State land transfer to Waterbury gains traction in Montpelier
March 23, 2025 | By Lisa ScagliottiWaterbury’s request to take ownership of a key piece of state-owned land along the Winooski River for flood-mitigation efforts gained traction in the state legislature last week.
Waterbury Municipal Manager Tom Leitz (bottom image, third from right) testifies to the House Corrections and Institutions Committee on March 19. Scott Mackey and Bill Shepeluk (far right in back) listen. Screenshot.
After taking testimony from both local and state officials about the proposal to transfer to the town an estimated 48-acre parcel of the Randall Meadow property, the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions on Thursday agreed to add the proposal to the Capital Budget bill.
The land, referred to locally simply as “the cornfield” between the river and the Randall Street neighborhood, is undevelopable land that’s become increasingly elevated from flooding in recent years.
“The last three floods have left substantial and very obvious deposits of silt in the center of the cornfield,” Leitz told the committee in his written testimony. “This serves as an eternal symbol to the residents of Waterbury who have watched while their homes flooded yet simultaneously the cornfield grows in elevation.”
Randall Meadow (left) flooded up to Randall Street, July 2024. Photo by Gordon Miller
The idea isn’t new. “It’s been a focal point of the town since Hurricane Irene to find some additional flood storage,” Leitz said.
Town officials believe that excavating silt deposits and reshaping the landscape could create more capacity in the field to contain floodwaters and thus spare the adjacent neighborhood, properties along South Main Street, and even the nearby State Office Complex from future flood damage, he told lawmakers.
A hydrology study done post-Irene and recently updated concludes that eliminating the elevated “hump” in the cornfield, lowering an area along the riverbank, and filling in a swale behind the Randall Street homes could bring “up to a foot of flood relief during a typical hundred-year flood,” Leitz shared. That would extend upriver about a mile and a half along South Main Street including the State Office Complex, and reaching into Moretown. “I can't overstate how important that is,” he said.
July 2023 as floodwater fills South Main Street a block away from Randall Street. Photo by Gordon Miller
In late August 2011, Randall Meadow and a wide swath of downtown Waterbury were inundated by flooding from Tropical Storm Irene. More than 200 homes needed rebuilding following that disaster and the state of Vermont spent more than $130 million to tear down 21 buildings and built a new office building with siting and landscaping designed to protect the new facility from high water in the future. Those steps proved effective in the 2023 and 2024 floods that filled the office complex parking areas and grounds while buildings remained unaffected.
Residents in the Randall and Elm street neighborhood and many business and residential property owners along South Main Street did not fare as well in the recent floods, Leitz told the committee. And public sentiment is growing for the town to act before the scenario plays out again.
Bill Shepeluk, who was Waterbury’s town manager when Irene struck, also attended Wednesday’s legislative committee hearing. He attested to the example the state set with its reconstruction and mitigation.
“Some of that land area where the [new] complex is built was reshaped just as Tom is talking about now,” Shepeluk said. “The tunnel system was all filled in, and all the areas where the water had easy access to the state buildings were definitely mitigated. And the complex in the most recent floods had little, if any, damage.”
They stressed that the community is eager to see a similar effort that could provide similar protection to residential and commercial property in the downtown.
Rep. Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, said focusing similar efforts closer to the neighborhoods – even if it meant lowering the landscape by just a few inches over a large area – “would make a dramatic difference in our downtown.”
Wood said local leaders and the community know there are no guarantees. “But it would definitely be one of the things that was that is within our grasp and is a logical step for us to take,” she said.
Now retired from town government, Shepeluk chairs the local long-term flood-recovery organization, CReW, formed after the July 2023 flood. The group is still working with more than 100 property owners on rebuilding and mitigating with the next flood in mind, he told the committee. Steps include stressing to residents not put valuables in basements, that they move electrical panels to upper floors in their homes and relocate heating equipment given the expectation that basements at least will flood again, he said.
“But if you can keep the water out in the first place, it would be a huge, huge benefit,” Shepeluk said.
Multiple times, Leitz emphasized to the legislative committee that having the property in town hands rather than state ownership would make it more likely that the project would move ahead because it would be the town’s highest flood-mitigation priority – and town leaders hear directly from residents who want to see action.
Waterbury Municipal Manager Tom Leitz on a muddy Elm Street after the July 2023 flood. File photo by Jeremy Ayers
“I think in general, a town manager and a town select board are going to be more responsive,” he said. “This is the one thing we can do that would actually reduce floodwaters during an event.”
Emmons asked about community awareness. “I know that there's a lot of interest in this from the town, but are the town’s folks aware of the potential costs that if you do take ownership of this property and then the work that would be needed? I know that probably the Randall Street folks are well aware, but [what about] the bigger community of Waterbury?”
Leitz said there hasn’t been “a Town Meeting Day”-level discussion yet, but there have been community meetings and many discussions at the select board. “We have talked about the thousands of yards of fill that would need to be removed to accomplish what we would do,” he said.
A state property map shows in orange the portion of Randall Meadow proposed to transfer to the town of Waterbury for flood mitigation work. Click to enlarge.
Committee members asked if town officials know how much the flood-mitigation efforts they described would cost and how might the town pay for them. Leitz said no detailed costs have been calculated yet, but he estimated the work would likely be in excess of $5 million, perhaps as much as $10 million.
