Senate committee weighs H.479 revisions, keeps 5-year grant set-aside and clarifies VHIP rules
April 19, 2025 | Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 18 reviewed differences between the House and Senate versions of H.479 and discussed detailed changes to the Vermont Housing Improvement Program (VHIP). Committee counsel and Department of Housing and Community Development staff described how the versions differ on forgivable‑loan options, eligibility requirements and a department set‑aside for shorter compliance grants.
The committee focused on three near‑term, actionable items: whether to retain the House’s 5‑year forgivable‑loan option, whether to require landlords participating in VHIP to accept housing choice vouchers, and how to structure a department set‑aside for grants. “There are technically three options … a grant, a five‑year forgivable loan, or a 10‑year forgivable loan,” Sean Gilpin, director of the Housing Division at the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the committee. He described the program’s original design (instituted in statute in 2022) and how recent amendments changed compliance periods and tenant‑selection requirements.
The Senate draft described by counsel would remove the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and let landlords choose either a grant (with five‑year affordability/tenant requirements) or a 10‑year forgivable loan (with 10‑year affordability requirements). The House version retains the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and adds an annual department requirement to reserve a minimum percentage of funds for grants or five‑year loans. Committee members flagged that the House language includes a minimum set‑aside of 30% for five‑year grants; staff and Gilpin said current uptake on the five‑year pathway is roughly 30–35% of awarded funds, so a 30% set‑aside “is probably about right,” but the committee discussed trigger language to reallocate unused set‑aside funds more quickly than the bill’s one‑year fallback.
Committee counsel and staff proposed a shorter automatic reallocation trigger (for example, unused set‑aside funds becoming available after nine or ten months, rather than 12) to avoid leaving funds idle late in a fiscal year. Gilpin described program operations: applications are handled regionally by five homeownership centers; an award decision typically occurs within six weeks after a completed application; projects generally complete between nine and 18 months (the program allows up to 18 months, with limited extensions); the average VHIP award is about $38,000; and the program requires a minimum 20% private match (though staff said actual matches often differ in practice).
The committee also discussed reinstating statutory language that requires landlords participating in the 10‑year program to accept housing vouchers. Counsel recommended retaining the voucher‑acceptance provision to give clear direction to landlords, even if federal or other state anti‑discrimination rules might already prohibit voucher denial. The committee agreed to reinstate that language.
Other technical items covered: whether to label returned or repaid funds a “revolving fund” (counsel said the heading is drafting style and can be renamed), clarifying that grants for up to $30,000 cover units up to three bedrooms and up to $50,000 for three‑plus bedrooms or new units (including ADUs or conversions), and keeping quarterly online reporting while the House asked for an annual report; staff said a web dashboard and interactive map are being deployed to display awards and unit locations.
The committee did not take a formal vote during the discussion. Members asked staff to prepare side‑by‑side language that: (1) retains voucher acceptance language; (2) preserves the House set‑aside but adds a shorter reallocation trigger (e.g., nine or ten months); and (3) clarifies headings and revolving‑fund language. Staff and counsel agreed to return with revised text and suggested drafting for the natural‑disaster/climate‑displacement language, and to coordinate with the Agency of Digital Services on the public dashboard.
Why it matters: VHIP is the state’s program to rehabilitate vacant, blighted or noncompliant properties and bring them back into the rental market with affordability requirements attached to grants or forgivable loans. Changes to compliance periods, set‑asides and tenant prioritization affect how much of the program’s funding will serve households exiting homelessness, refugees or other prioritized groups versus serving units at fair‑market rent available to voucher holders.
The committee scheduled follow‑up work: finalizing a side‑by‑side reconciliation of H.479, confirming statutory language on voucher acceptance, and drafting clearer language on the natural‑disaster criterion used to prioritize applicants.
The committee focused on three near‑term, actionable items: whether to retain the House’s 5‑year forgivable‑loan option, whether to require landlords participating in VHIP to accept housing choice vouchers, and how to structure a department set‑aside for grants. “There are technically three options … a grant, a five‑year forgivable loan, or a 10‑year forgivable loan,” Sean Gilpin, director of the Housing Division at the Department of Housing and Community Development, told the committee. He described the program’s original design (instituted in statute in 2022) and how recent amendments changed compliance periods and tenant‑selection requirements.
The Senate draft described by counsel would remove the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and let landlords choose either a grant (with five‑year affordability/tenant requirements) or a 10‑year forgivable loan (with 10‑year affordability requirements). The House version retains the five‑year forgivable‑loan option and adds an annual department requirement to reserve a minimum percentage of funds for grants or five‑year loans. Committee members flagged that the House language includes a minimum set‑aside of 30% for five‑year grants; staff and Gilpin said current uptake on the five‑year pathway is roughly 30–35% of awarded funds, so a 30% set‑aside “is probably about right,” but the committee discussed trigger language to reallocate unused set‑aside funds more quickly than the bill’s one‑year fallback.
Committee counsel and staff proposed a shorter automatic reallocation trigger (for example, unused set‑aside funds becoming available after nine or ten months, rather than 12) to avoid leaving funds idle late in a fiscal year. Gilpin described program operations: applications are handled regionally by five homeownership centers; an award decision typically occurs within six weeks after a completed application; projects generally complete between nine and 18 months (the program allows up to 18 months, with limited extensions); the average VHIP award is about $38,000; and the program requires a minimum 20% private match (though staff said actual matches often differ in practice).
The committee also discussed reinstating statutory language that requires landlords participating in the 10‑year program to accept housing vouchers. Counsel recommended retaining the voucher‑acceptance provision to give clear direction to landlords, even if federal or other state anti‑discrimination rules might already prohibit voucher denial. The committee agreed to reinstate that language.
Other technical items covered: whether to label returned or repaid funds a “revolving fund” (counsel said the heading is drafting style and can be renamed), clarifying that grants for up to $30,000 cover units up to three bedrooms and up to $50,000 for three‑plus bedrooms or new units (including ADUs or conversions), and keeping quarterly online reporting while the House asked for an annual report; staff said a web dashboard and interactive map are being deployed to display awards and unit locations.
The committee did not take a formal vote during the discussion. Members asked staff to prepare side‑by‑side language that: (1) retains voucher acceptance language; (2) preserves the House set‑aside but adds a shorter reallocation trigger (e.g., nine or ten months); and (3) clarifies headings and revolving‑fund language. Staff and counsel agreed to return with revised text and suggested drafting for the natural‑disaster/climate‑displacement language, and to coordinate with the Agency of Digital Services on the public dashboard.
Why it matters: VHIP is the state’s program to rehabilitate vacant, blighted or noncompliant properties and bring them back into the rental market with affordability requirements attached to grants or forgivable loans. Changes to compliance periods, set‑asides and tenant prioritization affect how much of the program’s funding will serve households exiting homelessness, refugees or other prioritized groups versus serving units at fair‑market rent available to voucher holders.
The committee scheduled follow‑up work: finalizing a side‑by‑side reconciliation of H.479, confirming statutory language on voucher acceptance, and drafting clearer language on the natural‑disaster criterion used to prioritize applicants.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting