Witness tells House committee Vermont needs single residential building authority, better tools to implement 2024 energy code

House Energy and Digital Infrastructure members on Wednesday, April 23 heard detailed testimony that Vermont’s residential building‑code and energy‑code system leaves homeowners and contractors without a clear path to compliance and to remedies when construction fails.

Sandy Fitztoom, a licensed architect, told the committee the state “really is a mess” when it comes to authority over owner‑occupied single‑family homes and urged moving residential jurisdiction and related training and certification to the Division of Fire Safety. “Vermont is the only state in the nation that has no path to jurisdiction over single family homes,” Fitztoom said during roughly an hour of prepared remarks and questions.

The testimony centered on three linked problems: (1) the 2024 energy code has been adopted in rule but supporting materials — a published codebook, implementation software and a builder handbook — are not available statewide; (2) no single state or local code official has clear jurisdiction over owner‑occupied single‑family construction, leaving gaps for interpreting and enforcing codes; and (3) training, certification and permitting systems are uneven across the state, reducing practical compliance and increasing risk of building failures and mold.

Why it matters: Vermont has an older housing stock and a cold climate, Fitztoom said, which increases the consequences of poor envelope work. She related multiple examples of envelope failures and mold that required full replacement of insulation and major repairs, and said owners have limited administrative remedies. “There is no place to go right now,” she said, describing the absence of a unified authority that in other states would interpret codes, oversee inspections, and investigate competence.

Fitztoom described the Division of Fire Safety as the most practical home for residential code authority. She said fire safety staff are already trained on the state’s building codes for rental and commercial work, are first on many problem sites, and are implementing a digital permitting database. She recommended a structured transition that would preserve the Public Service Department’s technical expertise and Efficiency Vermont’s incentives while giving Fire Safety responsibility for interpretations, inspector training and contractor certification.

On the 2024 energy code specifically, Fitztoom told the committee the state adopted an advanced national model early but that the supporting software and widely distributed training have not been developed. She said those missing elements make compliance effectively impossible for many contractors outside Chittenden County and incentivize out‑of‑state contractors to work in Vermont projects. “We have the champagne — in energy performance — but the training and tools are at Stroh’s beer level,” she said, arguing for a delayed or phased approach so the state’s administrative tools and training can catch up.

Committee members asked follow‑up questions about duplexes and accessory units, and about timing for a possible move to adopt a consolidated residential code (the IRC, or International Residential Code). Fitztoom said a multi‑year transition plan would be practical — she referenced a six‑year transition chart she said Efficiency Vermont and other stakeholders discussed — and urged that a working group continue through the fall to produce a plan for January’s legislative work.

Clarifications and proposed fixes described in testimony included splitting responsibilities between the Office of Professional Regulation (OPR) — which registers businesses and investigates fraud, Fitztoom said — and Fire Safety, which she said should handle individual competence, inspections, certification and field interpretation. She also advocated for modest permit fees or a small share of municipal fees to fund increased inspection and training capacity.

The committee did not take votes on H.1181 during the session covered by the transcript. Fitztoom said the bill could be expanded and that additional legislation is likely in future sessions; she also recommended incorporation of residential code items into housing bills as appropriate.

The committee’s continuing work includes a standing working group and a study initiated by Mike DeRochers (referenced in testimony) to evaluate adoption of the IRC for one‑ and two‑family dwellings. Fitztoom urged the working group to make concrete transition recommendations and to address handbook, software and training gaps before broad enforcement relies on the 2024 rules.

Ending: Fitztoom closed by urging a voluntary certification path and a funding plan to support Fire Safety’s expanded role. Committee members thanked her and noted the challenge of balancing this long‑running code work with urgent housing and flood recovery needs that also compete for time and resources in the legislature.