City Council - Regular Meeting

do do Thank you. Thank you. so

Let's turn this on. So I will call to order the City Council with Mayor presiding on Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at 6.03 p.m. Our first item is the agenda. And I believe there will be a motion this evening for an amended agenda. I don't know if one of the counselors in the room with me here is ready to offer the amended version of the motion for the agenda. And if not, I can coach a little bit. All right. I'm going to coach a little bit that we have per DPW staff. We will recommend it amending our agenda to remove from the deliberative agenda item 2.1 and 2.2. Is anyone here willing to make that amendment or that motion?

So moved.

Thank you, Councillor Brodwick. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Councillor Schachter. Any discussion on the amended agenda? Seeing none, I'll call the question. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Actually, I will pause because I see Councillor Bergman's hand online.

No, I was just raising my hand to vote yes.

Oh, great. Okay. And because I don't normally run these meetings, we have a lot of business votes perhaps tonight. If someone needs to remind me about a roll call because of the online piece, please feel free procedurally. Okay. So we're in the middle of on the agenda. I had just called those in favor. And for now, I'm going to call those opposed. Any opposed? Vote nay. Motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Moving on to now item 2.3 per our amended agenda. Item 2.3 is a necessity hearing for the Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, and Mill Street Intersection Project, STP 5000, parentheses 29. And so with that, first I am going to ask, are there any members of the City Council who have a conflict of interest or have had ex parte communications regarding this matter? Okay, let the record show that no one has indicated that there is any conflict of interest or ex parte communications on this matter. Next, I will ask for those who are planning to provide testimony, this includes staff and members of the public here during this first hearing, which again is on the necessity hearing, that you will take an oath that I will administer, or actually it will be administered by counsel, by counsel or the mayor, just want to clarify. I'm going to administer unless someone tells me otherwise. Okay, so I will administer the oath to those present, again, for the staff or anyone attending to provide testimony during this hearing. So anyone who is doing so, can you maybe just write? Okay, yeah, let's raise your right hand. Okay, and this would also apply to... members of the public but not city councilors because city councilors have already taken this oath because we are sworn elected leaders. Okay, being very thorough here. So please raise your right hand and repeat after me. Do you affirm, actually answer after I provide this oath. Do you affirm under the pains and penalties of perjury that the testimony you shall give in the cause now under consideration shall be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please indicate by saying yes. Yes. Okay. And online? Great. Wonderful. Thank you. All right. So noting that, thank you for that for the record. And now I also would like to make note for the record that with the adoption of our agenda, we are accepting, acknowledging any written comments or information submitted prior to the start of this hearing. You will find that on Civic Clerk. So those documents are now accepted and acknowledged by this council with mayor presiding. And with that, I will now officially open the necessity hearing for the Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, and Mill Street Intersection Project, STP, 5,000 parentheses 29. formalities here. It's all show, y'all. Okay, all right. And so with that, I'm going to pass first to Christian Shamus, who is the city's outside counsel on this matter, who will provide a brief introduction to our work here tonight, the statutory condemnation process the city is proceeding under, and the findings necessary to determine its necessity. And she will also bring additional individuals up to provide further testimony, and you will help guide. Okay, amazing. Thank you for being here.

Great.

And we need to turn your mics on, so just press until the green button is lit up. Can you hear me now? We can. And pull it nice and close so that people can hear you online as well, please. Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Chris. Sorry, I feel like I'm too loud.

My name is Christian Seamus. I'm an attorney at Monahan Safar in Burlington, and I'm outside counsel tonight assisting the DPW as they present on condemnation and compensation. We've got three properties at issue in this intersection project, which is the Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, and Mill Street intersection project. The three properties are 448 to 450 Colchester Ave. And you might hear that referred to tonight as P01, which is property owner one. The city is seeking temporary easements over that property. Also 457 Colchester Ave, which can be referred to as P08. You don't need to remember the numbers, but where the city needs both temporary and permanent easements over the property. And 465 to 467 Colchester Ave, where the city also needs permanent and temporary easements. So we had a site visit this morning and you saw the existing intersection. Those of you that were there, Laura measured and you're able to see how far into each property the city's existing right-of-way already extends and where the additional easements are required. So for the condemnation proceedings, Vermont municipalities have several different options for condemning property. So I'll be trans is managing this project and you'll hear a lot from them tonight. The intersection is owned and the bridge is also owned by the municipality because the project's municipal highway project the city's authority lies in Chapter 7 of Title 19 which provides for laying out discontinuing reclassifying and altering municipal highways. So this is essentially an alteration of the existing intersection. So you'll hear testimony tonight that the city has met all the statutory requirements for condemnation. And then you'll hear a lot about public good and necessity. Those terms are important because to determine condemnation under Chapter 7, you'll need to make a specific finding that the public good, necessity, and convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality require that this project proceed and that these easement areas be condemned. So within that public good and necessity and convenience, necessity has a specific statutory definition. And I'll just go ahead and read that to you so you know what you're considering. The definition is a reasonable need that considers the greatest public good and the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and to the property owner. Necessity shall not be measured merely by expense or convenience to the condemning party. Necessity includes a reasonable need for the highway project in general as well as a reasonable need to take a particular property and to take it to the extent proposed. In determining necessity, consideration shall be given to, and there's several different things, some of them like agricultural land don't apply to the intersection project, but we've got adequacy of other property and locations, quantity, kind, and extent of cultivated and agricultural land that may be taken or rendered unfit for use, effect on home and homestead rights and the convenience of the owner of the land, effect of the highway upon the scenic and recreational values of the highway, need to accommodate present and future utility installations within the highway corridor, need to mitigate the environmental impacts of highway construction, and the effect on the town ground list and revenue. So during our presentation, we'll focus on the condemnation presentation. We'll focus on why the taking is necessary under that definition. And then we'll ultimately ask the city council, with mayor presiding, to find the condemnations in the public good, necessity, and convenience of the inhabitants of the city. And one technical thing that Laura asked me to mention is that if you're planning on speaking tonight, any of the V-Trans staff, please go ahead and accept as panelists. So anyway, with that, I'll ask Steve Spear of HNTB to come and present on condemnation. If anybody has any questions at any point during any of this, please feel free to just jump in and ask. That's completely fine.

