Category: Blog

This summer we logged miles across Vermont—Derby (7/7), Rutland (7/24), St. Albans (8/13), Quechee (8/19), Barre (9/2), Wilmington (9/9), and Williston (9/22)—to listen. The aim was simple: show up in communities across the state, share what we’ve been working on, and hear directly what’s helping and what’s getting in the way of building more homes. The audience looked different from place to place—planners one day, developers the next, residents and lenders the day after—but the message was consistent: Vermonters want practical, durable ways to add homes in the places we already live, work, and go to school.

Across the tour, we walked through the two big statewide efforts underway: (1) the development of guidelines for the Community Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP), a new tool to help pay for public infrastructure that unlocks housing; and (2) the map-making process for Act 181, which asks Regional Planning Commissions and municipalities to identify where growth should go. We emphasized that policy only matters if it translates into homes on the ground—and then we listened.

A few themes rose up again and again:

• Infrastructure and financing clarity. Towns and developers are eager for clear, usable templates and guidance so they can evaluate whether a project pencils out. People asked for model infrastructure agreements, plain-English summaries, and examples showing how CHIP can reduce risk without shifting costs onto taxpayers. Municipal capacity came up frequently—especially in smaller towns—alongside appreciation that CHIP dollars can cover some professional assistance. In several conversations, folks also urged stronger state-level infrastructure planning to complement project-by-project tools.
• Permitting predictability. Participants described long timelines and uncertainty—particularly around appeals and state permits—as a major drag on feasibility. Even where zoning has been liberalized, delays compound carrying costs and deter would-be builders. The request wasn’t for shortcuts; it was for transparent, coordinated processes with realistic timelines.
• Wetlands, soils, and environmental compliance. We heard about last-minute delineations, along with frustration that outlier soil standards can force expensive redesigns late in the game. No one argued that environmental protections don’t matter. The ask was clarity, consistency, and early-stage guidance so projects aren’t designed on shifting ground.
• Costs, labor, and construction methods. Construction costs continue to outpace expectations. There’s widespread interest in factory-built and modular approaches—paired with a sober recognition that they’re not magic wands. Communities want in-state capacity, streamlined approvals, and workforce investments that match the scale of need.
• Using what we already have. From the Northeast Kingdom to Central Vermont, people pointed to vacant or underused buildings, small infill sites, and opportunities for adaptive reuse. The message: start with the assets on hand, and make it simpler to bring them back to life. Several attendees called out VHIP as a fantastic tool when it’s aligned with local capacity.
• Local readiness and culture. A number of attendees highlighted the difference it makes when a community has experience working with developers and when public bodies see themselves as facilitators, not just gatekeepers. Education—for selectboards, planning commissions, and the public—was a recurring ask, as was getting more “housing creators at the table.”

Regional flavor colored those themes.

In Franklin County, we heard anxiety about “Tier 3” designations alongside interest in coordinating early with the RPC so maps reflect on-the-ground realities.

In the Upper Valley, participants pressed for practical steps to convert conceptual support into shovels-in-the-ground, and asked how CHIP can help close infrastructure gaps for housing across income levels.

In Central Vermont, the conversation returned to appeals reform and to applying CHIP to infill scale development.

In Chittenden County, municipal leaders focused on implementation details—public hearing requirements, decision points, and the need for explicit standards—while flagging that some towns aren’t yet opting into Tier 1B.

Southern Vermont also flagged concerns about limited Tier 1 areas under current guidance, and urged bringing more builders and lenders into the conversation.

And in the NEK, we heard a strong call to ensure rural voices help shape statewide maps and tools, not just react to them.

If there was a single throughline, it was this: Vermonters are ready to move from big ideas to practical, predictable solutions. They are seeking clear agreements, consistent reviews, and sensible financing. There is also a strong desire to focus building efforts in areas where infrastructure and daily life are already established.

What We’re Doing Next

Our immediate focus is on execution:

• CHIP Guidelines. We’ve been attending weekly meetings throughout the summer to offer input that ensures the final CHIP guidelines are as simple, transparent, and effective as possible. We feel confident that this guidance is on track to meet those goals, and expect them to be finalized by the Vermont Economic Progress Council next month.
• Act 181 map making. We’re plugging into RPC and municipal processes to support pro-housing designations and to raise implementation issues early. At a high-level, the map making process is going well—however, in watching the implementation roll out there are some small details that will need small legislative tweaks to fix.
• 2026 legislative agenda. We’re distilling what we heard into priorities for the next session. We’re not ready to fully share our agenda just yet, but your input on predictability, municipal capacity, and practical costs is shaping our work.

How You Can Plug In

If you couldn’t make a meeting—or if you did and want to keep going—there are a few easy ways to get involved:

• Join our CHIP Working Group to help stress-test guidance and templates: Sign up here.
• Join our Act 181 / Act 250 Working Group to track maps and designations and flag issues early: Sign up here.
• Add your name—or your organization’s—to the Let’s Build Homes coalition and help us grow a broad, durable constituency for more homes: letsbuildhomes.org/coalition.

Thank you to everyone who hosted us, challenged us, and shared their time and expertise. The work ahead is detailed and sometimes slow, but it’s also deeply practical. With clearer rules, steadier processes, and a coalition that spans regions and industries, we can make it easier to build good homes in the right places—so Vermont’s towns and cities stay vibrant, welcoming, and within reach for all.

Earlier this year, Vermont took a major step forward in addressing our housing shortage by creating the Community and Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP). This program allows communities to use future property tax revenue from new housing developments to pay for the infrastructure those homes need today—things like water lines, roads, and septic systems. By solving the upfront infrastructure funding challenge that stops many housing projects before they start, CHIP could unlock thousands of new homes across Vermont.

