Officials seek $2 million for Brownfields revolving loan to speed housing and redevelopment

Commissioner Joan Goldstein, the state official leading economic-development presentations, asked the Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee to support a $2 million revolving loan for a Brownfields Revitalization Fund during a committee meeting.

Goldstein said the Brownfields program pays to characterize and remediate contaminated or complicated properties so sites can be redeveloped for housing and economic uses. "Brownfields is property that's been contaminated. It's complicated property. It's complicated by the release or threatened release of hazardous material," she told the committee.

The proposal would shift the state request from repeated one-time grants to a revolving loan fund so returned capital can be reused for additional cleanups. Presenters said the revolving model is designed to be sustainable and that many private developers prefer loans to grants because grants can trigger tax liabilities for for‑profit developers.

Why it matters: Committee presenters said Brownfields investment has both economic and fiscal effects — enabling housing and private development on previously unusable downtown or infill parcels, raising municipal grand‑list values and generating new jobs and tax revenue.

Presenters summarized past state appropriations and the program's outputs. They said the 2021 (FY22) appropriations directed state agencies to deploy $25 million from the general fund; that funding was divided between the Agency of Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Development/ACCD, with ANR taking the largest share for the most complex sites and ACCD funding cleanup tied to redevelopment. ACCD staff told the committee that, together with later appropriations, roughly $21.8 million has been awarded to 42 projects to clean about 71.45 acres, enabling plans for roughly 760 housing units and an estimated 831 jobs. Presenters said about $100,000 remained available in the current award pipeline.

Program details and examples: Goldstein and other speakers described projects the state supported, including a Yellow Barn revitalization in Hardwick now hosting Cabot and community activities, a Bennington project that converted a vacant building into 39 housing units, a Brattleboro redevelopment producing 19 affordable units and a Burlington Champlain Street project of 48 units. They said cleanups can range from soil remediation to removing contamination found in building foundations and noted that discovering additional contaminants can sharply raise costs — in one Rutland hotel example, cleanup estimates rose from about $400,000 to roughly $4 million after further testing.

How the program would work: Presenters described application and evaluation steps: initial assessments (Phase I/II), corrective‑action plans prepared by environmental consultants, regulatory approval and public hearings led by ANR, and ACCD funding awards tied to the approved corrective action plan. ACCD said applicants may request up to 90% of corrective‑action costs and that awards have prioritized projects with housing or economic‑development redevelopment plans.

Why a revolving loan: Committee staff and presenters said combining loans and grants has been part of the current federal program; ACCD staff noted the federal program historically uses both grants and loans. Presenters said a state revolving loan fund would allow returned capital to be reused and could offer very low interest rates — presenters said rates as low as about 1.5% are possible under existing federal loan structures — making marginal projects more likely to proceed.

Remaining questions and next steps: Committee members asked about dependence on federal funding; presenters discussed that federal awards historically supply a portion of program resources and that reductions in federal funding would significantly reduce total available funds. Committee members also pressed for data tying cleanup investments to grand‑list increases; presenters offered examples (St. Albans TIF projects were cited as increasing taxable value by $28 million for three completed brownfield projects) and said more local data would be provided by regional planning commissions at upcoming hearings. Goldstein and ACCD staff said they would return with additional details and that regional planning commissions will present further examples next week.

Ending: The presenters asked the committee to consider the FY26 request and to support a revolving Brownfields fund; committee members requested additional data on long‑term fiscal impacts and alternatives to soil removal for urban sites. No formal vote or legislative action was taken during the meeting.