On October 8, 2025, in a late-night meeting, the City Council voted to approve a one-year, sole-source brokerage contract with White + Burke to manage the recruitment of a developer for the property.

[Editor’s note: a headline on an earlier version of this story incorrectly characterized the compensation of the consulting real estate firm. The Chronicle regrets the error.]

by Compass Vermont

The Controversial Decision

On October 22, 2025, the Montpelier City Council voted to move forward with a plan to sell 20 acres of publicly-owned land at the former Country Club Road golf course to a housing developer for $1, as first reported in The Montpelier Bridge. The proposal also includes waived water and sewer fees and potential tax breaks for the developer.

To manage this transaction, the city had previously hired White + Burke, a real estate consulting firm, under a contract that pays up to $50,000 on an hourly basis, with a potential commission of up to $300,000 if a sale and development occur.

The combination of these two decisions—hiring an expensive consultant and then selling valuable public land for a nominal price—has sparked intense debate in Montpelier about fiscal responsibility, transparency, and how the city should address Vermont’s housing crisis.

How Montpelier Acquired the Property

In 2022, the City of Montpelier purchased the 133-acre former golf course for $3 million. The city financed the acquisition with a $2 million bond to be repaid by taxpayers and $1 million from the Recreation Fund.

Voters approved the bond at Town Meeting Day in March 2022. The stated purpose was to create opportunities for recreation, housing development, and conservation of open space.

Following the purchase, the city conducted what it described as a “robust and collaborative public input process” in 2022 and 2023. The city held public meetings, workshops, and a survey that collected over 12,000 data points from 624 respondents.

In June 2023, the City Council adopted an “Actionable Master Plan” that envisioned 292 housing units, recreation areas, trails, and conservation zones on the property. The city hired White + Burke Real Estate Advisors as project managers, along with VHB for site analysis and Black River Design for feasibility studies, establishing the consulting firm’s central role from the project’s earliest stages.

The Consultant Contract Controversy

On October 8, 2025, in a late-night meeting, the City Council voted to approve a one-year, sole-source brokerage contract with White + Burke to manage the recruitment of a developer for the property.

The contract terms sparked immediate controversy. The firm would be paid up to $50,000 on an hourly basis for its services, with a potential commission of up to $300,000 if a sale and subsequent development occurred. News reports noted it was “not clear where the money to pay the commission would come from”.

The decision to approve the contract in executive session—shielded from public view—drew sharp criticism. Citizen Stephen Whitaker filed a formal Open Meeting Law complaint alleging that the contract was effectively decided in secret, without public review, and with no legitimate legal justification for discussing it in closed session.

Two local lawyers, Anthony Iarropino and Joslyn Wilschek, speaking as residents, publicly argued that the contract didn’t appear to meet statutory exceptions for executive session and that the “lack of transparency risks eroding public trust”.

According to consultant Tim White of White + Burke, the city “did not have time” to conduct a full RFP process for their own contract because of the need to apply for a state flood grant.

The $1 Land Sale Proposal

Two weeks after approving the consultant contract, on October 22nd, the City Council voted to authorize Acting City Manager Kelly Murphy to issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to identify potential developers. The proposed terms include:

• Sale of 20 buildable acres for $1
• Waiver of all city water and sewer hookup fees
• Potential tax stabilization agreement to reduce property taxes in early years

Stephanie Clarke, vice president of White + Burke, recommended a two-step process to the council: first, an RFQ to quickly assess developer interest and qualifications, arguing this approach would “move the process along” and attract a wider range of potential partners. A more detailed Request for Proposals would follow later for shortlisted candidates.

The council agreed to a brief delay in issuing the RFQ—from the next day until Monday, October 27—specifically to allow city staff a few days to communicate the proposal to the public.

Why City Leaders Support the Plan

The Market Reality Argument

Councilors Cary Brown, Ben Doyle, and Sal Alfano, along with consultant Stephanie Clarke, argued that substantial public subsidies are necessary to attract developers to Montpelier. Without them, developers would focus on more profitable markets like Chittenden County.

Councilor Brown explained that the city’s original $3 million investment should be viewed as spending for housing and recreation outcomes, not as money the city expected to recoup. “We didn’t spend that money thinking we would get that money back,” Brown stated. “We spent that money thinking we would get housing and recreation.”

Learning from Past Failures

Councilor Doyle emphasized that the $1 price signals to developers that the city is a serious partner. He cited the city’s failure to attract any responses to two previous RFPs for the vacant M&M Beverage property at 12 Main Street.

That property, a former gas station and beverage redemption center, was demolished by the city in 2018 and has remained a vacant downtown lot despite repeated attempts to attract development. The site’s history as a gas station led to its classification as a Brownfield site, and five previously unidentified underground storage tanks were discovered during demolition, requiring environmental remediation.

The city’s RFPs for the M&M property, issued in September 2024 and April 2025, list an asking price of $440,000 for the 7,883-square-foot parcel—a price the market has been unwilling to meet.

Creating Future Tax Base

Councilor Alfano acknowledged the “shock” of the $1 price but argued it would enable infrastructure development that the future tax base would help pay for.

The city administration has cited urgency created by an $8 million state flood grant application deadline as justification for the accelerated timeline, arguing the city needs to identify a developer to improve its chances of securing infrastructure funding. The city is also pursuing a $3 million Northern Border Regional Commission grant.

Why Critics Oppose the Approach

Fiscal Responsibility Concerns

Councilors Jim Sheridan and Adrienne Gil expressed concerns about giving away a valuable public asset without adequate financial analysis.