Soil sampling still must be done to assess possible contamination that would impact removal costs, he noted, and the full project recommended would lower a 15-acre area by several feet. That would mean moving “a tremendous amount of earth,” Leitz admitted.
Ultimately it would likely be “beyond the town’s ability to self-finance.” He suggested the town could potentially bond and seek grants. An example he offered is the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission’s goal to reduce phosphorous in waterways. The Randall Meadow project may be able to seek grant funding for that purpose rather than flood mitigation, he suggested.
“So, again, it's a difficult and expensive challenge no matter who owns it. But I think if we own it, it will be our top priority to seek out funding and do what we can,” Leitz said.
An additional Waterbury voice the committee heard from on Wednesday was longtime Randall Street resident Scott Mackey who recently sold his home and moved to Waterbury Center. “I'm one of the ones who gave up. We moved in the fall,” he told the committee. “I'm here for my neighbors, not myself. Just having been through this four times and then having basically nothing happen since Irene – then we watched the state complex…”
His voice wavering, Mackey paused and apologized.
Emmons interjected: “It hits home.”
“The state complex is intact, and that's great because we spent a lot of money as taxpayers,” Mackey continued. He stressed how difficult it is for residents now after multiple floods to see no action taken near their homes similar to the protection the state did for its buildings. Mackey urged the committee to act on the town’s request this session. “We need to keep this process moving,” he said.
September 2011: Post Irene tear-out inside a Randall Street home were first-floor spaces were flooded. File photo by Gordon Miller
Resolving issues
Important to the House committee’s consideration of Waterbury’s request was input from officials from the state Department of Buildings and General Services, particularly Commissioner Wanda Minoli.
During Wednesday’s testimony, Minoli expressed support for the idea but raised questions about applications to FEMA for flood-cleanup reimbursement and over the state’s lease with a farmer who plants corn on the property.
Committee Chair Alice Emmons, D-Springfield, suggested the state and local officials meet to hash out the concerns before the committee acted on the proposal which was contained in House bill H.471. She urged them to resolve questions for the committee to advance the measure this session, most likely as an addition to the Capital Budget bill, rather than as stand-alone legislation.
They did just that, meeting at the Buildings and General Services offices on Wednesday following the committee appearance. They returned Thursday morning in agreement.
“We did a working session to really understand what the town of Waterbury is trying to accomplish with their long-term flood mitigation,” Minoli said on Thursday. “It was a successful meeting. We really appreciate everyone coming to the table.”
Doug Farnham, the state’s chief flood recovery officer, testified and confirmed that there are no issues regarding FEMA claims that would hinder a land transfer.
Leitz agreed that any remaining issues could be resolved, such as addressing the lease with DeFreest Farms in Warren. Minoli said the remaining points are typical of any real estate transaction. “We would want the opportunity to work with the town of Waterbury to ensure that the subdivision reflects our stormwater management needs,” she offered as an example.
Emmons thanked the parties for spending the extra time to iron out the various questions for the committee.
In conclusion, Leitz underscored that the state likely will benefit from town flood-mitigation efforts. “Any work the town does on the parcel will also protect the State Office Complex,” Leitz said.
In advocating for the transaction to be a transfer free of charge to the town, rather than a property sale, Leitz pointed out that the town receives an annual payment in lieu of property taxes from the state calculated based on the state buildings and land it has in Waterbury. Putting nearly 50 acres of state property into town ownership would affect that calculation, Leitz said, and likely would reduce the state’s payment to the town.
The lawmakers acknowledged that point, but no one in the hearing knew to what degree the PILOT payment might drop. Committee Vice Chair Rep. James Gregoire, R-Franklin, said that from his past experience as a municipal assessor, it would likely be “insignificant.”
Emmons polled the committee, asking if there was consensus to move ahead with describing the proposal as a land transfer in the Capital Budget bill.
One committee member, Rep. Joseph Luneau, R-St. Albans City, expressed some hesitation. “I’m a little apprehensive of it being zero, but I’d certainly be amenable to it being below market value,” he said, suggesting that agricultural land that floods might be worth $3,000-$4,000 per acre. He said he thought the state should receive some payment, “because that land belongs to all Vermonters and we’ll be conveying it to one community.”
Emmons reminded Luneau that Waterbury’s PILOT payment from the state would likely drop and that the town was looking at a substantial future investment for flood mitigation and the ongoing maintenance that would require.
Gregoire said he thought transferring the property without requiring a payment from Waterbury was fair, given the potential benefit the town’s efforts might mean for the State Office Complex. “The more compelling part is your work would help our facility which is owned by all Vermonters,” he said to Leitz. “And this will probably move quicker with you owning it.”
Emmons said final language would be drafted and shared with the parties involved before it was added to the Capital Budget bill draft.
Committee member Rep. Conor Casey, D-Montpelier, praised the cooperation. “This is good government right here. It’s really responsive. It’s in both our interests,” Casey said. “I’m glad we didn’t have to delay this.”
The committee needs to finalize its work on the bill for it to be voted on by the full House and it then heads to the Senate for consideration. The Capital Budget bill typically is one of the final pieces of legislation to be completed at the end of the legislative session in May.
Watch the House Corrections and Institutions Committee testimony on the Waterbury item on Wednesday, March 19, here and its second meeting on March 20 here.