Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vhcb And Permanent Affordability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Housing developers urge lawmakers to fund VHCB, extend permanent affordability to protect units
Summary
Evernorth and partners told the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee that permanent affordability covenants, consistent VHCB funding and targeted preservation financing are necessary to prevent loss of existing affordable units and to stretch state dollars.
Nancy Owens, president and cofounder of Evernorth, told the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on Valentine’s Day that permanent affordability covenants and steady state funding are essential to preserve Vermont’s affordable housing stock.
“Permanent affordability is a value and a policy that we committed to right from the start,” Owens said, describing projects Evernorth has developed and financed across Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.
Owens said VHCB and other state resources have leveraged private bank equity and federal tax credits to fund thousands of units. She told the committee that, since 2020, VHCB-funded activity has supported 2,275 multifamily rental homes in Vermont, including roughly 1,900 newly created units and almost 700 reserved for people exiting homelessness.
Why it matters: Owens warned that when affordability covenants expire, units can convert to market rate and be lost to the low-income housing inventory. She argued that extending or preserving affordability reduces long-term replacement costs and protects residents who otherwise could be displaced.
Key points Owens offered to the committee:
- Many states’ housing finance agencies lengthen federal minimums; federal low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) programs typically require a 30-year covenant, while some HFAs incentivize or require longer periods.
- Evernorth’s internal 2023–2025 review of 18 tax-credit transactions found an average total development cost (TDC) per unit of about $524,000 in Vermont compared with roughly $424,000–$430,000 per unit in Maine and New Hampshire — a gap Owens described as “about $100,000 a project, not 50%.” She cited labor availability, regulatory timelines, density and qualified allocation plan (QAP) cost-cap differences as contributing factors.
- Preservation can be less expensive than replacement: Owens used Wickham Woods, a senior project in Essex, as an example. She said nonprofits acquired and renovated the property in 2003 for $3.35 million (about $72,000 per unit at that time), later added units, and are now financing another round of investment costing roughly $173,000 per unit; the total per-unit capital investment to preserve the 65 homes is now roughly $245,000 per unit.
Owens pressed for a longer-term financing strategy and argued for a state-level leveraging fund to work with 4% bond credits to preserve existing properties. “We need a long term plan, right, where we consistently are funding groups like VHCB to use as this leverage with the 4% credit,” she said.
Committee context and request: Owens and other witnesses repeated an ask that the legislature fund the Vermont Housing & Conservation Board at its statutory share — roughly $36,900,000 for fiscal year 2026 — and consider regulatory changes to speed permitting and allow density bonuses for projects that combine housing and conservation aims.
Ending: Owens said she would supply the committee with transaction-level data comparing closed tax-credit projects in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire to help lawmakers quantify drivers of the cost gap.
