Let’s Build Homes presents 'Housing Infrastructure Initiative' to help finance public works for new housing

Maraud Weinberg, executive chair of the Let’s Build Homes coalition, told a joint hearing of the House Commerce and Economic Development Committee and the House General & Housing Committee on Feb. 13 that the coalition is proposing a Housing Infrastructure Initiative to help pay for public water, sewer, roads, sidewalks and other “horizontal” infrastructure needed for new housing.

Why it matters: Vermont faces a shortfall in housing supply and public infrastructure that supporters say prevents otherwise-feasible housing projects from moving forward. Weinberg cited the state housing finance agency’s five‑year target to build about 30,000 homes from 2025–2029 and said the initiative aims to reduce the upfront infrastructure cost that can render projects infeasible.

The proposal summarized Maraud Weinberg (executive chair, Let’s Build Homes) characterized the idea as narrowly focused on housing. “This is not TIF. It is very different in a number of, I think, important respects,” Weinberg said, distinguishing the proposal from Vermont’s traditional tax increment financing. Under the model presented, a single project — not a broad district — would capture a share of the incremental property tax revenue it generates. David White (president, Weidenberg Real Estate Advisors), who described himself as a volunteer adviser to the coalition, said the proposal would allow up to 80% of new incremental state and local property taxes to be used to service one-time debt for infrastructure and that the capture period would be limited (the presenters described a 20‑year example).

Developers’ example: Stonecrop Meadows, Middlebury Zeke Davison (COO, Summit Properties), described a real‑world project in Middlebury called Stonecrop Meadows (a master‑planned community). Davison said the first 80 units are under construction and that public investments for that phase total about $6 million; he said roughly $30 million of the project’s $52 million budget came from state resources (ARPA, tax credits, VHCB). Davison provided project-level figures: roughly $75,000 of new infrastructure cost per unit for the first 80 units; an estimated $450,000 in annual tax revenue at full build‑out of the first phase; and a possible next phase of 104 units that would require another ~$2.5 million in infrastructure (about $24,000 per unit) and could produce additional tax revenue. Summarizing the practical effect, Davison said that removing or financing the upfront infrastructure cost can be the difference between a project “penciling” and not.

Key design elements described by presenters - Project-based, not district-based: proponents said HIT would attach to a contiguous set of parcels forming a single project (projects may be phased) rather than creating a larger district covering many properties. David White noted that the project could cross a public right-of-way but would remain a defined project rather than a broad district. - Eligibility and geography: presenters proposed limiting the program to mapped areas: Tier 1 (as designated under the act creating temporary exemptions from Act 250), existing settlements (the statutory definition in Title 10), and areas on last year’s temporary exemption maps. Weinberg said the intent is to encourage development in existing settlement centers rather than promote sprawl. - Minimum housing share: the draft concept would require at least 50% of floor area in the project to be housing to accommodate mixed-use centers where first-floor commercial space is common. - Uses of proceeds: the model presented by David White would allow payment for the same public infrastructure categories defined under existing TIF law (water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, public parking) and explicitly add brownfields remediation and flood‑resilience measures as eligible costs. Presenters said the model, as presented, would not pay for private vertical construction (the governor’s Spark proposal proposes a broader approach, which supporters noted is different). - Financing options: presenters laid out three approaches: municipal borrowing (general obligation), borrowing by an entity such as the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank, or developer borrowing with a tax rebate (a “pay‑as‑you‑go” approach used in many states). White said 32 states allow developer‑backed tax rebate structures and that method places risk on the developer rather than taxpayers. - Capture limits and duration: presenters described using up to 80% of incremental state and local property taxes for an upfront debt instrument, with an example capture period of up to 20 years; they said the share used for debt service could decline over time as tax revenues grow.

Questions and concerns raised by committee members and witnesses Committee members asked about limits and tradeoffs. Representative Burrows and others pressed presenters on whether the state would be “robbing” the education fund and on how to judge the “but‑for” test (the counterfactual that asks whether development would have occurred without the tool). Weinberg acknowledged the concern and cited the Joint Fiscal Office’s current estimate of roughly $6.5 million in diverted education fund revenues from existing TIFs as a measure often used in debate; she contrasted that with larger annual programs she said receive less scrutiny (she cited estimates of ~$80 million and ~$160 million for other property tax treatments). Presenters agreed that more analysis of the magnitude of any diversion would be useful and said they would follow up.

Several representatives asked how the tool would work in small rural towns where projects are often only a few units and local administrative capacity is limited. David White said the model is deliberately bottom‑up — communities and developers would negotiate an agreement — and that eligible administrative and advisory costs (legal counsel, project pro formas) could be bondable project costs. White and Weinberg suggested regional partners (regional planning commissions, VLCT, regional economic development corporations) could help smaller towns assemble proposals.

School enrollment and settlement patterns were raised by multiple members: one representative asked whether the proposal would favor towns that still have schools and whether it would be sensitive to towns at risk of losing schools. Weinberg said the proposed geographic limits (existing settlements and temporary exemption maps) are designed to promote housing in existing centers, which proponents say could help stabilize or increase school enrollment in places that have experienced student loss, but she did not claim the proposal would guarantee school outcomes.

Administration and oversight Presenters proposed a streamlined approval process through VEPs (the state entity that administers TIF programs was referenced) with staff review for routine projects and board review where a settlement determination or unusual complexity was required. They said the aim was to avoid the repeated, complex district management that has made some TIF projects administratively burdensome.

Follow-up and legislative status Weinberg said Let’s Build Homes has circulated an outline of draft legislative language and is working with Representative Barley on next steps; she said legislative counsel and additional analysis remain to be completed. Presenters agreed to return with more analysis on but‑for assumptions, the potential fiscal effect on the education fund under plausible scenarios, and clarifications about eligible costs and geographic scope.

No formal action taken The committee received the presentation and asked questions; there were no motions or votes recorded during the hearing. Presenters said they would continue to refine statutory language and financial models for committee review.

Ending note Supporters framed HIT as one lever among many to address Vermont’s housing shortage; presenters and several committee members emphasized that no single tool will solve the problem and that a suite of approaches — including tax abatement, tax‑freeze models, direct state investment and HIT‑style financing — may be needed to increase housing production.