Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the But For Test topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House narrows but‑for exemption and raises housing floor‑area threshold in conference text for S.127
Summary
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.
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.
