Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Fund Index topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee asks for more testimony on Vermont Community Index used in infrastructure-fund scoring
Summary
Members debated whether to keep a requirement in S.127 that the Vermont Community Index (maintained by the Department of Finance and Management) be used as an application criterion for the Infrastructure Sustainability Fund; committee opted to take more testimony to clarify which index is referenced and how it would be applied.
The House Committee on Housing paused on language in S.127 that would include “the ranking of the community on the Vermont Department of Finance and Management, Vermont Community Index” as part of scoring for the Vermont Infrastructure Sustainability Fund.
Members recalled prior objections to algorithmic ranking approaches in other programs and said the index had produced unexpected results previously. One member said some communities that “had nobody home and desperately needed help didn’t rate very well” under the earlier index-based approach, while other better-resourced towns scored highly.
Committee members and legislative counsel discussed that multiple indices exist (some rank neediness at the top; others rank readiness), and the Senate text did not clearly indicate which index or how it should be applied. The committee set three options: remove the ranking language, keep it (as one of several criteria), or solicit more testimony. Members favored gathering additional testimony from technical experts, including Michael Bell or Jonathan Farnham (identified as having administered related programs), and scheduled outreach to get clarity on what index is being referenced and whether it should inform prioritization.
The committee agreed not to adopt the Senate’s ranking language without further clarity and asked staff to invite testimony so the committee could decide whether the index should remain as a criterion, be clarified, or be removed.
No formal vote occurred during the meeting; the discussion concluded with an instruction to request witnesses to explain the index’s construction and policy intent.
