Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Middlebury hears CHIP/TIF briefing as developers eye infrastructure financing for later phases
Summary
ACEDC presented the state CHIP/TIF housing‑infrastructure program and its four components; developers said the tool may unlock financing for the final phase of an under‑construction project if the town engages in the application process.
Alex Armani‑Mahn, executive director of the Addison County Economic Development Corporation, briefed the Middlebury Select Board April 20 on the Community Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP) and its relationship to TIF financing.
Armani‑Mahn outlined the four components of a CHIP application: a housing development plan (project narrative), a TIF finance plan (detailed revenue modeling), a conceptual housing site plan, and a housing infrastructure agreement (a legal document that specifies municipal expectations and performance measures). He stressed CHIP finances infrastructure—public improvements that support housing—rather than housing construction itself.
He described key program mechanics: municipal or developer‑sponsored debt can service infrastructure; municipal participation may require a bond vote if the municipality assumes the debt; CHIP increment retention typically ranges from 85% to 100% of municipal increments depending on decisions; the program allows up to 20 years of increment capture (with a 10‑year review), and Armani‑Mahn said there is an approximately $2 billion cap over the program lifetime. He recommended conservative fiscal modeling and suggested ACEDC provide technical assistance and staffing capacity to help town staff assemble TIF spreadsheets and draft housing infrastructure agreements.
Board members asked about staff time, program caps, and who submits interest forms; Alex said interest forms are nonbinding, are submitted by town staff to BEPSE (the Vermont Economic Progress Council office) and are the first step in the application pipeline. He recommended holding one‑to‑two work sessions (including staff, a small select board liaison group and developers) to vet applications before public hearings.
Developer representatives discussed an in‑progress project (Stone Crop) that is under construction through phase C but lacks financing for phase D; they said CHIP/TIF could be targeted to infrastructure eligible under the program to make the final phase financeable. Board members urged very conservative projections and suggested potentially commissioning a fiscal‑impact study (an eligible CHIP cost) if needed.
Alex recommended appointing one or two Select Board CHIP liaisons to participate in the work sessions; the board agreed to consider appointments in coming weeks and to review available training resources (VLCT webinars).