Sorry, Steve. Thank you, Kristen. All right, I just need to share my screen here and I'll walk through a brief presentation going through the needs for All right, so as Kristen noted, I'm Steve Spear with HNTB. I'm the consultant project manager for this project. So the purpose of this presentation, today's meeting, is to provide an overview of the project. We'll go through the project purpose and need, a bit of the background in the design, and talk about some of the existing constraints that ultimately influence the design and the need for some of these easements. More specifically, then we'll talk about each of the three individual parcels that are in question today and demonstrate the need for temporary and or permanent easements on those three. There's the agenda. So in general, why is this project happening? The needs that this project will address are improving safety and mobility for all users, simplifying the intersection, enhancing the gateway into Burlington, and managing traffic congestion. So just briefly talk about some of the kind of past history on this project. And this is really to demonstrate that the decisions and the design that ultimately have led to the need for these easements went through a significant process, and none of those decisions were taken lightly. The original scoping study for this intersection project dates back to 2017 through 2019, where project definition occurred, a range of alternatives were looked at, and the framework of this project was set, and the project purpose and need was developed. That scoping report was completed in 2020, which is, you know, formally project definition. As that project waited for a while till funding came around, ultimately that project went through a scoping refinement process and was reconfirmed by the council in 2023 before we started working on this phase of the project. So just to give a bit of an update of where we are now, we are at a point where we are nearing this completion of this phase of design and we're developing our contract language so we can put out our request for proposals this is a design build contract so we will be putting out our request for proposals to our two shortlisted teams who will put together their proposals and will ultimately select a design builder who will complete the design and construct the project We're here today to talk specifically about the intersection project, but this project is bundled with the bridge replacement, as you're all aware, and we are up against a raised grant obligation funding deadline where our RFP has to be out and construction funding needs to be obligated by September. So for that to happen, we have to have right-of-way secured. And that's a key portion of the schedule here. Then you see final design will occur through 2027 into 2028 with construction occurring primarily in 2028, 29 and finishing in 2030. So, you know, we're all out there looking at the site today and as describing a bit of what the design will look like. We wanted to just walk through a couple of our renderings to give you a bit of a better idea of what this could look like in the end and how to be able to picture the easements a little bit better. Important to note, you know, these are conceptual renderings based on a preliminary design. They don't include all features, you know, all striping, landscaping, but they should give you a pretty good idea of what this will look like in the end. So this is an aerial view looking north from the intersection. You can see the realigned intersection where Colchester Riverside and Barrett meet and the curvature of the new bridge spanning the river into Winooski. So this is a view looking south into Burlington. Again, you can see the curved bridge and the realigned approach of Riverside Ave, the slight curvature of Colchester Ave tying into the realigned intersection. And highlighted there are just an approximate location of the three easements in question and the three properties that we visited earlier today. Now looking at an aerial view, looking up Colchester Ave and important to note much of this presentation is kind of focused on the colchester ave area as you know that's where the three um easements or the three properties that we're discussing easements on are located so as we talked you know earlier about you know the the roadway footprint roadway and sidewalk footprint that ultimately influenced the need for the easements um just wanted to show here you know we have two approach lanes in the northbound one southbound lane buffered bike lanes on both sides, wider grass buffers, and then sidewalks. And as you can see on the left here, sidewalk transitioning into a shared use environment. And we'll discuss each of the individual properties in detail later in the proposal, but wanted to show just the existing right-of-way highlighted here in red, overlaid over a colored graphic depicting the proposed design. So in this next section, we'll talk a little bit about some of the existing and proposed features of the project that influence the need for easements. So when we were out on the site today, and I'm sure many of you are familiar with the area, but certainly got a chance to see some of the steep slopes on the east side of Colchester Ave and the stairways leading up to those properties that were a factor in consideration in our design. Similarly, on the other side of Colchester Ave, we have numerous driveways and the existing sidewalk and all the driveway entrances that also were factors in the layout here. Another topic that we'll touch upon more is with this project, there are numerous aerial utilities and services, and as discussed and will be discussed further, we'll be undergrounding all the aerial utilities as part of the project. So I wanted to touch on, again, some of the proposed features on Colchester Ave and the need for those. As we talk about that project purpose and need, managing congestion, improving safety and mobility for all, improving the gateway into Burlington played a factor into all these features here. So certainly, there are existing sidewalks there. We have proposed sidewalks. From a mobility standpoint, we have the buffered bike lanes that factor into what that required roadway footprint is. That two lane northbound approach is important to touch on. You know, with so many needs at this intersection, it's a balance of managing traffic congestion but improving that mobility. And what we are able to do with this project is add a pedestrian phase to the traffic signal that doesn't exist in the current condition. And part of that balancing act is having that additional approach lane and the capacity that that brings to balance out the, you know, detraction of the capacity by adding the pedestrian phase. SO NOW WE'LL JUMP INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFIC EASEMENTS. SO FOR EACH OF THE THREE PROPERTIES, SHOW THAT GRAPHIC WE LOOKED AT EARLIER WITH THE EXISTING RIGHT-AWAY AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND WE'LL WALK THROUGH EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUALLY. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE WE'LL START WITH P01 HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN RED. So the primary work occurring at this project as part of accommodating that proposed roadway footprint, there is a slight shift in the sidewalk in front of this property. Ranges from about one to two feet across the length of the property. The work that needs to be done as a result of that is driveway reconstruction to match the new sidewalk grade and that limit of driveway reconstruction extends slightly outside the right of way. Additionally, we have some slope reconstruction and replacement of a set of steps that are actually within the city's right-of-way, but ultimately the need for this temporary construction easement is to allow for the driveway reconstruction to occur for some of that slope grading, and really this allows for a contractor to be able to access the property as that work is being performed. So we'll jump next to PO-8. And probably worth mentioning, these properties, PO-1 that we just discussed was the third property we visited this morning. PO-8 here now is the second property that we looked at. So this property has easements required at both the front and the back of the property. As part of that additional width for the overall roadway footprint comprised of the additional approach lane, the buffered bike lanes, the wider grass buffer, we do need a retaining wall along the east side of Colchester Ave in front of several, four or five of these properties to be able to accommodate that proposed footprint and retain the slope adjacent to the existing homes along there. So starting with the easements as a result of the retaining wall. So the retaining wall itself here is actually within the city's right-of-way, but The limits of the permanent easement for the install and maintain allows for the actual installation of the retaining wall itself, which requires excavation behind the wall, as well as future maintenance of the wall for any work that may be needed to update or repair it in the future. Now beyond that permanent easement for install and maintain, we have a temporary construction easement that generally extends up to the front of the building, although not at all points of the property. What that allows for is slope grading and lawn restoration behind the retaining wall within those areas that were disturbed during construction of the retaining wall, as well as to just provide the final slope grading behind. It also allows for the final construction of the walkway from the top of the stairs connecting to the existing walkway along the side of the building. And again, it allows for contractor access so the contractor can safely traverse the site, get behind the area of the wall construction as needed. On the back side of the property, we have both a permanent utility easement and a temporary driveway easement, the limits of which are the same. And what that allows for, as we discussed, the undergrounding of the proposed, I mean, the undergrounding of the aerial utilities. For all those utility services, we'll be running those services down Barrett Street and up the existing driveway that accesses this row of properties along Colchester Ave. So that permanent utility easement allows for the installation of those utilities and any future construction, maintenance, access to those that may be needed. And the temporary driveway easement allows for the reconstruction of the driveway after the utilities are installed, because certainly the existing driveway will be disturbed and excavated as part of the utility installation. So jumping next to PO 10, two properties down from that. And this is the first property we visited this morning. So the need for the easements on this property is similar to the other one, just with slightly different dimensions. But similarly on this property, we have the retaining wall along the front of the property, just within the city's right of way. The permanent easement is needed to install and maintain the wall. again for the retaining wall construction itself as well as for any future maintenance needs to ensure that access is available to the area behind the wall if that needs to be excavated as part of that maintenance. The temporary construction easement in this case allows for a little bit more work. It's required to be able to complete that slope grading lawn restoration behind the retaining wall again in the areas that are exposed or disturbed during wall construction as well as just to be able to perform the final slope grading. It also allows for walkway construction to connect the top of the proposed stairs to the existing walkway. In this case, and for this property, there's a need to relocate the location of the stairs slightly to the south as compared to the existing condition. As part of that, There's some grading that needs to be performed around and under the existing porch. So as part of this particular property, there's a need to replace the existing porch as well. On the backside of the property, similarly to the one we just discussed, as part of the undergrounding of the aerial utilities, we'll need a permanent utility easement and a temporary driveway easement to install those utility services underground. and to be able to reconstruct the driveway at the completion of the utility work. Just want to note the implications if we were unable to obtain these easements is ultimately without these easements, the project cannot meet its purpose and need. There's a few specific features there that we would not be able to provide. As discussed previously, Colchester Ave To meet that purpose and need of improving safety and mobility and managing congestion requires the buffered bike lanes, the wider esplanades, and the proposed sidewalks. Additionally, that two lane northbound approach on Colchester Ave is required to manage the congestion and balance that ability to also improve safety and mobility by adding that pedestrian phase to the signal system that doesn't exist in the current condition. And then the aerial utilities being installed underground is required to enhance the gateway into Burlington and remove some of that visual clutter that's there today due to the aerial utilities. And those cannot be installed as proposed without the required easements. Open it up for any questions.

Thank you very much. So now we will see if there are questions from counselors. Remember if you could stop your screen share so we can see the counselors online that would be helpful. Thank you So I see counselor Litwin Are you able to hear me? Okay, we can now hear you.

Okay. Thank you. I had some questions about the easement necessity on the side of this street that is I guess the northbound side. So in your previous slide, you mentioned that it's a necessity to put in the second lane to manage congestion. And when I look at the diagram that you provided both in the slide deck and this morning at the site visit, essentially that second lane really only starts you know, pretty close to the actual intersection in terms of its ability to impact congestion management raises the question for me because many people going north on Colchester Ave actually, especially when congested, if they need to take a right turn, they're going to go down Chase Street they're not going to go all the way down to Barrett Street and then additionally I don't see a short portion of secondary lane being a huge help during during congestion time which then makes it difficult for me to reach the conclusion that this is necessary based on the attorney's um standards that she read earlier so could you explain more um about you know could you try to uh respond to that and why that would be necessary why we couldn't just keep it as one lane heading northbound and then direct traffic onto chase street if they're heading towards barrett or passion road sure thanks council it went um

So say a couple things here. I think what you're saying is the right turn movement that would otherwise be going to bear it. You could go elsewhere down chase. I guess what I would offer to that is. It's less about we know whether you're making a right or left turn movement on that northbound approach to the to on Colchester out to the intersection. It's about general throughput at the intersection. So having that second lane. significantly improves how effective that phase of the signal is. And certainly I don't have the numbers in front of me today, but I can say we've done a thorough traffic analysis as part of this. And that second lane is a notable difference and is what allows us to kind of meet that portion of the managing congestion aspect of the purpose and need.

Okay, and just my, my follow up to that, and then it should be wrapped up is the, the secondary lane only begins. It looks like sorry, I'm flipping through the pages here. It looks like, you know, maybe four or five houses up from the intersection. So can you talk about why and to what degree that should affect like reduce significantly reduce congestion going over the bridge. I mean, I could understand that if it was two lanes all the way down the hill, for example. But I don't I don't I don't know about that. You can only access it when it's congested until you reach that point. And that point is only four or five houses up from the actual intersection.

Right. We'll say that in determining that length, we're certainly trying to balance what we can say is a need in terms of right-of-way impact and what we can truly fit there. So there's obviously a limit to how far we can carry that lane, given the proximity of Chase Street, some of the driveways that are further up that side of Colchester Ave. I can say, when you look at that length of the additional lane. Certainly, it isn't very long. So if you think about how many cars fit in that while waiting at the signal, it wouldn't seem like it's particularly effective. But you think about the entire time that that signal is green, you're effectively getting double the vehicles through.

OK. And lastly, we've heard concerns. I know Councilor Brown-McKnight has brought this up in the past about high speeds coming down that hill, particularly And so how would opening up this road to have a secondary lane actually reduce that? Wouldn't it likely potentially increase speeds and speeding coming down that hill? And then I'm all set. Thank you, Mayor.

