[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6255933,"mediaKeyId","3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c","parentId",3161190,"title","League of Cities warns primary-residence clause in CHIP development agreements could be unenforceable for many towns","audioSeconds",2005,"startMs",3036000,"endMs",5041000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c&start=3036&end=5041","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c/thumbnail_3036000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6255933/Vermont/League-of-Cities-warns-primary-residence-clause-in-CHIP-development-agreements-could-be-unenforceable-for-many-towns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255933-6ac766a371e660f66a1f181da74db587/orig.mp4?Expires=1773641500&Signature=hrXV0Tf9LGDb2q~1bgngWi0mcWxwm~nHZu8y0mmNA-IWScTqAFEyvferRRZntt8LxpK~FIXtD90kiIub1OHacZoA8kMGURtdHXjifhBsZTLmf8OhjH5Jr72fgZ~HxsupK4RRBAPmB2xi0~6VZUCEydfMnYciwTZNiYoP-aN8Dx5H~t2kf4O~Q~wlk-mbhkgB08s8o4vHLC-IKeLxgv1-pbVMWMKkpP-bc60cRMiR4LRLDoQofU1HIRJF9KcsSrmHefSsBvskDSyFBTjz8ybExxo9cRhy-me-MjBkKlyr7Lg~paRg5nShNojSAxFxxy2JS4JfkRgPLRgd7cgRmfFTFA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-30T23:47:51.667Z","article","Samantha Sheehan and Josh Hanford of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns (VLCT) told the House General & Housing Committee that the bill’s requirement that municipalities include a primary-residence certification in the housing infrastructure agreement (the development agreement) creates practical enforcement and capacity problems for many Vermont towns.

\"What's in question is this tool in the CHIP program or this requirement in the CHIP program that requires a municipality to certify this in a development agreement when we have not heard how a municipality would be able to enforce this,\" Sheehan said. \"That gives us pause.\"

VLCT witnesses said municipalities typically do not have existing authority or staff to monitor the ongoing occupancy status of individual units across the life of a development, and they raised multiple practical questions: who would be assessed fines or penalties; whether a town can realistically review homestead filings or rental leases over decades; and whether municipalities should be expected to police subsequent private sales and transfers.

\"These are perfectly fine policy goals,\" Sheehan added, \"but they don't belong in a municipal development agreement. They belong with a subsidy source and an organization that can monitor and enforce that.\"

Committee discussion explored possible remedies and enforcement pathways. Several members and witnesses noted standard development-agreement tools that can be used elsewhere: recorded covenants that \"run with the land,\" performance assurances, and developer obligations to post security. One committee member suggested a covenant recorded on the deed as an enforceable remedy; VLCT representatives said those contractual remedies are more commonly associated with subsidy programs that include a monitoring entity, not with routine municipal development agreements in small towns.

The committee did not vote on the provision at the April 30 hearing. VLCT asked either to remove the requirement from the municipal development agreement or to pair it with clear authority and resources for enforcement; lawmakers said they will continue to draft compromise language and consider whether to require primary-residence protections at initial offering rather than for the perpetual life of a development.

\"We support the intent behind this section,\" Josh Hanford said. \"Our concern is capacity and enforceability at the municipal level.\"","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House General - 2025-04-30 - 1:55PM","oneSentenceSummary","Samantha Sheehan and Josh Hanford of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns told the committee that a required 'primary residence' certification in CHIP development agreements could be practically unenforceable in many towns and urged either removing the obligation from municipal development agreements or pairing it with enforcement authority and resources.","taxTitle","General & Housing, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30954,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6255939,"Town manager says CHIP could unlock 60–80 homes on town-owned land but small towns need technical assistance",727,2235000,2962000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c&start=2235&end=2962","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c/thumbnail_2235000.jpg","/articles/6255939/Vermont/Town-manager-says-CHIP-could-unlock-6080-homes-on-town-owned-land-but-small-towns-need-technical-assistance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255939-ed484c7e1703ec1bb958907a4b7caa96/orig.mp4?Expires=1773641500&Signature=PxUscNJKSHllTbFis4B-F7VZS3IY9JLckdPADPSxodtBzWjP4KNzAvUhGigeH5xLvzgzRWMX2xbCjizRXQrrDHjxGZo2-qZo0IIXuQ6x~p9UXZIUZcwtTPDj11owIf1Q5Rt8bTyYMUquU~k9m2fMTarCxh2VTFq2CC9JOpuJojQ5SMaGf5XO6XYf7lFaBi9LI9AzDKBEEaN3HWxDR-Oa4TxWJP2kh~qY6DPVLAfiKEWTQYIP8R9mTtmFflHNERwwsjB9CeLXXnN1kHbmJEcumCh29aC39gdykeUJ~QzbRR80G0~5tyZ-1oGUIkVo4mxW93s25eS8bNyQ7vEfGQgYmw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Julie Hans, town manager of the Town of Chester, told the House General & Housing Committee that a CHIP-style tool could make a town-owned site feasible for housing but that small municipalities lack in-house engineering, legal and permitting capacity to use the program without help.

\"Chester is a town of about 3,200 people,\" Hans said. \"This land is town owned . . . we're finding through that study that this land is very promising for a potential development of approximately 60 to 80 homes, primarily multifamily townhouse type structure.\"

Hans said Chester acquired the parcel in 2016 and carved out part of it for a backup water tank because of the elevation. The site already sits near municipal sewer and water infrastructure at an access road, she said; the missing link is the access and on-site infrastructure that would let a developer build housing. She urged the committee to preserve or allow municipal portions of CHIP funds to be used for technical assistance (engineers, architects, attorneys) because \"small towns like Chester don't have engineers and architects and attorneys on staff.\"

Hans said the town is working with its regional planning commission to secure a Tier 1 designation so the parcel will qualify under the program's locational rules. She described broad local support for housing on the parcel but said towns of Chester’s size need funding flexibility and tools other than a full traditional TIF.