Sheridan said he was “bothered” by selling land the city purchased for approximately $20,000 per acre with “no clue how much this is going to bring in for our tax base”.

Gil called for a cost-benefit analysis to project scenarios such as how many houses would result in what level of tax revenue, arguing the council needs data to justify such a large subsidy to taxpayers who funded the purchase.

Public Demands for Financial Analysis

Montpelier architect Sandy Vitzthum publicly urged the city to conduct comprehensive financial analysis to project the net impact on the municipal grand list and the costs of new city services that a larger population would require, such as an additional ambulance or ladder truck for the fire department.

Vitzthum proposed an alternative approach: instead of providing a massive subsidy to attract a large developer to build expensive multi-story apartment buildings, she suggested the city could sell smaller parcels to local developers who could build more cost-efficient housing types, such as dense single-family homes and small multi-family properties. This approach, she argued, might produce more genuinely affordable housing and allow the city to recoup its $3 million investment and refund the Recreation Fund.

Process and Transparency Issues

Critics have pointed to a disconnect between the city’s initial emphasis on public engagement and the subsequent fast-tracked, consultant-driven decision-making. The city’s promotion of its “robust and collaborative public input process” created expectations for ongoing transparency that many residents feel were not met when the consultant contract was approved in executive session and the land sale was advanced on an accelerated timeline.

The Housing Crisis Context

Supporters of the plan argue that aggressive subsidies are necessary given the severity of Vermont’s housing shortage and the economic challenges of new construction.

Market Conditions

The 2020 Vermont Housing Needs Assessment found Washington County had a rental vacancy rate of just 2.5%—well below the 5% threshold considered healthy—and that 34% of households were cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of income on housing.

As of September 2025, the typical home value in Washington County was $394,968, with average monthly rent at $1,482. The median home sale price in 2018 was $200,515, showing substantial appreciation.

The Vermont Housing Needs Assessment projects a need for tens of thousands of new housing units by 2030 to meet demand, normalize vacancy rates, and house the homeless.

Construction Challenges

Construction costs in Vermont are exceptionally high, with estimates ranging from $350 to over $600 per square foot, excluding land and site preparation costs.

The state also faces a severe labor shortage in construction, with approximately 15,000 workers insufficient to meet current demand, leading to intense competition among firms for skilled labor and driving up wages and project timelines.

How Other Vermont Towns Have Approached the Problem

Montpelier’s strategy of selling public land at a steep discount is not unique in Vermont.

Dorset issued an RFQ in May 2025 for a 307-acre property with even more aggressive incentives: land for $1 plus a direct financial contribution of up to $2 million for infrastructure and an additional $250,000 for pre-construction costs. The goal is to create over 100 units of workforce and senior housing.

Bellows Falls offered a 1.12-acre downtown parcel for $1 to spur mixed-use market-rate housing development, committing to actively assist the chosen developer in securing project funding.

Larger cities outside Vermont have also used similar approaches. Louisville, Kentucky has implemented a “Landbank” program selling hundreds of vacant properties for $1 to combat blight, put abandoned properties back into productive use, and stimulate the local tax base.

Citizens’ Rights Under Vermont Law

Vermont state law (24 V.S.A. § 1061) governs how municipalities sell property and includes important protections for public input.

After a city council reaches a tentative sale agreement, it must publicly post and publish the terms in at least three public places and in a local newspaper at least 30 days before finalizing the sale.

Critically, the law allows citizens to petition for a public vote. If 5% of the city’s legal voters sign a petition objecting to the proposed sale during the 30-day notice period, the matter must go to a binding referendum at a special or annual town meeting.

This mechanism ensures that a sufficiently organized citizenry can force a city-wide vote on a controversial land deal, transforming the decision from a purely administrative one into a matter of direct democracy.

What Happens Next

The city will issue the Request for Qualifications to gauge developer interest and qualifications. Developers will respond with information about their experience, capacity, and preliminary vision for the site.

If qualified developers respond, the city will evaluate their submissions and move to a more detailed Request for Proposals process with a shortlisted group. This second phase would solicit specific development plans, including the number and type of housing units, affordability mix, timeline, and financial projections.

Any tentative agreement to sell the land must then be publicly posted for at least 30 days, during which citizens can organize a petition drive to force a referendum.

Key Unanswered Questions

Several critical issues remain unresolved:

Will opponents organize a petition to force a public vote? If critics can gather signatures from 5% of Montpelier’s legal voters, they can require the land sale to go before voters at a town meeting.

How will the city fund the consultant’s commission? Initial news reports noted it was “not clear where the money to pay the commission would come from”, and this question has not been publicly addressed.

Will proposals align with the Master Plan? The community vision outlined in the Actionable Master Plan includes a specific mix of housing types, conservation areas, and recreational access. Whether private developer proposals will match this vision—or be driven primarily by profit considerations—remains to be seen.

Will the grant funding come through? The city’s accelerated timeline is largely justified by the need to secure an $8 million state flood grant and a $3 million Northern Border Regional Commission grant. Failure to secure this funding would undermine the rationale for the rushed process and leave a significant gap in the project’s infrastructure budget.

What is the net fiscal impact? Critics have consistently called for a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis showing the projected tax revenue from new development compared to the costs of providing municipal services to a larger population. This analysis has not been produced or made public.

The October 22nd vote was not a final decision but the beginning of a process that will unfold over the coming months—and could ultimately be decided by Montpelier voters themselves.