Well, I'll say I can't speak with certainty to what the resulting speeds will be here, but one thing I will note is if you look at the way the proposed intersection is aligned, instead of like today where you have a completely straight run down Colchester Ave directly onto the bridge, You know, we do have a slight curve in the Colchester Ave alignment, and you're effectively taking a right now to enter the bridge. I mean, it's not a hard right, but you have some kind of need to redirect as you come down. So, again, can't say with certainty that that will result in lower speeds, but, you know, we feel that overall the geometry of the intersection and kind of the fact that the bridge is curved, the riverside approach is curved, and the Colchester Ave approach is curved certainly may contribute to some speed reduction.

Other questions before we move forward. Councillor Travers.

Thank you for this presentation and for this site visit earlier today. I guess my question is if you've put any thought into if this council with mayor presiding was to not find necessity, what the overall impact of that is on the project. You know, you see in some other projects there's that holdout property and the project proceeds and it sort of juts around that property and it moves on given that We already have arrangements with most of the surrounding parcels here. If we did not find a necessity, is it the intention to still nonetheless move forward with the project just with accommodations in place to consider that? Or is it the perspective of the witnesses here that sort of failing to find necessity in the takings here fundamentally jeopardizes the possibility for us to move forward?

Thank you, Councillor Travers. I would say to answer the first part of your question, I mean, we certainly haven't done, you know, specific engineering at the individual parcels to say if we weren't able to prove necessity here, you know, what would that resulting design look like? Kind of coming back to the schedule and where we're at developing our RFP and the need to put the overall project out soon, I would say, you know, It would certainly be a significant challenge within the project. I mean, as we're pointing out here, we certainly believe that all of these easements are necessary to construct the project to meet the purpose and need as defined throughout the original scoping study and confirmed multiple times through the council. So I can't tell you exactly what that result would be, but it would potentially be a significant setback to the project.

Okay, thank you. I think I may have some other questions that are more focused on the compensation components of that, so I think I will hold that until we get to that portion, Mayor.

Yes, thank you. Any further questions at this step in this particular hearing on the necessity by councillors? Okay, Kristen, I think we can move to our... Are we moving to another...

We can do that. Back to you. I was just asked to let the interested parties who are online know that they will have a turn to ask questions. Yes, they will. I think there's some hand raising there. Absolutely.

I'm following your lead just in terms of the number of witnesses first with information to either acknowledge that is already into the record and then we will go to members to counselors for general comments, but then also interested parties. So we will get there. Yes. Thank you. Yes, of course.

Steve, if you want to stay here for just a second. Next, we have Andrea Pru, who can testify as to the easements. And I feel like Steve addressed a lot of the issues. So Andrea, I don't know if you have anything else you'd like to add for that. But you could give us your name and your role to start with.

Thank you. I'm Andrea Prew. I work for the State Agency of Transportation. And I supervise the right-of-way plans and titles team. And we created the right-of-way plans for this project. And I was just going to say that I think Stephen did an outstanding job at describing the easements. And I don't have anything to add unless anyone has a question for me about the right-of-way process or easements in particular.

Okay, thank you. Andrea, any specific questions on easements?

If anybody doesn't understand, for example, what, you know, temporary construction versus the drive easement, you know, the different easements we're looking for, Andrea would be the person to ask.

Okay, I think we might be set on that item.

Thank you, Andrea. Okay, next, also online, we have Rosa Benoit of VTrans as well.

Hi, good evening. My name is Rosa Benor. I'm the right-of-way appraisal chief for the Agency of Transportation. I've been a right-of-way appraiser for 22 years and I have worked for the agency since 2007 and since 2018 been the appraisal chief. Part of my job as appraisal chief is testifying at necessity hearings regarding the effect of the project on the town grand list and tax revenue. And the easements that impact or can impact property lot size is mainly the highway easement because typically towns in the city do not include the highway right of way in the lot size. And so therefore the acquisition of the highway easement would reduce the lot size and the assessed value of the lot. The only parcel on the project with highway easement acquisition is parcel 4, owned by Torney. And the highway easement measures 1,553 square feet. It is located at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Colchester Avenue. And I was not able to confirm with the city assessor if there was a change in the assessed value. However, I know from past experience that this is usually, you know, even the assessed value change is minor and the resulting tax loss is minimal. So it's my opinion that the project will not impact the city's grant list or tax revenue.

Thank you, Rosa. Does anybody have any questions? You can stick around for questions for a second.

Any questions just to reiterate by counselors on the assessment or appraisal? Counselor Travers.

I'm just curious, right? Given the nature of the easement, is the property over which there is an easement still considered part of the parcel for the purposes of assessed value or not?

I don't believe so. I looked up the Burlington zoning ordinance and the lot size definition does say that it does not include any portion of a dedicated private way.

Okay. Thank you. Just a brief follow-up question to that would be in considering the potential impact on the assessed value Are we to take under consideration the improvements that would be made to the property through this process with, for example, new staircases, new porches in some cases, perhaps some new landscaping around the property? I mean, I think it would be fairly negligible in the grand scheme of things, but I'm just curious if because even those improvements are in the right of way, do we just not consider them as part of the potential impact on the value here?

I'm not sure because I'm not the assessor. And I wasn't able to get a response from the assessor about this parcel. This parcel is not one of the parcels with the stairs. I know we are redoing the driveway on the property because we're impacting the one that's there now. So it's probably, you know, pretty even. you know, no significant improvement, I would say.

Okay, thank you.

Councillor Singh, I think I saw your Zoom hand, but just checking.

Yeah, my question was answered.

Thank you, Councillor Singh. So thank you. Yep, thank you. Any further questions on the appraisal? I just want to use the right term, appraisal. Seeing none, we'll go back to your, if there's any further testimony.

Excellent. We've got, last but not least, we have Maddie from the city. Sorry, thank you. And there are a variety of requirements under the statute about notice, and Maddie has been in charge of that for everybody and working very hard on that. So I am going to just ask her some questions just to indicate to you all that the city has done what it's needed to under the statute. So Maddie, could you state your name and your role with the project? Or role with the city, sorry.

Maddie Sender, I'm a public works engineer with the city of Burlington.

And your role with the project?

I am helping to manage the project from the city side. It's run by V-Trans, as you are all aware, but the city is a partner, so I'm helping to manage on our end. And specifically, I've been working on the right-of-way process recently.

And did you draft the notices of hearing?

I did.

Just to address quickly, sorry, the exhibits. We've got 14, I believe, exhibits, sorry, that I think that you had submitted into the...

They're posted on Civic Clerk.

Posted on Civic Clerk, thank you. I think that they're already accepted into the record at this point, so I'll not ask you to accept them one by one as we go, given that. So yeah, we've got 14 of those. Let's see. Back to your question. Sorry. So if you can look at Exhibit 2, which I can just show you here so you don't have to pull it up. Or you can do what everybody wants.

It would be great to screen share if possible, Maddie. That would be great. Thank you.

OK, so you can screen share. Great, thank you. So Exhibit 2 is a copy of the notice that you sent for the intersection project? Correct. For the site visit and hearing. And did you arrange to have a copy of this posted in the town clerk's office no less than 10 days prior to the hearing, as required by 19 BSA 709? Yes. And did the city post the notice elsewhere?

Yes, at 645 Pine Street, DPW's office, and Fletcher Free Library.

And did you also provide a copy of the notice to the Planning Commission?

Yes.

And did you publish the notice in a newspaper of general circulation not less than 10 days prior to the hearing?

Yes, seven days. Thank you.

And did you send notice by certified mail to those owning or interested in the parcels adjoining the property?

Yes.

Excellent. And I guess we've already submitted those. So that's all I have for you. Thank you. Does anybody have questions?

Thank you. Any questions for Maddie on the notice? Do you mind stopping screen share just so I can see other counselors for their Zoom hands if there are any? Okay. Looks like we don't have any questions. Okay.

And that is my last witness.

Okay. Well, thank you all for your testimony on this matter. As I said earlier, well, actually, what we're going to do first is if there's any general comments by council, just one last call for questions on what has been presented in testimony, and then we will go to interested parties. Councillor Brodbeck?

Yeah. Sorry, a question. So in terms of the process, Once we hear from the interested parties, will there be any other opportunity after by the council to deliberate

There will be. We have two options. If the council feels like it's generated enough information to be confident in making a decision on this first hearing, which is the necessity hearing, then a motion can be made to close the hearing and to make a decision. If you feel like you need additional information by staff or other information needed, then there could be a motion to continue essentially the hearing. and we would leave it open and a date certain come back to hear that further information and then make a determination.

Okay, thank you, and I have no questions.

Thank you. Any other process or other questions before we go to interested parties? Okay, you have to look a lot of directions when you're in this seat. That's why we have swivel chairs. Okay, so with that, we actually have two opportunities for interested parties. So the first opportunity that I'll open now is if there's any questions or cross-examination of any of the witnesses that have been presented so far in testimony by an interested party And if this does apply to you, I would ask people to be specific to something that has been presented. Otherwise, I'll give you a second opportunity for more general comments if it's something that's not been mentioned in testimony. So both in the room, and Lori, did anyone sign up in person in the room for, I guess that's for the next step. Okay, so we'll go online if there's anyone who's here who would like to Again, ask questions or cross-examination on witnesses who have presented on the content that they've presented so far. You can just raise your Zoom hand, and then Lori will promote you if so. What's the first name? Bella Bennett. Bella?

