Why a one-vote floor loss is different from a committee death

Most Vermont association bills in this biennium died by neglect — referred to committee, given a single hearing or none, and left. H.772 is the opposite case. It had a chamber behind it by a six-to-one margin, it survived the Senate's amendment process, and it lost on the question of whether to read it a third time.

That is a bill with a constituency, and bills with constituencies come back. But the biennium rule is absolute: H.772 is dead, cannot be revived, and anything resembling it in 2027 starts as a new bill with a new number and no procedural credit for the 120–21.

The companion that never moved

S.309, the Senate bill with the same title, was introduced January 27, 2026 and referred to Senate Judiciary. No committee meetings. Dead.

The mobile home lot rent bill that did get hearings

S.34, An act relating to lowering the rate of increase for mobile home lot rents, was introduced by Sen. Rebecca White with two co-sponsors on January 30, 2025 and referred to Senate Economic Development. It got four committee dates — February 18, February 21, March 28 and April 25, 2025 — and was never voted out.²

It was a re-run. S.33, identically titled, was introduced in January 2019, referred to the same committee, and never acted on at all.

The same idea appeared a third time inside S.328 as introduced, which would have amended 10 V.S.A. § 6252 to bar a park owner from even proposing a lot rent increase more than one percentage point above the housing component of the Consumer Price Index. That section was removed before the bill became Act 179.

What the existing threshold does

Vermont's current rule is not a cap. Under § 6252, an increase more than one percentage point above the CPI housing component — as established annually by the Department — allows a majority of affected leaseholders to petition for mediation within 15 business days. The threshold was 5.4 percent for 2025 and 5.00 percent for 2026.

Mediation is not a veto. The park owner “shall have the burden of providing information to show that the proposed lot rent increase is reasonable”, and the Department pays the mediator's fees. If mediation fails, § 6253 lets a majority of leaseholders sue in Superior Court for abatement of a “clearly excessive” increase within 30 days of its effective date — defined as one “unreasonable based upon the park owner's total reasonable or documented expenses, including consideration of debt service and a reasonable return to the mobile home park owner on investment.”

Outcome-based, not formulaic. S.34 would have replaced it with a formula.

The comparison that keeps writing itself

A Vermont mobile home park resident facing a lot rent increase gets 60 days' notice on a state form, a published threshold, a state-paid mediator, a statutory burden on the park owner, and a court remedy.

A Vermont condominium owner facing an assessment increase gets a ratification meeting at which the budget passes unless a majority of all owners turn up and reject it. Vermont sets no percentage ceiling on association assessments at all.

What to watch next

Whether H.772 returns in 2027, and in whose bill. Its sponsor committee — House General and Housing — is also the committee that will receive the Act 179 common-interest-community report on November 15, 2026.