, the organization has been relocating and ‘‘our office is emptied out’’ in Montpelier. Representative Burrows also urged that people with lived experience be included on the study panel so stakeholders see the practical impact of design choices.

Committee staff and members agreed to continue the discussion and reconvene later in the day. There were no formal motions or votes recorded in the meeting transcript excerpt.