Hi, can you hear me? Hi, we can hear you. Welcome. Fantastic, thank you. I just wanted to say that as PO1, my partial has been fully settled at this point, so I think that information was not communicated ahead of the meeting, but I wanted to let everybody know. I also have concerns regarding some stability that I'd like to talk about, and I have some slides that I'd like to share, but I understand if that needs to happen at the second portion of the public comment period.

Correct. We will go to that next unless you see. Well Chris Kristen do you have something to clarify.

I wasn't aware that her parcel had settled. I believe we have the negotiator here too who may be able to tell us that I just want to make sure that if it hasn't officially settled that we still move forward with this process. So let me double check.

It was... Would you like us to recess for a second to get that information?

No, I saw Barb here, so if we could just possibly... Bella, I don't mean to jump in. I hope this is okay. If we could just ask Barb to speak for a minute and let us know. I think that's okay. Yeah, thank you.

She did send me a picture of her signed documents late this afternoon, yeah.

Excellent, OK, well, so confirmation great.

Oh sorry. Go ahead, I didn't. I didn't have a chance to discuss that with my supervisor prior to this meeting happening. That's why she was left on the list.

OK should. Do you need to do anything more on your end or should we go ahead and remove that from the request? And I don't mean to put you on the spot, and we can have an outside conversation about this if you'd like.

Nope, that's okay. If you would like to remove her, that would be fine.

Okay.

If you can remove her, yeah.

Thank you.

So I'm just going to clarify, I don't know who to phone a friend to exactly, but is there anything that we need to do procedurally on this piece of information at this point for P01, I believe?

Lauren?

No. Okay, so I'm going to look to our city attorney who I believe is online. So I'm not even sure I can articulate the procedural question, but the procedural question is I believe there's been an agreement late in the day and whether or not we need to remove PO, I'm just again looking for some help here, so PO1 from the deliberative process here.

Jessica, go ahead. I would certainly defer to Attorney Seamus, if she is comfortable that that is enough certainty to remove PO1 from the deliberation from this hearing, then I would defer to Attorney Seamus and just move forward with the other properties. Can I step up for one second?

I think we are going to take a recess for a minute. So I'm going to use the gavel again. So I call a recess for five minutes. Thank you. I appreciate that. OK it looks like we are ready to reconvene so I will call us back to order at 6 56 if that's needed for the record.

Thank you. So I've consulted with the trans and we are going to ask that this remain on the list for now only because it doesn't have supervisor approval yet and they appreciate that the property owner has sent I think a picture of the signed document at this point and it should be fine. But we just can't remove it without the supervisor approval. And it came in too late in the day to get that. So we would ask that it remain on the list now. This won't impact any settlement that's happened to date. Just to assure the property owner of that, it's just more to make sure that we get the right people approving it. And then we would ask that you could go ahead and close the hearing and determine necessity on this, but ask that the compensation remain open just so that this can be removed and you don't need to decide on compensation since it seems to have already been agreed to. So we'll present on it but then ideally in the next day or so we'll see the final signed easement and it'll get approved by a supervisor and then we can let you know that that can be removed from the decision.

Understood. So just to clarify, make sure I have this right, we will keep P01 in the necessity hearing process, and the counsel will decide in general if we're closing, of course, for all three properties. And then when we get to the compensation hearing, which comes next, we'll keep open specifically, just as you stated, attorney for P01. Perfect.

Okay. Thank you. Okay.

I think I'm following. Just back to Bella Bennett, if you have anything further in terms of questions regarding For this step, I will open it up for more general comments in just a moment, but any questions or clarifications for what's been given in testimony? Just want to give you another opportunity, Bella, if there's anything more to say in terms of questions.

I think that was helpful in clarifying, and, you know, we'll make sure that everything gets through so that it's fully signed and comes to you. Great.

Thank you very much. Are there other interested parties who would like to offer questions or cross-examine the witnesses who have testified to date. You can just raise your Zoom hand. Seeing none, I will move us now to allowing interested parties to the projects and impacted parcels the opportunity to provide testimony in terms of comments on the issues. And I will start first with any property owners or persons holding interest in the affected parcels. Both in the room, but I don't think there's anyone in the room for interested party, but we'll go back online for general comments first by property owners or persons holding interest in the affected parcels. Hi again, Bella, go ahead.

Hi, thank you so much. Is it possible for me to share slides at this time?

I think so. Give us one moment on the tech side of it. Thank you. And we will promote you, and then just give us one moment. We'll promote you, and then you'll have the ability to screen share.

Fantastic. Thank you.

I think we've done our side, and it's now connected. Are you able to connect, Bella? Here we are. Can you hear me? Yep. We can see you now.

Fantastic. All right. Great. I will share my screen. Excellent. Wow, there's a lot going on here. Sorry about that. Here we go. I just have some brief slides that I'd like to share. My main concern with this project, and I just want to be really clear, I'm very excited about this project. I think that connecting Burlington Winooski and making sure that our infrastructure is safe are integral to the ongoing Jodi Throckmorton- brightness of these two cities and I just wanted to share some concerns that I have about public safety during this project regarding. Jodi Throckmorton- slope stability monitoring and vibrations that may be caused by drilling in or blasting associated with the replacement of the bridge and and you know rebuilding the. intersection at the bottom of Winooski, or excuse me, of Colchester Avenue. And so I just wanted to share a little bit about my background. I have a PhD from the University of Vermont and part of my research during that time was studying landslides along Riverside Avenue and so we do have proximal or nearby evidence of slope instability in materials that are very similar geologically, predominantly glacially in place materials, and in some cases fill materials that have been in placed by people over the years since Arlington's been a city. And so these materials interact differently with different vibrations, and that is not my area of expertise. I want to be really clear about that. I'm not a geotechnical engineer, but I am suggesting that this project or the City Council consider deeply that a geotechnical engineer should be consulted regarding the slopes alongside and proximal to this project in order to make sure that there are no unintended, unexpected consequences of this work that may impact public safety. So I just wanted to share this image here. This is information that's accessible to anybody on the Vermont Geological Surveys page. And this just shows the steep slopes, slopes that are over 51% or roughly 27 degrees in the area. And of course, proximal to the project is outlined in this red circle here. And you can see that, you know, along Riverside Avenue, there are plenty of these steeper slopes. We've seen landslides, and I'll get to kind of locations of those slides in the past just to give you some context here. But you can also see that there are steep slopes, and I'm not sure if you can see my cursor, but there are also steep slopes in that area between Riverside Drive and Colchester Avenue. And so that's my area of concern here. I'm concerned that without geotechnical assessment and monitoring, we might be caught off guard if there are any impacts to these slopes related to that drilling and or blasting associated with this project. And of course I'm a homeowner here, so I have a vested interest, but I'm also a geoscientist who's really concerned about public safety. And that's really my main reason being here. Like obviously I've settled, I'm set with that, but I really wanna make sure that we are taking into consideration how to be proactive and ensure that there are no issues with this project. My my hope is that nothing happens, but I just wanted to share, because I have this background. That this is something that should be considered, especially given that the project in my negotiations project leadership has already expressed that they're concerned that there may be impacts to stone foundations and, as such, are offering. Free inspections and or monitoring throughout the project, so if we're monitoring these engineered structures, we should also be monitoring. The non engineered materials that are beneath them, which are propagating these vibrations throughout the area to these properties. And that's my main concern here, just to give you a little bit of background, these are the 20 slides that have happened along riverside avenue. In the past seven years so years, this is a figure from a paper that I published a couple years ago i'd be super happy to share it with anybody i've also already shared it with the project engineer and several folks from be trans but. Should anybody else be interested i'd be really happy to share this information, because I think that it's really important to consider proximal context when we're looking at slopes in the same materials, obviously the bedrock is a little bit different between these two areas. But. I think overall when we're talking about blasting, we need to be really concerned about potential liquefaction and settling, and that's kind of my main concern here. So really briefly, some of these glacial materials along Riverside Ave are primarily these fine glacial sediments, and some of that is sitting on top of the Winooski-Dolo Stone along Colchester Ave as well. Takeaways here. We've had these big slides. This is the 2019 Riverside Avenue landslide over here. And we don't want to have any more of these slides, right? Like we want to do all of our due diligence to make sure that people, infrastructure, our city is safe and be proactive about that. Given that we're already concerned about foundation monitoring, I really think that we should be also concerned about potential vibrational impacts to geologic materials and how those might affect our slopes. So Thank you so much for the time. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak about this, and I really hope moving forward that this project will build in some proactive geotechnical assessment and monitoring to ensure that these slopes are not impacted by this project in any negative way.

Thank you. Now I know Dr. Bennett, so thank you very much for that. I'm going to see if there's any other interested parties, and then I will go to staff in terms of response or questions. that I believe is the next step. Okay. So are there any other property owners or persons holding interest in the affected parcels who would like to provide general comments or testimony on the issue in front of us? I'm not seeing any other Zoom hands. And that is confirmed. So now I will open it up to the wider public. So any member of the community now has an opportunity if you are online or in person to provide again comments or testimony on this matter. And I'm seeing no one further. OK, so now I will offer to the city's outside counsel, which again is as attorney Christian Shamus, if you have anything further that you would like to offer at this point.

