Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
VHCB briefs committee on housing investments as ARPA funding winds down, requests a $37M transfer‑tax allocation
Summary
Vermont Housing and Conservation Board staff told a legislative committee Jan. 30 that the governor's transfer‑tax allocation request for VHCB is slightly over $37 million, noted ARPA one‑time funds have been spent on capital projects and described how VHCB leverages those dollars to support housing and recovery residences.
Gus Sealy, executive director of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, told a legislative committee on Jan. 30 that VHCB’s governor-requested transfer-tax allocation is ‘‘a little over $37,000,000’’ and described how the agency leverages those state dollars with federal grants and private funding to support housing and related projects.
Sealy said much of VHCB’s recent housing push used one-time federal funds (ARPA) and that the agency is ‘‘just finishing our very last ARPA project’’; he characterized ARPA and other one-time dollars as useful for capital projects because once a capital investment is complete ‘‘it’s done.’’ Sealy told the committee VHCB has committed the ARPA funds and said there is about $2 million left to allocate from that source.
On program scale, Sealy said VHCB’s average investment per housing project is roughly $80,000, though in some cases the agency leverages $150,000–$200,000 for larger projects. He said the current appropriation mix is about 65% housing and 35% conservation this year because one-time housing dollars were recently allocated.
Committee members asked about payback and leverage for projects such as libraries or community facilities; VHCB staff said their role often is to fund grant-writing or small technical consulting to help communities draw down larger federal, state or nonprofit grants.
Sealy urged committee members to raise VHCB priorities with appropriators and said staff would provide the committee with their annual report and slides. The presentation was informational; no formal appropriation decisions were taken at the meeting.
