Housing Bill Amendment Moves in the Wrong Direction

Housing Bill Amendment Moves in the Wrong Direction

“Bureaucracy is the death of any achievement.” — Albert Einstein

Einstein’s warning feels especially relevant this week as legislative changes threaten to derail a key housing development tool when Vermont needs it most. As the state continues to grapple with a critical housing shortage impacting businesses and communities statewide, lawmakers focused on refining the Community and Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP), the latest version of a targeted Tax Increment Financing (TIF) model that has been in development for five years. Designed to fund essential public infrastructure like water, sewer, and roads, CHIP is meant to unlock housing projects that would otherwise remain financially unfeasible. However, recent amendments have added layers of bureaucracy and limitations that risk stalling progress at a time when swift, effective action is essential.

The core principle of TIF is that the increase in property tax revenue generated by a new development (the “increment”) is used to repay the infrastructure bonds, leveraging future growth to finance necessary investments. Without this infrastructure, many housing developments cannot financially move forward meaning the new tax revenue wouldn’t exist anyway.

After the House Ways and Means Committee made sweeping changes to the CHIP proposal, a joint hearing was held by the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee and the House General and Housing Committee. Lawmakers who had spent weeks developing the Senate’s policy framework raised serious concerns, as the amendments appeared to create new barriers rather than improvements.

According to Ways and Means, the changes were intended to provide “reasonable guardrails” on the use of education property tax increment. In practice, the added provisions are more restrictive than protective. Key changes include:

  • Housing Percentage Requirement: Mandates 65% of a project’s floor area be housing, limiting flexibility for rural or adaptive reuse projects.
  • Education Tax Retention Rate: Lowers the retention rate from 75% to 60%, with an optional 80% for deeply income-restricted housing, raising viability concerns.
  • $40 Million Cap: Imposes a total annual cap that may disadvantage under-resourced as well as large communities and limit program impact during a housing crisis.
  • “But-For” Test: Requires developers to prove projects wouldn’t proceed without the incentive, adding new hoops to jump through during a well-documented housing crisis.
  • Sunset Date: Introduces a 2028 end date for the standard TIF program without policy committee discussion, creating long-term uncertainty to an established economic development tool.

The Vermont Chamber is deeply disappointed in the direction this bill has taken. The House Ways and Means Committee’s amendments undermine a carefully negotiated policy intended to spur urgently needed housing in communities struggling with affordability. Rather than advancing a tool to meet the scale of Vermont’s affordability and development crisis, the proposal now adds delay, complexity, and uncertainty. In the remaining two weeks of the session, the Vermont Chamber urges legislators to work collaboratively to move this proposal back into a form that meets the moment—with bold, flexible solutions that support all communities in building desperately needed infrastructure that will support all types of housing.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

RECENT NEWS

Senate Poised for Debate on Sweeping Education Finance Overhaul

Senate Poised for Debate on Sweeping Education Finance Overhaul

Following last year’s 14%average property tax increase, Vermont’s education finance and delivery system stands at a critical juncture. H.454 aims to overhaul nearly every aspect of K–12 funding and delivery—from recalibrating property tax credits to introducing equalization measures designed to narrow funding gaps between districts. Passed by the Senate Finance Committee (5-2-0) late Thursday, the education transformation bill now moves to the Senate floor. With a spirited debate and at least one amendment expected, policymakers must balance ambitious reforms against the need to contain costs.

Key Fiscal Provisions

  • Property Tax Classifications: The House-passed version would have split Nonhomestead into four classes, raising the risk of disproportionate increases on commercial properties and adding administrative complexity. In its place, the Senate Finance Committee rolled back that expansion and instead directed the Department of Taxes to deliver, by December 15, 2025, a stakeholder-informed study on potential classification models—covering use-based definitions, mixed-use parcel treatment, data collection protocols, appeals processes, and compliance safeguards. The Vermont Chamber testified both in the House and the Senate, emphasizing that any reform to Vermont’s property tax system should prioritize simplicity, predictability, and fairness.
  • Homestead Exemption: The Committee’s draft holds Homestead relief at $1.6 million below the current income-sensitivity model for FY25, targets low- and moderate-income homeowners through a tiered cap on the exempted house site value, and phases out benefits above $100,000 of household income. Future review by the Tax Department may spur further adjustments.
  • Supplemental Spending & Equalization: Supplemental district spending remains capped at 10% of base funding. The Committee retained the House’s “lowest-rich-district” equalization approach for now, with plans to revisit averaging methodologies on the floor. Any excess revenue will flow into the School Construction Fund, helping to address long-term capital needs.

Looking Ahead
As discussions continue, the Vermont Chamber will remain engaged in the conversation, ensuring that potential business impacts are carefully balanced with the broader goals of funding a high-quality education system.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE

RECENT NEWS