Windsor prison site could support housing but faces zoning, funding and demolition hurdles

Windsor — Town and regional officials told the Senate Committee on Institutions on May 14 that the state-owned Windsor corrections property could be redeveloped for housing and mixed uses but faces major upfront costs, regulatory changes and ownership questions that must be settled before development can proceed.

The committee heard repeated evidence that the Windsor community opposes returning the property to correctional use while supporting development in principle. "The community here definitely does not want another prison like that is like less than 10% no matter how we ask the question," Tom Marsh told the panel, summarizing results from multiple town surveys and public meetings.

Committee members were shown a series of state-commissioned reports, public-survey results and a consultant analysis commissioned in 2023. The Montescutney Regional Commission’s director, Thomas Kennedy, said the technical review narrowed the site’s truly developable area to roughly 20–25 acres inside the facility’s fenced footprint because of steep slopes, streams, a 30-year solar lease covering part of the property and other limits. "We found that really the amount of developable land on that site is really between 20 and 25 acres," Kennedy said.

Officials described existing infrastructure as a redevelopment advantage and a constraint. Windsor has municipal sewer and a nearly new water system at the site, officials said, and the town currently pays a fixed sewer fee for the mothballed facility. Marsh told the committee the state pays roughly $65,000 a year for sewer access while maintaining the closed facility; Montpelier staff confirmed the prison has been in “mothballs” since 2017 and annual holding costs were discussed in testimony.

Speakers outlined cost and market figures discussed in the local planning work: consultants and town officials estimated the site could accommodate $30 million to $50 million in housing and commercial construction, which the town projected could generate roughly $300,000–$400,000 a year in property tax revenue shared with the state. Officials also said clearing buildings and preparing the site could cost on the order of $1.5 million–$2 million, and that the more substantial demolition work (notably the large dormitory buildings) would be substantially more expensive.

Kennedy and town officials emphasized process hurdles. The town would need zoning and town-plan changes for many development concepts, and several state agencies that inspected the property said none were willing to take full responsibility to repurpose the complex as-is. Kennedy told the committee there was no single state agency willing to reconfigure and occupy the site: agencies such as the University of Vermont and the state’s agriculture authorities said the land or buildings were not well suited to their needs, and the state police use parts of the grounds for limited training.

Town officials said they are willing to pursue ownership transfer but only with financial support or favorable financing. Marsh said the town would consider taking title if the state provided direct funding, favorable financing tools such as tax increment financing, or other measures that share or mitigate risk. "If there were a way to make development of the property more streamlined and more direct by changing the ownership, we're all on board for that," Marsh said.

Regional planners and town leaders urged a named, accountable lead to coordinate next steps. "It would be helpful maybe if there could be almost like a redevelopment czar — an individual or a group that could basically try to bring focus onto this project and ... do their due diligence as far as finding partners," Kennedy told the committee.

Committee members and presenters also described other constraints the committee would need to weigh: a 30-year solar lease that covers part of the property (about 10–15 years still remain on the contract, presenters said), steep-slope and wetland areas that reduce buildable acreage, and numerous buildings in poor condition that limit immediate reuse. Several presenters said public support shifts depending on how questions are framed: open-space-only responses in past surveys received only about 6% support, while questions about specific development scenarios often drew roughly 60% support.

The committee did not take formal action. Several senators said they intend to follow up with town and state staff after the legislative session ends; Montescutney Regional Commission staff said they would share the full consultant report and supporting studies with the committee. Commissioner Wanda Manoli of the Department of Buildings and General Services confirmed the state maintains an insurance (pilot) valuation that the state uses for some accounting and that the town continues to invoice the state for fixed sewer fees while the site is mothballed. "The pilot value is about $1.8 million? I believe so," Manoli said in the hearing.

Senators and local officials said they expect further discussion in coming months but noted that without a clear state decision — sale, transfer, long-term lease or funded demolition — private developers remain reluctant to proceed. Presenters urged incremental steps the state and town could take to reduce barriers, including phased demolition of unsafe buildings and a named project lead to shepherd predevelopment work and match potential funding partners to the site.

The Windsor property and surrounding conservation acreage remain the subject of multiple reports and public meetings going back several years; committee members asked staff to share the latest wildlife-area and consultant findings with new members for future consideration.