Since the legislation passed, we’ve been closely following the development of CHIP’s implementation guidelines. Throughout the summer, we attended meetings of the CHIP Guidelines Subcommittee of the Vermont Economic Progress Council (VEPC), watching as state officials worked to translate the law into practical rules that communities can actually use. The draft guidelines have now been through the subcommittee process and have had their first hearing before VEPC, with final approval expected in October.

Most of what we’ve seen gives us reason for optimism. The draft guidelines embrace the program’s broad vision, allowing communities to use CHIP for various types of infrastructure and explicitly permitting developers to participate as sponsors—both essential elements for making the program work statewide. These choices reflect the diverse needs of Vermont’s communities, from our small cities to our rural towns.

But two specific areas in the current draft could limit CHIP’s effectiveness in practice if left unchanged.

First, the guidelines require that privately-owned infrastructure be “publicly accessible.” While this might sound reasonable, it creates real problems for rural communities that need community septic systems to make housing possible. These systems serve multiple homes but aren’t “publicly accessible” in the traditional sense. Under the current language, it’s unclear whether these essential projects would qualify for CHIP funding, potentially leaving rural communities with limited access to this critical tool.

Second, we believe the definition of “public good” remains unnecessarily vague. The draft definition contains subjective language requiring the public good to be “articulated beyond the value created for the development.” This is ambiguous, and creates confusion when the statute itself clearly identifies the public good: enabling new primary residences across Vermont. If housing creation itself is the public benefit, we shouldn’t need to search for additional justifications.

These aren’t just technical details. Clear, objective guidelines determine whether communities feel confident moving forward with CHIP applications. Ambiguous language could discourage communities from pursuing viable projects or create unnecessary delays during the approval process.

We’ve proposed a few straightforward fixes to the language that ensure CHIP becomes the powerful tool Vermont needs to address our housing shortage. The guidelines are close to getting it right—we just need to ensure they work for all Vermont communities, rural and urban alike. As VEPC prepares for final approval next month, these refinements will make the difference between a good program and a transformative one.

If you’d like to read more about the technical details and our suggested fixes, read the full letter we sent to VEPC below.

---

Date: 9/25/2025

To: Chair John Russell, Vermont Economic Progress Council

Cc: Jessica Hartleben, Executive Director VEPC; Members of the Vermont Economic Progress Council

From: Jak Tiano, Let’s Build Homes Policy Director; Miro Weinberger, Let’s Build Homes Executive Chair

Date: September 25th, 2025

Re: Comments on Proposed CHIP Guidelines

Let’s Build Homes strongly supports the Community and Housing Infrastructure Program (CHIP)—a project-based TIF tool designed to close infrastructure gaps so housing that would not otherwise be built can move forward statewide. As VEPC finalizes the CHIP guidelines, we offer support and recommendations to ensure CHIP becomes accessible to all Vermont communities, particularly focusing on infrastructure definitions, the public good standard, and developer financing options.

Our areas of focus

• Infrastructure definition: The guidelines provide a broad, non-exhaustive list of eligible infrastructure—a vision we strongly support. However, the requirement that privately-owned improvements be “publicly accessible” creates ambiguity for critical use cases like community septic systems in rural areas.
• Public good standard: While the updated definition acknowledges that improvements can provide both public and private benefits, the final sentence remains vague and subjective. Meanwhile, the statutory purpose clearly identifies the public good: enabling new primary residences to be built across all of Vermont.
• Developer financing: We applaud the explicit inclusion of developers as eligible sponsors, aligning Vermont with common practice in other states and expanding financing options.

During the legislative process, Let’s Build Homes advocated for these very elements: broad infrastructure eligibility that acknowledges Vermont’s diverse community needs, an objective purpose statement prioritizing housing growth for households of all backgrounds and income levels, and flexible financing options including developer participation. While the draft guidelines largely reflect these priorities, we see two critical areas that need refinement to ensure CHIP fulfills its promise.

Key concerns

• Infrastructure accessibility requirement Rural communities need CHIP for privately-owned community septic systems—infrastructure that is essential to housing but not “publicly accessible” in traditional terms. Current language creates uncertainty about eligibility despite legislative intent to support such projects. The existing requirements (meeting program purpose, public good, directly supporting housing) provide sufficient guardrails.
• Public good definition ambiguity The final sentence in the proposed definition (“Public good must be articulated beyond the value created for the development…”) remains subjective. This creates unnecessary evaluation complexity when the statute already defines the public good: enabling new primary residences. This is a missed opportunity to explicitly recognize housing creation as the core public benefit.

These concerns risk limiting CHIP’s accessibility and impact, and could either deter communities from pursuing otherwise viable projects, or create unnecessary roadblocks for some projects. Clear, objective language will give communities the confidence to move forward with CHIP applications.

Recommendations

1. Strike “publicly accessible” from the final bullet under eligible improvements Proposed: “Privately owned publicly accessible improvements that meet the purpose of the CHIP program, public good definition, and directly support the housing development project are eligible.”
2. Replace public good definition with purpose-aligned standard Proposed: “Public Good: A benefit resulting from a CHIP-supported project that supports or directly enables the development of new primary residences in any community within the state of Vermont.”

These straightforward changes align the guidelines with legislative intent while maintaining appropriate safeguards. By removing ambiguous language and anchoring the public good definition to CHIP’s statutory purpose, VEPC can ensure consistent, predictable implementation across all Vermont communities.