Senate committee hears experts on H.775 pilots to bulk‑buy factory‑built homes and create a credit facility
Loading...
Summary
On April 14 the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee took testimony on H.775, which would authorize two pilots—an off‑site construction accelerator and the Vermont State Housing Authority’s Move in Vermont program—and a modest credit facility intended to aggregate demand and reduce per‑unit costs for factory‑built homes.
On April 14 the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee heard testimony on H.775, a bill that would authorize two pilot programs and a small statewide credit facility designed to aggregate demand for factory‑built housing and lower construction costs.
The bill’s off‑site construction accelerator pilot would test preapproved designs (missing‑middle duplexes, triplexes and townhomes) and municipal collaboration to speed approvals and enable bulk purchase agreements, a key change witnesses said is needed for modular and panelized construction to realize meaningful cost savings. Jeff Lubell, senior fellow at the Urban Land Institute’s Terwilliger Center for Housing, told the committee the pilots are intended as experiments to generate lessons about standardization, approval streamlining and how to aggregate site demand across jurisdictions.
Lubell said the Move in Vermont pilot, led by the Vermont State Housing Authority, differs from the accelerator in focusing on single‑family and duplex units built as high‑end manufactured homes (so‑called “cross‑mod” units). He told the committee the program would use a revolving credit facility to aggregate orders, finance factory deposits and pay for home deliveries, and then be reimbursed when purchasers complete sales, making the facility largely self‑replenishing rather than a permanent subsidy.
"We developed three pilot homes last year that cost about $250,000 all in, not including land," Lubell said, comparing the factory‑built example to an estimated $400,000 to build the same unit on site. He argued that even modest early savings would provide learning, and that larger savings would accrue if manufacturers could rely on predictable, repeated orders and expand capacity.
Committee members pressed witnesses on the underlying math and market risks. Sen. Dave Weeks asked why Lubell had not provided a cost matrix showing comparative unit costs across off‑site types; Lubell replied that cost outcomes vary widely by housing type and utilization and that the pilot would provide comparable empirical data. Other senators raised concerns about opportunity cost: some said limited LIAC/LAAC lending capacity might be better used for school construction or other urgent projects.
A representative of the treasurer’s office reviewed the local investment advisory/LAAC program context and said existing law leaves significant discretion with the treasurer. The treasurer’s office emphasized that LIAC/LAAC loans are typically made through intermediaries that guarantee repayment and that, absent additional cash backing, any credit facility would require similar protections and risk‑mitigation. Witnesses clarified legislative language and math: the pilot language authorizes up to 1% of the full fund (after a 2.5% increase) for a revolving facility—roughly a modest, single‑digit‑million dollar range, not the full $30 million discussed as the total increase.
Committee members also discussed statewide and regional building‑code reforms as a companion strategy: Lubell and members said a consistent code or mutually recognized preapproved designs across states would reduce duplication, lower manufacturers’ compliance costs, and help scale production by making designs transferable across jurisdictions.
There were also local‑market concerns. Some senators urged prioritizing in‑state manufacturers and warned against sending program dollars out of state; the treasurer’s office said it would seek to maximize Vermont‑based capacity when feasible. Lubell and others said the state’s initial role could be to aggregate demand and prove the market so that private builders and regional manufacturers feel comfortable scaling up.
The committee paused further H.775 debate to pivot to H.757; the panel said it will continue discussion of H.775’s pilots and credit facility at a later session and invited the treasurer’s office and other witnesses to return.
The committee did not take a vote on H.775 during the session.
