Ruth, executive chair of the coalition Let's Build Homes, presented a "housing infrastructure initiative" (HIT) to the House Committee on Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs, saying the tool is designed to cover municipal infrastructure—water, sewer, roads and related costs—that often makes housing projects financially unviable.

"We have a scarcity of homes in Vermont that is driving not just housing affordability, but rippling through our health care challenges and workforce issues," Ruth said, describing a newly formed coalition that she said had grown to about 700 members and organizations.

Why it matters: Ruth and other speakers told the committee that public‑service extensions and utility upgrades can add millions to a project’s cost and that an infrastructure financing tool focused on housing could unlock developments that otherwise ‘‘won’t pencil out.’’ They framed the proposal as a narrowly tailored alternative to broader tax‑increment financing (TIF) that would apply only to predominantly housing projects in geographically eligible areas mapped under Act 250 and depending on "existing settlement" definitions in state statute.

How the proposal would work: Ruth said the bill would allow eligible, predominantly housing projects in Tier 1 Act 250 areas, certain exempt areas and within a half‑mile of an "existing settlement" to use a form of captured tax increment for up to 20 years (the presentation used the familiar TIF concept of capturing a share of new incremental tax revenue). The plan would also explicitly make brownfield remediation and flood‑resiliency measures eligible costs. In contrast to some TIF structures, the proposal discussed allowing developers to take on the borrowing directly, with repayments coming from the project‑level increment; the presenters said that model exists in roughly 32 states.

Examples and numbers shared: Ruth used Middlebury's Summit Properties project as an example. She said the developers completed an initial "core village" of 80 homes with roughly $6,000,000 in infrastructure funding from federal and local sources, but adding a permitted 104 homes would require about $2,500,000 more in infrastructure work. Ruth estimated that the full build‑out would generate about $575,000 annually in new property tax revenue and that capturing a share of that increment could close the $2.5 million gap.

A smaller example (Village Ventures/Denison) was presented to show how modest infrastructure gaps (testimony cited roughly $250,000 for a 26‑unit, $6.5 million development) can stop projects from moving forward.

Oversight, approvals and risks: Presenters emphasized municipal approval and infrastructure agreements will be required; Ruth said state oversight agencies would be involved and that the program could be administered with simplified oversight compared with current TIF administration. Committee members asked whether the Vermont Economic Progress agency (referred to in testimony as "Vepsi") or another state entity would provide oversight; Ruth said that agency had been discussed and that program administration details would be worked out. Questions raised by members included density thresholds, geographic boundary complexity for adjacent parcels, brownfield remediation costs and how a state auditor would examine projects.

Funding context: Ruth noted a current proposal to use $9,100,000 in municipal bond bank infrastructure‑sustainability money as an initial funding source and said the HIT would be a tool to leverage those dollars and private investment without directly writing large new general‑fund appropriations.

Next steps: Ruth said draft bill language has been prepared with legislative staff (John Gray was named) and that presenters would provide a written packet and slides to the committee. Several senators signaled interest in refining eligibility (for example, a 50% housing threshold or density minimums) and in aligning the proposal with existing municipal assistance programs. Committee members requested follow‑up documents, agency input on oversight and clarification on audit and risk protections. No formal vote or motion was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: Presenters and legislators agreed the initiative merits further study and drafting this session; language is expected to be circulated to committee members and state partners for technical review.