Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ways & Means members debate county caps, vacancy-rate targeting for housing tax credit program
Summary
Members of the Ways & Means Committee discussed whether a statewide cap or county caps should limit a proposed housing tax incentive program, debated metrics such as vacancy rates and ‘‘stagnant growth’’ to prioritize awards, and flagged tradeoffs between protecting the education fund and encouraging development in lower-growth towns.
Members of the Vermont House Ways & Means Committee debated how to limit and prioritize a proposed housing tax incentive program, focusing on whether to set a statewide dollar cap or county-by-county caps and on what metrics should guide awards.
Representative Brannigan said she worried that a strict cap could ‘‘force scarcity’’ and prevent housing in smaller towns that also need growth. "What worries me about cap is that we are starting ... then we're gonna be work we're gonna try to anticipate ... that kind of could not give us housing where we've got dramatic, dramatic need," she said. Representative Wozozak said she opposed county caps and supported a statewide cap of about 1 percent — roughly $13.9 million annually under the current framing — as a reasonable protection of the education fund. "I think the 1% makes sense," Wozozak said. Representative Harper said a county cap would be acceptable to her if it could be tied to a metric of need, and suggested vacancy rates as a potential measure.
The committee discussed multiple ways to target limited resources. Several members urged using vacancy rates or measures of ‘‘stagnant growth’’ to prioritize awards toward places with demonstrable housing shortfalls rather than strictly by population. Representative Nelson recommended starting with vacancy rates and regional planning bodies (RPCs) as a way to set regional priorities. Representative Maslin asked that any prioritization be set through rulemaking and sought housing expertise on the oversight panel reviewing applications.
Committee members also raised program design questions and practical limits. Representative Harper noted the current draft envisions the program apply only to projects that start within five years, arguing that timeline reduces the risk of long-term caps preventing future opportunity. One member suggested piloting the program without an initial cap and revisiting the cap after one year based on demand.
No formal motion or vote on caps or prioritization rules was taken during the discussion. Committee members repeatedly framed prioritization as a rulemaking question for the administering agency and flagged the need to state underlying assumptions when advancing recommendations so the committee can evaluate tradeoffs.
The discussion moved to other agenda items after roughly an hour and a quarter of conversation about cap structure, regional equity, and potential prioritization metrics.
