Senate committee readies CHIP amendment, asks for emergency-rule authority to speed launches

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee agreed Wednesday to finalize an amendment to the state’s housing infrastructure program (CHIP), hold a public discussion at 9 a.m. tomorrow and appoint a conference committee at 10 a.m. to resolve differences with the House version of S.127.

The decision matters because committee members said they want CHIP up and running quickly after passage; several members pressed for language that would allow the administering agency to adopt emergency or interim rules so projects and incentives could be available without waiting through a full 12–18 month rulemaking cycle.

Committee leaders told staff they would produce an amendment for public discussion at 9 a.m. and, if possible, a vote to send a final position to the floor. The chair asked legislative counsel to prepare a side-by-side of the Senate and House text and to circulate a list of the changes for conference committee negotiators.

Committee staff and legislative counsel described two paths to speed implementation. David Leonard of the Office of Legislative Council explained the normal rulemaking timeline and emergency-rule mechanics: "the problem with the emergency rules is they're only good for a hundred 80 days," he said, noting agencies then must pursue the permanent-rule process or readopt emergency rules. Damien, a legislative counsel the committee invited for technical advice, added: "Anything that needs to be adopted immediately without going through the public process that is the APA is an emergency rule." The committee discussed setting a firm date by which the administering agency must adopt emergency rules and then propose permanent rules.

Members repeatedly urged limiting specific, detailed rulemaking requirements in statute so the agency could launch the program sooner. Committee staff recommended cutting prescriptive rule provisions that would otherwise force extensive drafting before applicants could know program expectations. The committee agreed to invite Jessica (housing agency staff) and Damien to the 9 a.m. session for technical detail and timelines.

On policy content, the committee discussed several changes that will be taken into conference: reverting some sections to the Senate-passed language (including the Social Security number provision related to residential rental applications), removing municipal-appeal language outside the CHIP section, and stripping a universal-design study that the House retained. Committee members also discussed definitions and incentives within CHIP: staff described a draft definition of "moderate-income housing development" as a project in which at least 25% of units are initially offered at 50% of area median income or less (as a separate, higher-increment eligibility track); members discussed maintaining lower increments for projects that do not meet that threshold.

The committee reviewed other House–Senate differences that negotiators will need to resolve in conference: the house kept the original due date for a land bank report (due in 2025) while the Senate had proposed moving it to 2026; the House retained language tying infrastructure sustainability scoring to community need rather than a specific Vermont Community Index ranking; the House kept a VHFA off-site construction report that the Senate had removed; and the Senate had included a rental-payment pilot program with the state treasurer that the House did not include (both versions tied those sections to available funding).

Committee members emphasized timeline and implementation risk. Staff warned that full permanent rulemaking often takes a year or more because of drafting and the public-rule cycle; the emergency-rule approach gives a 180-day window to operate while permanent rules are developed, but it does not guarantee the emergency and final versions will be identical. The committee signaled it would try to limit statutory rule mandates that could delay program launch.

For next steps, the committee asked staff to prepare a concise list of changes, a side-by-side of the House and Senate texts, and to coordinate with legislative counsel and agency staff so the 9 a.m. public discussion and the 10 a.m. conference appointment can proceed. Committee members asked for clarity on effective dates and the earliest point at which municipalities or projects could apply once the law passes; staff said agencies would need either clarified statutory detail or emergency-rule authority to offer reliable guidance to applicants.

The committee did not take a formal floor vote on any bill language in this meeting; instead members approved the procedural plan by consensus and set the conference schedule for the next day.