Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Chip Tif Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rural Caucus urges CHIP/TIF changes to expand electricity, lower floor‑area thresholds and relax 'but‑for' requirement
Summary
Members of the Rural Caucus addressed the Commerce & Economic Development Committee about proposed amendments to the CHIP/TIF housing provisions, seeking to add electricity infrastructure, lower floor‑area thresholds to enable small‑community reuses of existing buildings, and remove the 'but‑for' test for certain projects.
A Rural Caucus spokesperson told the House Committee on Commerce & Economic Development that caucus members asked for three primary changes to the CHIP/TIF housing provisions under consideration: add electricity infrastructure to the list of eligible improvements; lower the floor‑area threshold so smaller reuses (for example, reusing an old general‑store building with second‑floor housing) qualify; and remove the "but‑for" financing test that requires showing a project would not otherwise occur without the incentive.
The caucus representative said the state’s utilities landscape is mixed — investor‑owned utility, two rural electric cooperatives, and several municipal utilities — and urged explicit inclusion of electricity so smaller rural projects are not excluded. The representative cited last year’s policy change removing group net metering, which reduced financing options for some housing projects, and urged flexibility so housing projects can use renewed financing approaches.
On floor area thresholds, caucus members asked for more flexibility to allow rehabilitation of small‑scale buildings that would create meaningful housing in local communities yet might fall below earlier percentage thresholds. The spokesperson said the caucus favored a state‑level process that allows a reviewing body to certify that projects below the threshold still meet housing goals.
Members of the committee and staff discussed guardrails already present in the bill, including caps and review boards (the CHIP board) that could approve sub‑threshold projects; some members expressed concern that lowering the threshold to 51% could weaken housing prioritization and shift the program away from producing residential units as its central aim.
Committee members also asked for technical input from municipal stakeholders and legal counsel on financing and utility billing mechanics; staff suggested obtaining LCT (League of Cities and Towns) feedback on municipal impacts. The committee paused the session for lunch as debate continued and indicated further review would continue after receiving additional counsel and municipal feedback.
