Steve Biddle, representing the West Swanzey TIF advisory committee, told the Swanzey Selectboard the committee recommends forming a TIF district and pursuing purchase and improvements to the West Swanzey Water Company, but that the TIF will not work without a pipeline upgrade along Route 10.

“The only way that 1 could pay off the debt is to have significant increased property values,” Biddle said, noting the committee’s pro forma finance plan and an engineering cost estimate that included a new pipeline on Route 10.

Why it matters: The committee presented a draft financing structure that assumes multiple grant sources and a drinking-water state revolving loan with about 40% principal forgiveness for part of the transaction. Board members pressed how the town would carry any remaining debt, how many new users would be required to cover annual debt service, and whether staging the work across multiple warrant articles would preserve grant eligibility.

Key proposals and figures reported by the committee: a ballot article to authorize up to $6,400,000 to purchase and improve the water system; use of a loan program that would forgive about 40% of principal on the eligible portion; an illustrative unpaid-debt portion of roughly $3,600,000 (the committee’s example of the amount that would not be forgiven), which at 4% amortized over 20 years produces roughly $260,000 in annual debt service and about $200,000 if stretched to 30 years.

Biddle and the committee cautioned that the TIF alone cannot generate the necessary revenue unless assessed values in the district increase. “If you’re going to look at the TIF, you must look in our opinion at the pipe line along Route 10,” Biddle said, arguing that public water is a prerequisite to attract higher-value commercial development.

Staging and alternatives: Committee members described three pieces the selectboard could vote to advance: (1) form the district; (2) authorize bond borrowing to purchase and improve the system (the $6.4 million figure); and (3) a separate $1,000,000 article to fund pipe extensions along Route 10 that would enable service to additional parcels. Staff noted the forgivable loan program typically requires an authorization/borrowing step even though principal may later be forgiven.

Board discussion and concerns: Several selectboard members urged caution. One member said asking voters for the full $6.4 million this year could be rejected and recommended either splitting votes across years or refining the public messaging and outreach. Another member noted the state’s forgivable-loan list moves quickly and that delaying could risk losing the 40% forgiveness. Selectboard members also pressed staff for clearer maps, refined engineering costs per linear foot for pipe, and better estimates of prospective new user counts; committee members referenced bringing the Viewpoint mobile home park (about 150 units, per discussion) into the system as a potential major source of new customers.

Technical points and constraints raised: committee and staff remarks included: the current water company has two working wells with water rights; storage tank siting and elevation are essential for fire-flow and system pressure; commercial development may add assessed value but not necessarily heavy water usage (developers often want service for fire protection); the town would have more pricing flexibility than a regulated small private water company; and the TIF is funded only by incremental increases in assessed value in the district, not by operating revenues of the water district.

Next steps: Staff asked the board whether to move the TIF formation and related bonding authorizations to public hearing by the end of the week (a necessary step for warrant articles). No binding vote on the purchase or bond authorizations was recorded in the transcript; staff and committee members stressed timing trade-offs tied to grant/loan ranking and public outreach.

Ending: The report closed with committee members offering to continue volunteer support and with selectboard members directing staff to prepare clearer cost details, maps, and proposed warrant language before public hearings.