The Montpelier City Council voted to stop pursuing an expanded growth‑center designation for Country Club Road and to pursue alternative funding/designation tools, including the Community and Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP) and project‑based tax increment financing (TIF/TIP) options. Council also authorized staff to invite an outside consultant to advise the city on drafting a developer request for proposals (RFP).

Why it matters: Country Club Road is a large planned development site where council members and staff have sought state designations and funding tools to finance infrastructure. Changes in state programs and new project‑specific financing options gave the council an alternative to the growth‑center route the city had been pursuing; the council decided to shift strategy to increase the chance of moving the project forward more quickly.

Planning Director Mike Miller summarized options the city has considered and said the state’s recent statutory and program changes — including CHIP, described as a project‑based TIF that does not require a geographic TIF district — provide new pathways to finance infrastructure without the growth‑center designation. Alex Farrell, Commissioner at Vermont’s Department of Housing and Community Development, told the council that CHIP is intended for situations where a community wishes to advance one or a small number of projects using tax‑increment financing but does not want or need a full TIF district and that “there is not a geographic requirement” for CHIP.

Council debate cited workload and timing constraints: staff noted the growth‑center program is sunsetting and that completing a full application would consume significant staff time during a period of reduced staff capacity. Mike Miller recommended shifting priorities to secure a developer and use CHIP/TIP options with a developer in place, rather than waiting on a growth‑center designation. Council members also discussed CDBG‑DR (disaster recovery) infrastructure grants and local affordability requirements tied to those grants — staff said the pre‑application could bring roughly $8–10 million in infrastructure funding contingent on an affordable‑housing component and that council would need to weigh trade‑offs between infrastructure dollars and the percentage of permanently affordable units.

Council voted on two motions: first, to stop pursuing the growth‑center designation for Country Club Road and instead focus on CHIP, TIP and other funding opportunities; second, to direct staff to invite consultant Stephanie Clark (White Burke) to discuss an RFP process for selecting a developer and to bring the city‑drafted RFP back for council input. Both motions passed.

Staff and several councilors emphasized a change in process: rather than complete land‑use and designation steps before seeking a developer, the new path will likely require the city to prepare an RFP to identify a developer early so that project plans and increment/value projections can be assembled in support of a CHIP application. The timing and affordability targets will be returned to council as staff refines cost and funding scenarios.

Ending: The council ended formal pursuit of a growth‑center expansion for Country Club Road and approved pursuing CHIP/TIP and related grant opportunities, while authorizing consultant engagement to guide an RFP process. Staff will return with a timeline and draft RFP materials for council review.