Thank you. I think we're all set with our witnesses. I would just ask Steve if he might just quickly address the geotechnical issue, because I think that there has been consideration of that already.

Sure. I'd be happy to talk about, you know, briefly about what we have done from a geotechnical standpoint and some of the requirements that will be in the contract. I'll also note, you know, I'm not personally a geotechnical engineer, so some of the specifics of this are, you know, outside of my area of expertise. But broadly, I will say that, you know, we have had a team of geotechnical engineers involved in this project throughout, you know, from the beginning, both, you know, at HNTB as part of the consulting engineer, as well as, you know, data and reports that have been reviewed by Vitran's geotechnical engineers team. We certainly have taken a number of geotechnical borings to understand the soils. We do have the two proposed retaining walls on the project, both of which we have done initial geotechnical investigation and kind of feasibility studies on as part of this phase of the project. This being a design build, the design builder will also have to have geotechnical engineers on their team that actually finalize the design of some of those specific features, and we also anticipate the design builder will obtain more borings as part of their design work. Also worth mentioning, and again this gets a little bit outside of how specific I can speak to this, but generally construction means and methods and the potential for vibrations have been considered as part of this project. The foundation monitoring and some of the things that were referenced are you know, following kind of fairly standard V-Trans specs for, you know, construction in close proximity to properties. I'll say, you know, some of these, we weren't doing specific slope monitoring or any of the suggested methods there for properties where we weren't otherwise touching or, you know, impacting any slopes. But broadly speaking, Vibrations and different types of construction methods have been considered as part of this and are ultimately helping define some of the contract language And we do have you know team of geotechnical engineers that's been involved and there will be further geotechnical involvement through the final design Thank You Steven That's it for us.

Thank you.

Okay I Think dr. Bennett I think I have gone through the community members providing testimony at this point and I don't think we go back to We don't go back. So Dr. Bennett, you can provide further further feedback in writing to the city council and mayor at this point. Otherwise, we're going to proceed as the procedure proceeds. So I don't normally I don't normally preside over these kinds of proceedings. Right. So Councilor Travis just reminded me that we have a second hearing tonight. And so that is going to be towards compensation, of course. But in terms of necessity, we're going to move forward. Okay. So with that, Attorney Chambers, are we done presenting information for the record?

Yes. For condemnation.

Yes. Right. For condemnation. Yep. And so now we turn to the counsel for deliberation and determination of whether based on the evidence presented tonight and the interested persons we've heard testimony from, if you feel there's been sufficient evidence that has been provided to make a decision tonight. In the memo that was provided by staff, they have offered two different actions tonight. Again, just reminding you on process, if you feel that we need to gather more information, you can make a motion for the continuation of this hearing on condemnation to a date certain. June 1st was proposed by staff. or if you feel like we've received enough information, you can make a motion to close this hearing and direct staff to prepare the finding of fact and the conclusion of law and order. So we will open up for discussion and then see if there's a motion. Councillor Travers.

Well, I have what I'll just call a parliamentary inquiry of sorts. I know that we're under advice here to continue to consider all three parcels as part of the necessity hearing. But I could imagine that whether on this hearing or when we get to the compensation hearing that the deliberations of this council if addressing a property that has apparently reached a settlement agreement that it could have some impact on the property owners feelings around entering into that settlement agreement and so I guess my question is I'm less concerned about it for the necessity hearing more concerned about it for the compensation hearing my question is if we have any advice from the city attorney as to whether or not the council should refrain from discussing compensation or other items around the parcel that is apparently settled this evening out of concern that it may impact that agreement

Well, per Attorney Chambers' advice earlier, I believe we are going to take a different path when we get to the compensation hearing, and we're currently on the necessity hearing. So I hear that as a point of information for the next hearing that we get to it.

I think it'll be important for us to know that, yes.

Right. So can we take that up when we complete this first hearing?

Sure. I would move to close this hearing.

Okay. There is a motion by Counselor Travers to close this hearing, and I'm going to take that as the rest of the motion that was per the memo to direct staff to prepare...

I don't my thought is that we would move to close the hearing and then move into deliberation and then from that deliberation decide whether or not we then wanted to Direct I think my thought my understanding was that it would be a two-part motion We would move to close the hearing and then move into deliberation and then based on that deliberation Decide on whether or not we don't want it to move to direct staff along those lines

I see. So we can split the motion as proposed by staff. So first, we'll take the motion. If there is a second by councillors, the motion made by Councillor Travers is to move to close the condemnation hearing first.

Point of order?

Yes, Councillor Broderick.

I question that in terms of process because our options that are presented to us are to either close the condemnation hearing and direct city staff, etc., or continue the condemnation hearing, not continue. close it and reopen it at a later date. At least that's how it's written to me. And if it's a two-part motion, then with two different votes, then there could be a reality where we close the hearing and then not direct city staff to do what is listed. And based off of the information that's presented to me, there's no option for that.

I'm going to go to the city attorney for clarification on this motion and the process in terms of if we need to deliberate while we're still in the hearing or closing... closing the hearing and then deliberations can happen.

So I do think it is a two part motion. All of the evidence has been presented at this point. All interested parties have had an opportunity to be heard by moving to close the hearing. The council with mayor presiding will be indicating that you have sufficient evidence at this point to make a decision. So if you don't feel that you have sufficient evidence, then any counselor who does not feel like they have sufficient evidence could vote no with regard to the motion to close the hearing. But if the motion passes, then that is an indication that a determination that you have sufficient evidence. And then once the hearing is closed, you can vote to enter into deliberative session. And as part of that deliberative session, if you reach a decision on the necessity finding, you would then direct staff to prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Thank you, City Attorney Brown. And I'm realizing I should have looked for a second before we went further. But with that, are folks clear on the point of information on this motion before us? If so, is there a second on the motion made by Councilor Travers? Seconded by Councilor Carpenter. Discussion on the motion on the floor. A reminder to counselors online that if you'd like to speak, just raise your Zoom hand, please. Any further discussion on the motion? If not, we'll try a voice vote. All those in favor of approving the motion to close the condemnation hearing, indicate by saying aye.

Aye.

Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. We have closed the hearing. for condemnation and now we're moving now to the deliberations by the council. Floor is open. Councilor Travers.

I'll just note that I appreciate the site visit this morning and all the testimony and evidence that's been presented this evening. My own thought on this is that we've received sufficient information for us to direct staff to prepare findings and conclusions of law that align with a finding of necessity on all three of the parcels that issued this evening. Those are my thoughts.

Thank you, Councillor. Other comments? Councillor Litwin.

Just in response, I also appreciate the site visit and all the testimony today. I would, you know, I'd personally entertain dividing the question so that the parcels on the westbound side of Colchester Avenue could be voted on separately. I don't believe in my own judgment and opinion that I can reach the standard that the attorney talked to about necessity for the northbound side heading towards Winooski. And so, therefore, if you put it all together, I would have to vote no. But I believe it is necessary on the other side of the street, based on the evidence that's been presented to us.

Counsel, just to clarify, are you making a motion?

Well, we were in discussion, so I had not made the motion yet, but I'd be happy to make that motion to divide the question if folks feel similarly. Otherwise, there's no point in me making the motion, and I will just vote no.

For the report of information, I'm going to request the city attorney to just weigh in if this question is divisible.

I don't know. I mean, and maybe that's a question to hold for Attorney Ramakrishnan, who's going to be joining the hearing in 10 minutes. That is not a question that we addressed in preparation for this hearing.

Thank you, City Attorney Brown. So I will come back to that process question and go back to deliberations. Councillor Carpenter.

The parcels on Colchester Avenue, they're running either east or west, am I right? Not north or south? I'm confused about sometimes the references. So the east is towards South Burlington and the west is towards the river?

As opposed to north and south. I'll defer to you.

I'll say how we've typically been referring to them as east and west in terms of how they're located in proximity to the roadway, the east being the two parcels that have the retaining wall in front, the west being the other side. I believe Councilor Lin was probably referring direction of travel.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilor Carpenter. Councilor Lin, I'm sorry. Do you still have questions? I just noticed your hand is still up.

No. Apologies. I'll lower it.

Thank you. Further comments by the council? Councillor Broderick.

Thank you. I won't comment on parcel 1 due to there already being an agreement, but I personally find necessity with parcels 8 and 10. Those are the, I think those are the northbound ones, correct? Based off of the site hearing, I would say, and the testimony of the team, I think rejecting this would at best present a really great challenge to meet the deadlines of the project due to the changes that would have to be made. And then at worst, I would be concerned about the potential where this project continues and if there is an inability to pursue the improvements that we talked about at the site hearing up including specifically the retaining walls and the slope work, to the extent that is going to happen with the project, I would think that presents a risk to both public and private property due to the work that will be going on around these slopes and just their continued existence after the project. I think the improvements are necessary based off of our visit. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Schachter.

Thank you. Is this an opportunity to ask a couple of questions to the project team?

If it helps with the deliberation, of course.

Sorry.

