Vermont housing board urges code enforcement and sustained incentives as costs rise, backs H.181 working group extension

Gus Sewell, executive director of the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board, told the House Committee on Environment & Energy on April 25 that the agency’s long-term work on affordable housing, conservation and flood resilience depends on stronger enforcement of building and energy codes and continued, targeted incentives to cover rising costs.

The board recommended extending the H.181 working group and asked the state to establish a method to attribute energy savings to code compliance and to report greenhouse-gas reductions tied to code enforcement, Sewell said. He and VHCB staff highlighted recent projects and rising development costs as reasons the state should secure measurable compliance and maintain funding support.

Sewell said VHCB is a “multipurpose, multientity organized as a quasi‑public entity” that the Legislature funds to invest in housing and conservation across Vermont and that its projects must meet building and energy codes. “We support extending the working‑group extension,” Sewell said, adding that the board wants the Department to “establish a procedure for attributing energy savings to building code compliance.”

Why it matters: Committee members pressed VHCB staff on how code standards, energy incentives and construction choices affect the affordability and feasibility of new housing. VHCB officials said incentives above code have shrunk as a share of project budgets while hard costs and energy‑related materials have risen, creating a financing gap for developers trying to meet higher standards.

Key points and examples

- Scale of recent investment: Sewell said VHCB used “a little under $400,000,000” since the pandemic, and partners contributed about $700,000,000, supporting housing and conservation projects statewide. (Amounts as stated by VHCB.)

- Permanent affordability: Sewell said VHCB’s statute requires seeking permanent affordability when it invests, and he cited Northgate Apartments — a 336‑unit complex preserved in 1990 — as an example of long‑term return on earlier state investment. “It took $2,900,000 to do a $20,000,000 purchase and renovation in 1990,” Sewell said, noting the long‑term savings of preserving long‑term affordable housing.

- Flood resilience and buyouts: Sewell described projects tied to Tropical Storm Irene buyouts and river restoration, including work in Brattleboro (Red Clover Commons and removal of a berm along the Whetstone) and buyouts on Water Street in Northfield after repeated flooding.

- Factory‑built housing and costs: VHCB staff discussed manufactured and modular homes as lower‑cost options. Sewell cited sample costs for zero‑energy‑ready manufactured units at roughly $110,000 each (excluding site work and solar) and said an all‑in cost with solar is closer to $150,000, numbers that multiple committee members and VHCB staff discussed during the briefing.

- Passive House and net‑zero: Sewell said VHCB is not opposed to Passive House standards but cautioned that certification cost and local code variation can create burdens for developers. “Passive House is an excellent standard, but it’s one standard,” Sewell said, and he urged that the state first agree on definitions (for example, what constitutes a “net‑zero capable” building) and on how to enforce existing codes before layering new mandatory local requirements.

- Geothermal and thermal networks: VHCB reported increasing interest in ground‑source heat projects (examples cited in Putney and St. Albans), but noted the high upfront cost and uncertainty about federal subsidy continuity.

Committee discussion and follow ups

Representatives asked about specific projects around the state, including infill and conversions of historic schools, housing in Newport, and a Tri Park deployment of zero‑energy‑ready units in West Brattleboro. VHCB staff said they have converted schools and other institutional buildings to housing in multiple towns and are planning further infill and downtown projects. Committee members and staff also discussed permitting, infrastructure (water and sewer) barriers in rural areas, and how much additional cost Passive House improvements would add; one cost figure cited from an Efficiency Vermont research project was about 2.7 percent on some projects.

What VHCB asked of the committee

- Extend the H.181 working group so the state can refine definitions and enforcement mechanisms and create a reliable method to attribute energy savings to code compliance.

- Continue financial and technical partnerships (including Efficiency Vermont/VEIC and federal funding streams) so incentive programs remain viable as the delta between code and incentive‑eligible work shrinks.

Limitations and context

No formal committee vote or instruction was recorded during this briefing. VHCB’s positions expressed to the committee are advocacy and technical guidance; the transcript records support for extending the H.181 working group but not a formal legislative action. Where VHCB staff gave dollar figures or counts in answers, the article reports them as stated. Several project names, program details and numeric figures were referenced during the presentation; the board provided slides to the committee that contain the full lists and data.

Ending

VHCB officials closed by emphasizing the interplay between energy policy, construction costs and long‑term affordability, asking the committee to sustain both code enforcement and incentive funding so the state can meet greenhouse‑gas and housing goals without derailing projects financially.