Waterbury asks legislature to transfer Randall Meadow so town can pursue flood-mitigation work

Representative Teresa Wood of Waterbury told the Corrections & Institutions Committee that the town seeks a transfer of state-owned Randall Meadow — locally called the "cornfield" — to allow Waterbury to pursue flood-mitigation work that officials say could reduce downtown flood depths by up to a foot in a typical 100-year event.

The transfer language appears in the committee's capital bill draft (page 30, section 23), and town officials presented maps, hydrology findings and cost estimates at the committee’s March session. "In Waterbury, we've had 3 floods in the last 2 years," Representative Wood said, arguing that local ownership would let the town move more quickly on long-term work.

Why it matters: Town officials and long‑time municipal staff said reshaping the field — removing silt from a raised center and lowering roughly 15 acres nearest the river by two to three feet, per hydrology modeling — could cut flood elevations across much of downtown Waterbury and protect the adjacent state office complex. The Buildings and General Services division (BGS) told the committee it has an active FEMA application related to removing silt deposited in the field during recent floods; BGS officials cautioned that a land transfer or pre-transfer work could affect that application.

What town officials described

Town speakers said the parcel lies in a special flood hazard area and is unsuitable for development. Bill Shepelock, former municipal manager of Waterbury, said the town has long prioritized the site for additional flood storage and described earlier mitigation done around the state complex after Tropical Storm Irene. "If we are able to do with this cornfield some of what was done just up river from it at the state complex, you know, it's gonna provide significant relief," Shepelock said. He and other town officials described updated hydrology showing a range of benefit: "at the low end, it's several inches, but at the high end, it's a foot," based on a typical 100‑year flood model.

Town presenters said their lease documents reference about 60 acres, but the bill language and BGS materials focus on a smaller parcel. At the committee hearing BGS staff said the bill as written would apply to roughly 42.63 acres, and the town said it ideally seeks ownership of the full roughly 46 acres it has discussed. The discrepancy will require surveying and subdivision work if a transfer moves forward.

Scope, cost and grants

Town witnesses declined a precise project cost but described a multistage program that could range into the mid‑seven figures. "I suspect at least $5,000,000," a town witness said when asked for a ballpark estimate; they also noted potential higher estimates depending on the final scope. Town hydrology work envisions lowering about 15 acres by 2–3 feet and using some removed silt on site where possible; soil sampling to assess contamination and phosphorus content has not been completed.

Town officials said the project could pursue multiple funding avenues, including FEMA public‑assistance project worksheets for recent silt deposits, capital‑bill appropriations, water‑quality grants tied to phosphorus reduction (through the Central Vermont Regional Planning Commission, Agency of Natural Resources or Agency of Agriculture), and potential bonds. The town also described past conversations with BGS about submitting a FEMA claim to remove silt from the parcel after recent floods; according to BGS, an application related to silt removal resulting from the 2024 flood has been submitted but has not received a final determination. "We do have an application in with FEMA near the 2024 flood to do something with that with the cornfield," Joe, the agent director for construction at Buildings and General Services, told the committee.

Operational and legal questions raised at the hearing

Committee members and BGS staff flagged several issues that would need resolution before any transfer or pre‑transfer work begins: which exact acreage is to be subdivided and transferred; whether BGS or the town would contract and pay for engineering and surveying; whether carrying out work before a transfer could jeopardize FEMA funding; and how to site removed silt if it is phosphorus‑laden.

Committee staff noted the existing lease with the farmer and that the lease runs until 2027; BGS said the lease references roughly 60 acres while the town and bill language focus on a smaller parcel. BGS staff also cautioned that some proposed language in the capital bill could be read as directing BGS to contract for engineering prior to transfer, which BGS said would create a capital project and funding need in the department.

Local impact and perspectives

Residents and town leaders described repeated, disruptive flooding and recovery costs. Scott Mackey, a Waterbury resident, said the town has relied heavily on volunteer labor during recent floods: "We had 400 volunteers just in 2023 when we flooded to come and help muck out," he said. Another resident said she had moved out after repeated floods and testified on behalf of neighbors: "I'm here for my neighbors, not myself."

Next steps

Committee members indicated they would not adopt final language in the capital bill without more coordination among Waterbury, BGS and other state agencies. Several members suggested a placeholder or broadly worded provision could be used while the parties complete surveys, confirm BGS's FEMA application status, and refine cost and funding plans. BGS and town officials agreed to continue discussions and to supply the committee with clearer maps, survey needs and the status of the FEMA application before the committee advances any bill language.

No formal committee action or vote on a transfer occurred at the hearing. The committee recessed to allow BGS and Waterbury officials to continue their discussions and to return with more information.