Experts tell committee a state land bank could speed reuse of vacant and contaminated properties and support housing production

Jim Tishler, development director of the Michigan Land Bank Authority, told the committee that state-level land banks can play multiple roles: take title to surplus or problem properties, hold and ready parcels for redevelopment, serve as a repository of last resort for contaminated sites, and support local land banks that lack capacity.

Tishler said the number-one challenge he sees nationwide is capacity — local governments often lack staff, budget and time to carry out cleanup, due diligence and project management. “There is simply not enough budget, there’s not enough personnel allocation and not enough time to be able to service the activities that are so vital in order to move properties to productive reuse,” he said.

He described legal and financing tools Michigan uses: the state land bank takes title to properties (including surplus state facilities and county tax-foreclosed parcels), uses project-based tax-increment financing to capture future tax value for redevelopment costs, and in limited cases holds extensively contaminated brownfields under an exemption in federal CERCLA law that reduces liability for bona fide public-purpose repositories.

Jamie Bauer, the author of the state study the committee received, said Vermonters she interviewed favored a single statewide land bank to serve sparse rural populations and small towns that lack in-house development capacity. Bauer said her team interviewed more than 50 stakeholders and highlighted use cases such as project management, financing assistance, post-disaster stabilization and coordination with federal funds where timing and eligibility rules impede projects.

Sean Gilpin, director of the Housing Division (Department of Housing and Community Development), told the committee the department is interested but cautious: HCD could prepare an action plan and draft legislative language, but staffing and resource limits make producing a completed bill before the next session a heavy lift. He said the agency would prefer an action plan and proposed statutory language by November of next year to inform a possible 2026 bill.

Committee members asked about funding models. Witnesses described different approaches used elsewhere: Maine’s land bank program is supported in part by construction/demolition tipping fees, Michigan uses project-based tax-increment financing and sometimes federal grants, Ohio has captured a small portion of late tax fines, and Georgia used a blight bond. Tishler recommended matching the land-bank design to Vermont’s fiscal architecture and seeking a full study of funding options before authorizing a permanent program.

Committee members asked for a phase of follow-up work: an HCD-led action plan or study committee to set governance, define the repository role, identify revenue mechanisms, and align redemption and tax-foreclosure timing rules with redevelopment goals. No vote was taken; members signaled support for further study and requested a timetable and resource estimate from HCD.