Committee members asked about possible tax stabilization or tax-abatement alternatives that would lower developer carrying costs. Hans said Chester has used stabilization in the past by voter approval for particular projects and that selling or writing down land price and timing town payments are additional local tools.

No formal committee action was taken; members and some witnesses discussed additional drafting on tax-stabilization options, smaller carve-outs and thresholds that could make CHIP useful to small towns.

\"This type of program could make a lot of these projects achievable,\" Hans said. \"It is a tool that smaller towns really need access to.\"","Chester Town Manager Julie Hans told the committee that her town’s 139-acre parcel could support roughly 60–80 homes but lacks the technical staff and financing tools needed to deliver development; she urged the committee to preserve municipal technical assistance and flexible municipal uses of the CHIP program.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6255944,"Advocates say housing TIF proposal could channel more infrastructure dollars to market-rate projects than to affordable housing",1904,192000,2096000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c&start=192&end=2096","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3161190-1c524d207408bd629796ad91d9242f0c/thumbnail_192000.jpg","/articles/6255944/Vermont/Advocates-say-housing-TIF-proposal-could-channel-more-infrastructure-dollars-to-market-rate-projects-than-to-affordable-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6255944-d5b5a705860e88c5663b98d9c4804eb4/orig.mp4?Expires=1773641500&Signature=nLeLkawKLl5G5kMxlG4ClhhRrU8Mm8FNqXE~K7WHDYfVGiY9LTwz9IegWtIQS6mWC24DcfHwuJdYtNV1JCZL~-QW58V997AtPRnVjlZah7Y9YJued~gWzlOVRkmZRArQ16I~MRZ2zK6r4WwE13Od9GmSOthG~5mUNaIrt7tQHEhnOacbZG7alKgb366UY92Gu2JZyg6tkaKcq97rnwfcZaeWAXqdMdbMzJQ1UeOR-JMQEyCgYFRhhUsmIX7FDfowi5dDvLbrWXJqD6f73gCT6TdMhizlLHTV4p6wYYJGUAAFFaV9FNblVZlTrltAFMwVIy5KIzg-Xu4I1gNKY5Rxng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Nancy Owens, president of Evernorth, told the House General & Housing Committee April 30 that Vermont’s draft housing infrastructure tax increment financing program (CHIP) ties borrowing capacity to assessed property value in a way that could favor market-rate housing over deeply affordable projects.

\"Affordable housing is going to be assessed at a lower rate, lower valuation than a similar market rate property,\" Owens said. \"In the case where the lower assessed value of two identical multifamily projects, one market and one affordable, it would mean that the affordable housing project would qualify for less TIF funding than the market-rate project.\"

Owens, whose nonprofit community development finance organization Evernorth operates in Vermont, Maine and New Hampshire, described how assessors often use an income-based approach: lower rents on income-restricted units produce lower income estimates and thus lower capital valuations. She said that difference can translate into materially different annual tax increments and so different maximum borrowing to pay for infrastructure.

As an illustration, Owens cited two recent Winooski properties she reviewed: a 45-unit affordable project with ground-floor commercial space and a 30-unit market-rate project across the street. After adjusting to a per-unit basis, she said, the market-rate building’s annual tax would be about $117,000 versus about $80,000 for the affordable building. Using a 70% increment capture assumption, she estimated roughly $56,000 per year in increment for the affordable project and about $82,000 for the market-rate project — which, she said, would support roughly $650,000 and $950,000 in borrowing capacity, respectively.

\"The infrastructure costs are identical,\" Owens said. \"We're not paying more for a stormwater pond at an affordable project than we are for a market-rate project. So there are some inequities there.\"

Owens also ran a larger example to show effects at scale. For a hypothetical 200-unit development, she estimated the full increment could generate about $6.3 million for infrastructure. If 20% of those units were affordable and valued at a lower assessment, she estimated the available financing would fall by about $400,000 to roughly $5.9 million — still substantial, she said, but a measurable reduction.

Committee members and other witnesses asked whether density bonuses or other incentives could offset the valuation effect; Owens said density is rarely realized in Vermont to the extent that zoning allows, and that mixed-income rules and other program language could be used to steer benefits to low- and moderate-income households.

Committee chair and members did not take a vote on changes at the April 30 hearing. Several members said they will continue work on taxation and stabilization options, and Owens urged tighter statutory definitions and design features that explicitly steer infrastructure dollars to affordable and mixed-income outcomes.

\"I want that public subsidy to benefit affordable housing to the maximum extent,\" Owens said. \"Right now it's actually up to a lower extent. I want to raise that.\"","Witnesses told the House General & Housing Committee that the proposed housing infrastructure tax increment financing (CHIP) uses assessed valuation in ways that may give market-rate developments bigger financing capacity than comparable affordable projects, and offered numerical examples from Winooski and larger master-planned developments.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

League of Cities warns primary-residence clause in CHIP development agreements could be unenforceable for many towns

Town manager says CHIP could unlock 60–80 homes on town-owned land but small towns need technical assistance

Advocates say housing TIF proposal could channel more infrastructure dollars to market-rate projects than to affordable housing