Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Brownfields Landbank Development Soils topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee preserves House brownfields and land-bank language, keeps development-soils and off-site construction reviews under study
Summary
Lawmakers decided to preserve House language on brownfields remediation prioritization for housing, keep the DHCD land-bank report requirement, and maintain development-soils provisions while noting some elements will be reviewed by other committees or require further testimony.
The committee reconciled multiple housing-development provisions in S.127, agreeing to preserve several House-originated brownfields, land-bank and development-soils provisions while flagging items that may require additional hearings or intercommittee coordination.
Members agreed to keep House language that prioritizes brownfields cleanup for housing and requested the brownfields process-improvement report remain in the bill. The committee also retained a DHCD land-bank report requirement intended to explore ways to address abandoned or decrepit housing, noting DHCD staff had already signaled it would pursue similar work whether or not the statutory direction was included. The chair said that retaining the report language signals legislative interest in the work.
On “development soils” (soil-management provisions tied to certain redevelopment and brownfield activities), members noted those sections touch environmental remediation and that House staff had referred parts of that work to the House Environment Committee for additional testimony. The Senate’s version included language on development soils that the committee did not adopt outright; instead members agreed to leave those sections in the reconciled draft but to coordinate with House Environment for technical review.
The committee also discussed an off-site construction report (studying prefabricated/off-site construction) that had line items in House materials. Committee members said VHFA personnel had indicated they would conduct a study even if the House budget removed a specific appropriation; the committee chose to retain the statutory language signaling the legislature’s intent and asked counsel to add intent language making clear the legislature would like the study conducted if funds permit.
No formal votes were recorded on these items; the committee directed counsel to draft reconciliation language preserving House priorities on brownfields, land-bank reporting and development-soils while coordinating testimony with relevant committees and agencies.