Hold on, Councillor Travers.

Oh, because we closed the hearing.

Just as a point of order, we have closed the hearing, so I do not think we can receive any additional evidence.

Great. Thank you. Councillor Schachter, do you have any other comments? Okay. So comments and deliberations for the City Council. Councillor Travers.

Well, I appreciate the comments made by Councillor Litwin and by Councillor Broderick here. And just because we're making a record, I may just add a bit more to what I noted before. My understanding here is that we're being asked to consider the public necessity with respect to the project as has been presented. And I think the project as presented here, that clearly there's been a demonstration that there's a necessity for us to have the easements that have been presented for us to accommodate the project. I appreciate the guidance provided by the City Attorney's Office prior to this session, Assistant City Attorney Ramakrishnan in particular, about some of the other considerations that this council should be making in terms of whether alternatives exist the impacts on surrounding homes the environmental effects the scenic and recreational impacts utility needs tax revenue impacts and whether the amount of land taken is reasonable from my perspective not only is this necessary but the limited scope of the proposed takings is reasonable we've heard from a witness that the potential tax revenue impacts are are negligible if that to the city with respect to utility needs. I think that the delivery of utilities will be improved through these takings and the easements at issue here. I think that through the site visit this morning that the scenic impacts and potential environmental impacts as well could be improved with the proposed upgrades that will come along to these properties and retaining walls and staircases and other landscaping that will come along with the projects. I do think that the impacts on the homes involved will be limited as well. And with respect to this particular project, I don't really see there being any reasonable alternatives. I do appreciate Councillor Litwin's points with respect to moving from one to two lanes and some of the potential negative impacts of that. which may go to the question around the public good of this project. But I very much appreciated the testimony with respect to how the two lanes could have and will improve the traffic flow here. You know, anyone who during a busy time is heading northbound towards the Winooski Bridge, well, I guess you start going eastbound and then you turn around northbound. But it gets backed up there pretty easily. And I think our hope and desire here is that this project is going to open that up significantly to improve flow between our two cities. And I'm also mindful of the other public good that will come along with upgraded sidewalks and shared use paths. And I think all of the criteria and boxes are really checked here based on the testimony and evidence we've received. So I would, for those reasons, personally be prepared to ask staff to make findings of fact and propose conclusions of law that find necessity in all three of the parcels at issue here. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Travers. Councillor Litwin.

I think what would help me for deliberation would be if I could hear from, I think it was Attorney Sheehan, I apologize if I got the last name wrong, our external attorney, the standard again, as she recited it at the beginning, opening of the hearing, in terms of the definition that needs to be met to find necessity.

Because this is for, I'm going to take this as a point of order and process question and not in terms of receiving more evidence. So, Attorney Seamus, please.

Thank you. I'm happy to read that. Bear with me for a second. This is in 19 BSA 740. Okay. And the definition is, a reasonable need that considers the greatest public good and the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and to the property owner. Necessity shall not be measured merely by expense or convenience to the condemning party Necessity includes a reasonable need for the highway project in general as well as a reasonable need to take a particular property and to take it to the extent proposed in determining necessity considerations shall be given to the adequacy of other property and locations quantity kind and extent of cultivated and agricultural land that may be taken or rendered unfit for use and effect upon home and homestead rights and the convenience of the owner of the land, effect of the highway upon the scenic and recreational values of the highway, need to accommodate present and future utility installations within the highway corridor, need to mitigate the environmental impacts of highway construction, and effect upon town ground lists and revenues.

Thank you, Attorney Seamus. Seamus. Any further comments by council? Or are we ready for a motion? Councillor Travers.

I would move that the council direct staff to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with finding of necessity for all three of the parcels at issue in this hearing.

Thank you, Councillor Travers. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Councillor Schachter. Thank you. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, I will call the question. All in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay.

Nay.

Do I have to do a roll?

You have to do a roll. Okay. With a divided vote, we will have to take a roll.

So I ask the clerk to call the roll. Councillor Barlow. Yes. Councillor Bergman. Yes. Councillor Broderick.

Yes.

Councillor Carpenter. Yes.

Yes.

Councillor Grant.

Yes.

Councillor Litwin.

No.

Councillor Schachter.

Yes.

Councillor Singh. Yes. Councillor Travers.

Yes.

Mayor Mulvaney-Stanek. Yes.

Nine ayes, one nay, three absent. Thank you. So with a vote of 9 to 1, the motion carries. And we are done with item 2.3. I think the only thing I forgot to do was use the gavel at the end of the hearing. So I'm not doing too bad. So we're going to move on to item 2.4. And with that, I'm going to open the compensation hearing for the Colchester Avenue, Riverside Avenue, Barrett Street, and Mill Street Intersection Project, STP 5000, 29. And back to attorney Seamus who will provide introduction to this matter, the compensation requirements and the damages definition. And then we will again go through staff to provide testimony and exhibits.

Thank you very much. So it's section 712 of municipal highway condemnation statutes require that the municipality pay damage to the impacted property owner as the legislative body determines reasonable. This is also reflected in Vermont's Constitution, which states that private property ought to be subservient to public uses when necessity requires it. Nevertheless, whenever any person's property is taken for the use of the public, the owner ought to receive an equivalent in money. Here, the equivalent in money is referred to as damages or just compensation. In the context we're using it today, damages is defined in Section 501.2 of Title 19 as damages. The value for the most reasonable use of the property or right in the property and of the business on the property and the direct and proximate decrease in the value of the remaining property or right in the property and the business on the property. The added value if any to the remaining property or right in the property which accrues directly to the owner of the property as a result of the taking or use as distinguished from the general public benefit shall be considered in the determination of damages. So you'll hear now testimony from B-Trend staff as to the amounts they valued these particular easements at for the properties still at issue. And we'll also have testimony that offers were sent to the property owners as required. Based on this testimony, we'll ask that the council ultimately make findings that the property owners should be paid damages as detailed on the waiver valuation forms. Although, as we discussed, we're going to ask tonight that the council not decide that tonight because we do have some, one or two parcels still where we're working through. So we'll ask that this hearing be continued at the end. So first we'll hear from Gosha Kaur, the V-Trans Right-of-Way appraiser, and I think she is online.

Oh, no, you're here. Sorry.

Somebody said you were online earlier, and then I saw you and talked to you. Sorry. Sorry about that, yeah. Thank you. Maddie, can you share the waiver evaluation forms up on the screen? Thank you. Gosha, could you give us your name and your title at BTRANS?

Do you mind bringing the mics a little bit closer to both of you, please? Sorry about that.

My full name is Malgoshatakar, but I go by Goshakar, and I'm a right-of-way appraiser three. Thank you.

And how long have you been performing appraisals and waiver evaluations? I think about 10 years.

Yeah, I've been working for V-Trans for 10 years.

Great, thank you.

So we're pulling up the waiver evaluations now. And can you just tell us, so that the city council is aware, when does V-Trans do a waiver evaluation as opposed to an appraisal?

So there's certain requirements. For example, if it's not complicated and it's under $35,000, then we can do a waiver.

So can you walk us through the waivers for each of these properties and explain the values?

sure so this is parcel one um and i so to get we we get a price per square foot or price per acre and then a price per square foot and that's done through um we we have the assessed land value and then we look at the cla the cla is basically just updating it to the assessed value to the current market value. And in most cases, like in this case, if it's just land that's being impacted, then we just look at the assessed land value, not the whole of the property. So in this case, the assessed land value for the 0.15 acres was 119,200. And then adjusting for the CLA, it became 146,404, which came out to 2241 per square foot. And then going down, so this one only had temporary rights, and so we take the square footage, the area impacted, times the price per square foot, and then then we look at the how many construction years, and then the 10% is kind of just the land lease for the three years. and then you calculate that, and that came to, for the construction easement, that came to 2,098, rounded up to 2,100, and then the disconnect and connect, which is when they're gonna disconnect and connect the utilities, and that was given a nominal assignment of value, because it doesn't have a square footage, at $100.

I think that's it. Not much else to... And that was PO1, correct? Yep. This is PO8.

Yeah, so similar. similar basis evaluation, which is the lot size, and then you do the assessed land value, you calculate the CLA, and then you get a price per square foot. And so this one has two permanent easements. So the install and maintain is the stairs, along the frontage, the new stairs, and that was given a nominal assignment of value. The reason that is is because if there's no square footage or if there's no negative impact, we assign a nominal assignment of value. So for this one, for the improvement of the new stairs, we gave $1,000 assignment of value. And then for utility, we was 334 square feet times the price per square foot. And that was given a percent of fee at 50%. And the 50%, you can kind of look at it as 100% is the acquisition if it was acquired completely. And then 50% is looking at what the impact of the utility is meant actually would have on the property. And then for temporary rights, same as before, disconnect and connect was given 100, construction was calculated, and then the driveway was given a nominal assignment of value for the repaving of the drive. And then there was a cost to cure for two trees that were gonna be removed on the property, and that was given $900 per tree, and that was based on a, if you wanna go down lower to the notes, yeah, so that was based on a cost estimate that was done for a project, for a prior project in Williston recently, within the last few years, by Calibellevance Land Works in Holling. And so that total came to 20,600. And then parcel 10, same deal, lot size, assess land value, getting the price per square foot, similar rights. So yeah, so I'm not gonna go over, I don't have to go over the details. I don't think of every single one, but yeah. So for anything that has a square footage, you do the calculations that way with either, if it's permanent rights, you do the percent of fee of the land value, and then for temporary, you do the calculation of a land lease times the construction years, and then the ones that don't have a negative impact, you would do a nominal assignment of value, and yeah. And then there was one tree that was going to be removed on the property, and the total came to $32,900.

