Barre City leaders signaled support for submitting a major CDBG-DR (referred to in the meeting as “CDBG Doctor”) grant package, including a $5,264,063 request to fund infrastructure at the Prospect Heights housing site and a slate of other flood‑resiliency and housing projects.

The city manager and Councilor Guston told the council the Prospect Heights site, previously zoned for 128 units, now is estimated after environmental review to support 91 units (66 multifamily and 25 single‑family), and that the city already has secured roughly $2.88 million from the Northern Border Regional Commission and $750,000 in the state budget. Councilor Guston said the $5.264 million request would cover the remaining infrastructure gap — streets, water, sewer and stormwater — needed to make the site shovel‑ready for private development partners.

Why it matters: Councilors framed Prospect Heights as a way to add a mix of affordable and workforce housing in locations outside the downtown floodplain, and as a way to grow the municipal grand list and increase long‑term property tax revenue. Councilor Guston and the manager said the city would not build housing units but would install infrastructure and then sell or otherwise convey lots to private or nonprofit developers to construct the homes.

Key facts and funding: The manager and staff reported an estimated total infrastructure and site cost in the presentation (shown in the due diligence materials provided to council) of roughly $8.36 million and about $530,000 for engineering and permitting. The Northern Border Regional Commission award was cited in the meeting as $2,875,870; the state appropriation cited by staff was $750,000. The council proposal for CDBG‑DR funding would request $5,264,063 to fill the remaining gap.

Debate and public comments: Residents and developers asked technical questions about stormwater, wastewater, soils and slope stability. Public commenters and councilors pushed for affordability mechanisms such as shared‑equity models, and asked whether the project would create downstream impacts. City staff and engineering consultants said much of the new stormwater would be managed on‑site and that borings and the due‑diligence report showed no landslide‑prone subsoils at the proposed build areas. Speakers also said water and wastewater capacity had been evaluated and that additional on‑site retention would be required by permitting.

Next steps: Councilors instructed staff to proceed with a grant application and to refine the partnership agreement with the Area Development Corporation (ADC) and other partners. Staff said they were drafting an MOU/sponsorship agreement to formalize how the city and ADC will share site control and project responsibilities; staff expected that agreement to be ready for council review in early August. The manager and council also signaled intent to discuss additional CDBG‑DR requests for other projects on the council’s compiled list.

Resident concerns and council clarifications: Speakers from the West Side neighborhood expressed worry about drainage and existing failing detention ponds; councilors and staff said the city is commissioning a comprehensive stormwater system scoping study and would sequence work so that on‑site retention and downstream upgrades are coordinated rather than creating new burdens on older systems. Staff additionally noted that any state or federal grant funding would be tied specifically to the project scope and would not be available if the project did not proceed.

Ending: Councilors indicated broad support to pursue the Prospect Heights infrastructure request as part of a larger CDBG‑DR grant package, while asking staff to continue community outreach, refine cost estimates and identify implementation partners. If the ADC completes its acquisition steps and the MOU is approved, staff said the city would proceed with submitting grant applications for the infrastructure gap.