Housing Division says covenants, annual recertifications and limited staff underpin VHIP enforcement

Sean Gilpin of the Department of Housing and Community Development testified to the House General & Housing Committee on May 1 about how the state enforces income and rent restrictions for scattered‑site rehabilitation grants under the housing program often referred to in committee as VHIP/NEHIP.

Gilpin described a paper-and-records enforcement model centered on covenants filed with town land records, annual owner certifications tied to HUD fair‑market rents, and selective desk checks and tenant complaint investigations. "My name is Sean Gilpin with the Housing Division at the Department of Housing and Community Development," he told the committee. He said the covenant stays with the property and can be discovered in a title search; at the end of the required service period the state records a notice of discharge.

Why it matters: Committee members had asked how the program verifies rent limits on scattered-site units that are privately owned. Gilpin’s testimony outlined both operational steps and limits the division faces when administering a dispersed portfolio.

How enforcement works, per Gilpin - Covenant on property: When a property owner signs a grant agreement, a covenant is recorded in town records and stays attached to the property until the state records a notice of discharge at the end of the service period. - Service period lengths: Covenants typically run for either five or ten years; noncompliance can extend the service period. - Annual recertification: Owners must certify annually that they charge HUD fair‑market rents (with allowances for utilities). The division logs certifications and conducts desk checks on a sample; staff will contact tenants to verify rents when needed. - Remedies and tenant recourse: If the division determines a unit is not in compliance, staff notify the owner and give options to cure, such as lowering rent and reimbursing tenants. Gilpin said the division may extend the service period if noncompliance is found, and that more aggressive legal remedies (for example, claming funds at point of sale) would be court‑intensive. - Staffing and scale: Gilpin said about 500 units are completed under the program to date. "Right now I have 1 full time equivalence that focuses solely on VHIP," he said, adding that one limited‑service staff and some of his time cover the remainder; he described staffing as inadequate for full census‑style verification.

Committee response and context Committee members pressed on verification and remedies; Gilpin said enforcement relies heavily on participant cooperation and tenant complaints because the division lacks staff to audit every unit. He described the approach as "pretty bare bones" but noted desk checks and the possibility of follow‑up investigations when issues emerge.

No formal committee action followed; the exchange was testimony to clarify program mechanics as the committee refines affordability language elsewhere in the bill package.

Ending: Gilpin’s testimony underlined that the program uses recorded covenants and periodic checks to enforce rent limits but that limited staffing and the scattered nature of units constrain the division’s ability to fully monitor compliance.