So with the waiver valuations, what's the ultimate goal in this final number?

To provide just compensation.

And you visited the properties?

I did.

And does the taking impact the highest and best use of the land or the most reasonable use in any of these?

No.

Thank you. Those are all the questions I have for Gosha. Anybody else? Okay.

Thank you very much. Do you have any other witnesses who would like to provide?

Two more witnesses who are both online, actually online.

Actually, I will just ask, because I think we did this in the first round, if there are any, this is the time for any clarifying questions to be asked while we're in hearing mode, if you will, and so if there's any questions related to this first witness by counsel. Counselor Carpenter?

This is my own curiosity, and like when you have two trees removed, that's the cost to the value of the property or is it the cost of removing a tree and does the homeowner remove the tree or do they get to replace the tree?

No, so it gets removed during construction, and that's basically, I got an estimate from a landscaper of basically how much it would cost for them to come and replant a tree. So yeah, so it's kind of just a cost to cure. It's called a cost to cure in the sense that if they lose a tree, then we will compensate them so they can plant another tree.

So they will plant the other tree.

Well, they get, yes, so they get the money of how much of the estimated cost it would to get the tree, yes.

And is that the same with the steps? A couple of them you're...

The steps are going to be done by, during construction. Okay.

Mm-hmm. And the driveway mitigation, that gets done?

Yeah, and the driveway, that's why, yeah, so the temporary rewrite for the driveway is just repaving or regraveling the driveway so that it matches the road, and so that is done during construction.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Carpenter. Councillor Singh.

Thank you, Mayor. Could you speak to, is this a standard form that is used on projects like this, or is this something that V-Trans has derived on their own? Thank you.

Yes, so this is a standard waiver that we do for all projects, yeah.

And the second, on a permanent, easement, and I just want to understand this, you know, on both of these, in parcel eight, I guess the permanent easement's only valued at $9,200, and then a permanent easement on the other one with the retained wall is about, you know, close to $20,000. So permanent rights to that, that's kind of a standard calculation going 50% of the value for, you know, having permanent access to that part of the parcel.

I'm sorry, is the question related to why the numbers are different?

No, why, you know, only giving 50% for, you know, on those for, they're basically permanent easements, right, that haven't been there prior to this, right?

Yes, so the utility easements are the underground easements. And so if it's 100%, that's basically the land is acquired. The utility easement is gonna be underground and the property, the driveway is gonna have the same use before and after. There's just gonna be a utility easement. after the fact. So it's kind of just looking at before and after. What are the differences? How much does it impact what can be done on the property in that specific area? And so for the utility easement, the after is going to be pretty much the same. That still is going to be a drive area. It's just that there's going to be underground utilities under there.

All right. Thank you for that clarification.

Thank you, Councillor Singh. Other questions? Councillor Schachter.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for walking us through this. It's my first time seeing charts like this, so I just wanted to make sure I'm wrapping my head around it. We're looking at, for example, the cost of installing and maintaining stairs. What you're proposing is both that as part of the construction process, those stairs will be reconstructed, and there will be compensation provided to the owners to the value of the stair? How does this all tie out?

There is a square footage for the install and maintain, but we have to look at if there's damages or if there's benefits. In this case, it's just a number that me and my supervisor, we looked at what the impacts are and what would be a fair number. And to compensate the property owners to have that right to install and maintain. So because the square footage number, if it was calculated, would come out to significantly higher, but the actual impact is a benefit. So that's why it's determined the nominal assignment of value. It's related to how much... how much looking at the impacts and how much it would normally be and what the impacts are and just kind of creating a number that would be reasonable compensation.

Okay, so it's taking into account both the costs and the benefits of the easement and the changes that are happening and sort of assigning a value to that overall.

Yeah, it's kind of looking, and so in this case, we had a bunch of properties that had the stairs that are going to be built, and just wanting to provide a consistent value, nominal assignment value, we were thinking $500 would be reasonable, but because the square footages were so high, we decided, okay, let's do $1,000 compensation for the install and maintain. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Schachter. Any other questions for this witness before we move forward? Okay. Councillor Schachter.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your testimony. To confirm, are all three of these properties rental properties as far as we're aware?

I believe so.

Okay. And... On sort of longer term projects like this, does your appraisal ever take into consideration the impact of particularly the temporary construction, perhaps some inaccessibility to driveways on either properties and the ability to rent out the property at its typical fair market value during the construction project. Does the appraisal ever take that into consideration?

Yeah, that's definitely a consideration that kind of relates to damages, additional damages. So for rental loss, that would definitely be considered. That didn't seem to be the case for this one. And to clarify for damages and rent loss, things like that, it has to be something that is specific to that property. So it can't be We don't, you can't compensate for general construction issues. It has to be a specific right that is related to that property that might decrease the value of the property or the ability to rent the property. I did not find that for those to be the case. Okay.

I'm wondering if you can expand upon that a little bit in two-fold. One is... the construction itself, right? I can imagine if there's lasting operations at any point in time that that could have an impact on the inhabitants of a property. I'm imagining that the vibrations, as we heard about earlier, could potentially have an impact on the property in terms of sort of the impacts of, and that's just the construction itself, right? I'm wondering if you could expand upon what you're saying with respect to whether you're able to take those kinds of just general construction impacts into consideration in your appraisal.

Well, so for what can be compensable and non-compensable, it's really a matter of case law and what is allowed and not allowed. And if it... So if a prop... A property owner lives in a construction area, but they don't actually have anything that's being acquired by the state, then they're not even a considered property owner. So anything that's within the right of way, any inconveniences, the flow of traffic, then that's not considered compensable. As far as access goes, yes, if there is any issues with access, I know that these properties, their access is through the back, and that will not be impacted. As far as the stairs, I believe that that shouldn't, I don't know how long the construction of the stairs would be, but they will have access to their property during construction.

Okay. And to confirm, and if you're not the right witness on that, please feel free to let me know. But to confirm, with respect to the utility easements in the backs of the property on the west side of the road, is there a period of time during which, if we're putting utilities underground, that that driveway would be inaccessible to folks that are living in those buildings?

Yeah, I would probably ask more of the details of what the construction is going to work. But I do remember asking the project manager if that would be an issue. And I don't want to say something for certain, but it didn't seem that they would not lose access.

I don't know if it's appropriate. I know we have the project engineer here. I don't know if it's appropriate.

Yeah, sure. So, you know, can't speak to exact durations of, you know, potential impacts on individual properties. Certainly, you know, due to construction, there will be likely short periods of times where there's some, you know, impacted access. You know, part of the continuing effort that will happen once we have a design builder selected is, you know, that finalization of design There's a huge emphasis on, you know, what the construction schedule will be, and there will be a lot of requirements on the contractor to, you know, have direct coordination with, you know, all impacted property owners on those kind of day-to-day, more granular impacts that will happen during construction. You know, it's a fairly standard process by how those things happen. I think it would be untruthful to say there will be no impacts to access on some of these, but you know, the intent would be to mitigate those to the extent that we can, and the contractor will be required to coordinate directly with property owners, you know, throughout construction.

Okay. And then my last question here is, and I know that we're unlikely to engage in deliberations on it, but to ask the just-in-case question, the property on... the east side of the street, which is not accessed from the back. It's accessed from the front. Do we know whether or not the construction is going to make the driveway at that property completely inaccessible at any point in time?

It's possible for, you know, very short duration. You know, when you look at let's say like the sidewalk construction and actually pouring concrete and letting that form up. You know, the actual driveway construction itself is pretty minimal. So, you know, again, I can't say exactly what that would be, but it's possible for, you know, we're talking days, not weeks, months type of thing. Okay.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you, Councillor Chappers. Any other questions at this time from councillors first on this item? And we will get to interested parties very shortly, Dr. Bennett. Any other questions on this witness from councillors? Okay. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm going to call you Attorney Carpenter, but you're a councillor. Councillor Carpenter. Sorry, I was about to go back to the attorney. Sorry.

I don't know if Dr. Bennett's question about the vibrations and making sure we have technical expertise available. I don't know who gets to answer that. I mean, she posed it, but nobody responded other than I guess it will be available. I'm not quite sure.

Is this related to compensation? I just want to remind the council that we are on compensation and not on...

It's more not, I guess, individual compensation. I'm reading it as an ask that there'll be some due diligence for those homes on the steep slopes, or additional due diligence, I guess. So it's not cash to the homeowner. It's an ask of the project to make sure that it's adequately...

monitored Council carbon, I believe that is a well, it's a technical question.

I'm gonna look to our city attorney for this one Engineer I will get this all straight Here we go, I would say as the City Council we can certainly take that directive under a different meeting and Hearing and I'd be welcome to discuss that.

Okay.

Thank you City Engineer Thank you. Okay

So back to our compensation hearing and clarifying questions for the witness we've heard so far. Otherwise, we'll move forward. Councillor Schachter.

