Montpelier council backs state’s bid to pause sale of federal (Barrel) building, seeks clearer preservation covenant

Montpelier City Council voted to direct city staff to send a letter supporting the State of Vermont’s expression of interest to the U.S. General Services Administration to seek a negotiated sale or time-limited due diligence window for the former federal post office building, often called the Barrel Building. The council’s action was explicitly conditioned in discussion on the city taking no financial obligation.

The move follows presentations from Peter Walk, a member of the Montpelier Commission on Recovery and Resilience, and Paul Carnahan, president of Saving the Street, who said the commission has been in discussions with the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development about asking the GSA for time so the state and local partners can explore development options that reflect local priorities. "We are hoping to see the city support that effort by the state, to provide time, for all parties and the public to be thinking about how to engage in and consider what's possible on that facility before we move directly into sale," Walk said.

The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reported it reviewed GSA draft deed restrictions and recommended clarifications to avoid mixing Historic Preservation and Design Review Commission responsibilities in ways that could create permitting hurdles. Mike Miller, the city’s planning director, explained the federal section 106 process had not routed required comments through the certified local government (the HPC) and suggested the HPC’s suggested changes would tidy the covenant so the property’s review follows local review bodies in a predictable sequence.

Council discussion highlighted two distinct processes: (1) whether the state or city would file a notice of interest with GSA to secure a due-diligence period, and (2) whether deed restrictions should give determinative approval authority to the HPC or make HPC recommendations to the Design Review Commission (DRC). Councilors were told the state has agreed to file a letter of intent; the council’s vote was to support that state action rather than to undertake the action itself.

Miller and HPC members described practical constraints on any reuse: the first-floor elevation is well below the floodplain and significant rehabilitation or mitigation would be necessary for continued use. HPC members recommended deed language that would require exterior changes to go through the historic review process and then to the DRC or to give the HPC determinative authority; councilors debated which approach would best balance preservation and future flexibility. The council ultimately asked staff to request language that clarifies review pathways and signaled support for the HPC’s engagement.

Councilor discussion also stressed transparency and public involvement: several councilors urged that any purchase or redevelopment planning be subject to public review and not handled only by a nonprofit or private entity outside open-meeting requirements.

Next steps described in the meeting: staff will prepare the city’s letter of support for the state’s expression of intent to the GSA and will share or file it on the timeline required by the GSA process; HPC will prepare recommended covenant language reflecting the council’s guidance.

"It just makes sense to me that a building that has played such a central role in the city and in the downtown, that we ought to do whatever we can to support some role in controlling what happens to that property," one councilor said during the motion to direct staff.

Ending: The council’s direction was procedural — to back the state’s filing and to pursue clearer deed-restriction language — not a city commitment to purchase. Councilors asked staff and HPC to continue drafting language and to return with recommended wording and to share the city letter of support with councilors per standard practice.