Hula, Jonathan Rose urge Vermont to approve CHIP funding to unlock 1,400-unit South End housing plan

Developers and the Hula co‑working community told the Vermont House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development on April 17 that a 13‑acre South End site in Burlington will not move forward at scale without state infrastructure support such as the proposed CHIP (Community Housing Infrastructure Program) legislation.

Adam Nick Krasen, representing the project team, said the site — three adjacent properties with joint predevelopment agreements among Hula, Champlain College and the City of Burlington — could accommodate up to 1,400 housing units under the city’s Secord zoning but needs public infrastructure investment first. “But for CHIP, the excitement we’re about to showcase for you cannot happen,” Krasen told the committee.

Why it matters: The project’s proponents said the development would create housing for employees of Hula’s growing business campus and help sustain Burlington’s role as an economic engine for Vermont. They described the work as catalytic: new housing would support job growth and, proponents argued, help finance long-needed sewer separation work that contributes to combined sewer overflows into Lake Champlain.

Russ Scully, founder of Hula, said the facility has generated rapid job growth and that the biggest constraint for his member companies is the ability to hire qualified staff because housing is scarce. Scully described the site’s history: Hula initially leased and then purchased a nearby parking property to meet a 300-space on-site parking need and once leased 400 spaces from an adjoining lot. After demand patterns shifted post‑COVID, the development team began pursuing rezoning to allow residential construction.

The project team has contracted with Jonathan Rose Companies as lead developer. Andrew Foley, director of development for Jonathan Rose, described the firm’s national experience developing green, affordable and mixed‑income housing and said the firm favors public‑private partnerships to bring complex projects to completion. Foley told the committee that rising construction costs, higher interest rates and reduced availability of some federal funding streams make large-scale affordable development financially difficult without creative public tools.

Proponents outlined the kinds of public investments they expect would need to be eligible under a CHIP-style program: sewer and stormwater work to separate combined systems, street and water main improvements, and energy or district‑scale green infrastructure that reduces demand on public utilities. They emphasized the South End combined sewer overflow at Lakeside and Pine as a known constraint: the site’s full buildout requires sewer separation to prevent recurring discharges to Lake Champlain during wet weather.

The project team said the site would be phased, building first where existing infrastructure is strongest and using parking and staging areas on the remainder of the site as housing is phased in. They noted partnerships with local housing organizations — including Champlain Housing Trust — and financial actors such as VHFA and VHCB would be required to meet affordability commitments baked into the Secord district’s pre‑development approvals and Act 250 signaling.

Committee members asked detailed financing questions, including whether municipalities should bond and build infrastructure up front, whether reimbursement or tax stabilization models should be used, and how CHIP’s flexibility would affect deal structure. Foley and the team favored keeping multiple financing options available so the city and developers could select the tool that best fits each phase.

No formal vote or authorization was taken during the hearing. Committee members said they would study the proposal and the bill’s language; proponents asked for continued engagement and offered site tours and follow‑up with state housing agencies.

Taper: Proponents called the South End plan a statewide‑scale opportunity that links housing, job growth and lake water quality; they asked the committee to consider CHIP as a tool to finance the public infrastructure necessary to begin construction.