Senate committee hears mixed testimony on proposed caps for manufactured-home lot-rent increases

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee heard competing testimony on April 25 about proposed limits on lot-rent increases in manufactured-home parks, with resident witnesses calling current increases unaffordable and park owners and co-op advocates cautioning that a strict cap could block infrastructure repairs and complicate resident purchases of parks.

Julia, identified as a co‑lead of the New England Resident Owned Communities program at the Cooperative Development Institute, told the committee the state law that enables resident or nonprofit purchases of parks has made Vermont a model nationally but that the bill as written could create "major unintended problems" by limiting owners’ ability to fund or finance multi‑year infrastructure projects.

Why it matters: Manufactured‑home parks provide lower‑cost homeownership, but residents typically lease the land beneath their homes and are exposed to lot‑rent increases. Witnesses warned a rigid cap could prevent needed replacements of water, septic and electrical systems or drive sudden large increases when multi‑year projects reach their debt-service stage.

Key testimony and numbers: Julia said 44% of lots in Vermont parks are now under resident or nonprofit ownership and that many parks’ infrastructure dates from the 1950s–1970s. She cited examples of communities that absorbed significant rent increases when residents purchased parks — numbers witnesses supplied included $70, $55 and $61 per month increases in prior purchase years, and testimony noted conversions in other states with increases of $100 or more.

Stuart Bennett, who identified himself as one of two owners of Cub Properties (which owns three Vermont mobile‑home communities), said his companies have made large infrastructure investments while keeping rents near state medians. Bennett provided long‑term records showing infrequent increases in his parks over 23 years and told the committee the statute’s mediation threshold has worked to encourage prudent investment. "The way this statute is currently structured ... has been a success," he said, noting in one example a median lot rent near $413 and that only 64% of parks increased rents in the most recent year cited.

Resident testimony: Betty Ann Scammell, who said she has lived in her park for 25 years, described repeated increases and rising financial pressure for elderly residents. She said her park’s lot rent has risen by about $85 a month over five years and that she currently pays about $6,000 a year in lot rent and $2,300 in property taxes on her home. "That is definitely compounding where I am," she told the committee.

Policy tradeoffs: Witnesses and committee members discussed exemptions for resident‑ or nonprofit‑owned parks, the difficulty of financing large infrastructure work with small state programs and the mismatch between national CPI measures and local conditions. Julia and others asked for safe statutory language that would allow necessary capital projects while protecting lowest‑income residents from sudden, large increases.

Next steps: Committee members asked witnesses to submit suggested bill language and data. Julia and others agreed to provide more detailed proposals for exemptions and mechanisms that would allow infrastructure financing without creating a sudden affordability cliff for residents.