Thank you. One final question. I noticed in the two charts, one was for the removal of one tree and one was for the removal of two trees. I know that came up as a question on the walkthrough this morning as well. Are those the actual number of trees that we would be looking to remove as part of these efforts?

So there's a lot of trees that are within the right of way, and those are not compensable because they're not on the property. So there are more trees that are being removed, but they're in the right of way. Okay, thank you.

Okay, I believe we're ready to move forward. So Attorney Seamus, are there any other witnesses?

We've got two more very brief witnesses. Okay, thank you. First, Barb Dimick-Growell from V-Trans, who I believe is online. There you are. Thank you. Just a couple of questions for you. If you could just confirm that offers were sent to P01 and P08? Yes, they were. And are you aware as to whether those offers were received? They were, yes. We have spoken about them. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. And that is all I have. Thank you, unless anybody has questions.

Any questions related to the offers sent for PO1 and PO8? Councillor Schachter.

I just have a clarification question. Are we actually talking about PO8 and P10? PO10? I don't know if it's P10.

Yes, we are. I apologize. I got the wrong number there. Actually, P01, no, P01 and P08, sorry, P10 is a different negotiator, so she'll testify next on that one. Got it. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you. This one was split up between at least two different negotiators. So this testimony was just to show that the city has done what it needed to do as far as, or V-Trans in this case has done what it needed to do in terms of offers. Thank you. Yeah. And next I'll call Kristen Baroney for similar testimony on PO 10.

I'm here.

Thank you, Kristen. Did you send the offer to PO 10? Yes, I did. And are you aware as to whether they received that? Have you had communications with them?

Yes, they did receive it.

Thank you very much. That is all I have on compensation.

Thank you very much, Attorney Seamus. Are there any other clarifying questions for the witnesses or in general on compensation by city councillors? Councillor Travers.

I don't know if this is an appropriate question, but I will ask it anyways, which is in the negotiations with the property owners here, are you able to offer any testimony with respect to what the property owner's individual stances are with respect to this hearing. I mean, perhaps we will have some here This evening, I don't know from an evidentiary standpoint if it's appropriate for me to ask you to relay what I guess is hearsay.

I don't think we can give details on the negotiations themselves, but I think I could say one of the properties, the owners live in another or are at this time in another country and could not sign because there were no notaries. So it was my understanding is there's not an actual issue. They don't have an actual issue with the easement. It's just a matter of not able to sign, so this had to happen. This other, Dr. Bennett, we heard from her tonight that she's all set, and then the other property, there's still some ongoing negotiations that there just wasn't enough time to complete, but my understanding is it's very close.

Okay. And feel free to tell me that you can't answer this question, but between... P08 and P10, are you able to tell us which property has owners who are out of the country?

Do you remember? I'll let you.

P08. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Councillor Travers. Any other remaining clarifying questions? This is your opportunity, City Councillors, before we move to interested parties. Okay. Seeing none. To interested parties, we'll do the similar two steps that we did prior. in the other hearings. So if there are interested parties who have questions of any of the witnesses that the council has just heard from, this is your opportunity to ask them. So you can just raise your Zoom hand if so. And then we will open it up to comments in general. Dr. Bennett, welcome back.

Thank you so much for having me back um I just have a couple questions, one of which was, I was hoping that we could hear a little bit more about the potential for blocked access for multiple days during my negotiations and meetings with the leadership team or some members of the leadership team. I was under the impression that blocked access would be a matter of hours and that. definitely was a big part of our negotiations. So that's something that I'd like to hear more about. The other question that comes to mind, and thank you so much, Councilor Carpenter, for bringing this up. During negotiations, I asked repeatedly if any type of geotechnical monitoring and or accessibility assessment had been done and it sounds like from the general V trans group the information that was able to be gathered was that this information had not been like there had been no boring. And so that was a main concern of mine in the compensation was that we would include to some extent geotechnical monitoring and or a preliminary assessment to have on record so that should anything occur the trans would cover that or the appropriate party of this project would cover that impact in the remainder of the project. And so I did specifically ask for that to be part of the compensation package and was told that that would not be considered. And so if that is something that is still on the table, I would be very interested to hear more about that, having had it brought up by a city councilor. Thank you.

I guess I'll speak to access and blocked access. I was speaking more to my general understanding of an estimate of what that would be at that property just by the nature of the work. I'll say that whatever negotiation, I'm not privy specifically to those negotiations until after that's finalized and we use that information to inform our contract language. So ultimately, whatever you've agreed to, Will be factored into our contract and written in there. So I You know, I may have over Categorized what that would be, you know, if you've had discussions Otherwise, you know certainly then the work, you know specific to your property, you know isn't significant So, you know, we would not expect that it's a you know a major impact I guess the question

I can just add, in general, in the city, as we're doing any sidewalk or roadway projects, we provide notice. We put signs out ahead of any impacts. They're always short in duration. We've done this extensively on Main Street, for example. where we had multiple driveways with multiple access needs. We always make sure deliveries and things like that are accommodated. Same thing with access for residential units.

And I guess with the slope discussion and the geotechnical aspects, can we clarify what the question was?

Dr. Bennett, could you repeat the question related to the geotechnical question, please?

Absolutely. I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I was under the impression that that type of work would not be part of the compensation for the – in my negotiations. Is it possible that that should have been included in negotiations or should have been part of the compensation package to have slope monitoring? Because that's something that I – specifically asked for.

I won't speak to compensation. I'll just say as it relates to that specific parcel, there's no work being done on the slope. So when I reference what we've been doing for geotechnical work, that's for areas where we have actual project impacts. But I certainly can't speak to compensation protocol.

Any other witnesses able to?

I think this kind of falls under, we compensate for specific rights to that property, not any general construction items related to bridge work. Yeah, so it has to be specific to the property.

Thank you. Dr. Bennett, do you have further questions?

Yes, thank you. Would it be possible to gain access to the geotechnical boring data and any other reports related to this project that have been done on the slope between Riverside Avenue and Colchester Avenue?

I'm going to reference that. The city engineer will follow up. Yes, Dr. Bennett, the city engineer is sort of off camera over here, and she nodded, and she said she'll follow up in writing.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

Thank you. Anything further, Dr. Bennett? Anything further, Dr. Bennett?

I suppose I'm still a little bit uncertain about the access, because it seems like that wasn't totally clarified, the extent to which access will be blocked to the property for my tenants.

I might suggest, since the city engineer is going to follow up anyway, that our department... Oh, no, she's now moving to the table. Thank you so much. Yes, of course.

Good evening, Laura Wheelock, City Engineer with Public Works. I had the opportunity to sit in at least on one discussion with the property owner regarding the general construction work and to speak to how the city generally approaches our construction. We did state the fact that the access to the driveway, the property, the doors would be available for a majority of the project. There are two specific work types. that tend to keep parcel owners' vehicles out of their driveways. And that is when we do our sidewalk pour, as we need to let the concrete cure. And then the curbing work, kind of a similar work type. We just need to let the concrete cure. It's not something that cars can go over. So it is a very limited amount of time. We also did discuss the amount of outreach that we would do to both the property owner and to the tenants directly, if that is the direction that the property owner wanted us to go with that notification. It's a very small amount of time in the relative scheme of the two-ish year project. But otherwise, as previously noted, we do everything we possibly can to allow people certainly access to their front doors. And if they're not able to access their driveways, we would provide displaced parking for free in approximate location. Thank you, Laura.

Thank you so much, Laura, for clarifying. I'm so glad to hear that everything is the same as we discussed before. So thank you again.

Thank you, Dr. Bennett. Are there any other interested parties who have questions for the witnesses we have heard from in this hearing? Seeing none, we're going to move forward to allow interested parties. to the project and impacted parcels an opportunity to provide testimony and comments in general on this issue. And first, we'll start with any property owners or persons holding interest in the affected parcels. I am seeing no one indicating interest in commenting, so I will now move us forward. I think we're supposed to open to the members of the public. I don't see that in my script. See, I'm learning about the from the first hearing. So now I'm actually gonna go to open to any other members of the community and opportunity to speak on the projects and projects, compensation portion of this hearing. like the record to show the mayor caught that and there is no one else expressing interest in the members of the community. So we'll move forward now to all evidence is now submitted. I'm seeing affirmation from attorney Seamus. So we're going to now go to council. And if asking for council deliberations on this, whether you require more evidence or not. So I will open that the floor to that conversation. noting there's a recommendation from staff on our next step here. Councillor Travers.

Well, without engaging in deliberations on it, I'm about to make a motion to continue this hearing until June 1st, at least in part, because I think we need to hear more with respect to the status of the property on the east side of colchester avenue before rendering any decision or engaging in deliberations so i would move to continue this hearing uh until uh june 1st of 2026 which aligns with our regular city council meeting on that same night so counselor travers moves to continue the compensation hearing to the council's meeting on june 1st 2026 is there a second second second by council barlow uh discussion on the motion

Seeing none, all in favor indicate by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, nay. Motion carries unanimously. And with no other business before the mayor presiding city council, I will adjourn the meeting at 8.08 p.m. Thank you. I'm going to do that just for fun. Okay, thanks all.

Thank you.