City Council - Regular Meeting

It is 6 p.m. Monday, June 1st. I will now call to order this regular meeting of the Winooski City Council. Please join me in standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. All right, any questions or concerns about the order of tonight's agenda?

None.

No? Okay, hearing no concerns, I'll entertain a motion to approve tonight's, I guess we can move on to the consent agenda next. Actually, public comment. Yeah, public comment, sorry, pause. Are there, now's an opportunity for public comment. If there's anyone online or in the room that would like to speak to something that is not on tonight's agenda, you're welcome to come up and introduce yourself. And if there's anyone else, we'll make time for that. So please come up to the microphone and introduce yourself. Hi. Hi.

My name's Donna Farnsworth and I live at 83 Barlow Street and I've been chatting with the mayor through email in regards to a no smoking sign being put out in front of our property because we have several people that are hooked to oxygen and we have a few tenants that are putting cigarette butts down the drain on Handyside and they're going down into the river and all over the ground. He actually got the sign, was gonna have the sign put up, but it was stopped by Deke, because Deke thought it was gonna be put on our property, WHA property, and she spoke with, I believe it was Rosher. So there's controversy going back and forth about when the sign's gonna be put up, if the sign's gonna be put up. I've also been working with Mariella Matthews to try to get grants and try to figure out how we can get it enforced. Before, like, I've been living there years, and now we have new tenants that are hooked to oxygen. They basically, we can't use our back patio. It's limited because of safety issues, so everybody needs to be sitting out on the front. And a lot of us, like, have oxygen or breathing issues. So my request is I don't want it put on Williamson housing property but I would like a no smoking sign put out there which he has agreed to and he actually said was going to be put there and then today I get an email back saying we were stopped because of WHA. So I don't know where to go from here. I hope the sign can get put up and that we can figure out a way to get enforcement. My take on it, I've been told by him, is that it's considered littering. We call the police and try to get enforcement there. I've called the code enforcement officer, the chief of the fire department. He said that they could not enforce it. I'm like, I don't understand why not. And I don't know who makes the rules of whether the sign goes up or not. So I'm here to represent my building and myself. and the people that live in it, and hopefully we can figure out a way to get the sign put up. Thank you.

Thank you, Donna. Is there any response from the city?

Not at this time. Okay. Great. We will pull it up.

Anyone else for public comments? And checking online. If you're online and have a public comment for something that's not on the agenda, just raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, we'll move over to the consent agenda items. Consent agenda for the evening, Liquor Control Board and City Council meeting minutes of May 18th, 2026. Payroll warrant, May 10th to the 23rd, 2026. Accounts payable warrant, May 28th, 2026. Subsequent to payout warrant, April 2026. Resolution recognizing June as Pride Month in Winooski. Recognizing Immigrant Heritage Month and World Refugee Day in Winooski. Downtown Winooski block parties, state treasurer's report, internal finance controls checklist, one day sidewalk permit for the library, 65 Winooski Falls Way, finance commission appointment. Any items on there that councillors would like to remove or discuss? Is the commissioner, proposed commissioner online or in the room?

You don't have to.

You're welcome to come up and introduce yourself. Thank you. I'm just introducing myself. Oh, OK.

Hi, my name is Alejandra Lopez. I'm a new resident of Winooski. I just moved here about a month ago. I currently work for the state of Vermont, and I am going to be working on the finance committee. I have a background in data and policy, and I look forward to working with all of you.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you.

We're excited to have you.

All right, so no concerns. I'll entertain a motion to approve tonight's consent agenda.

So moved.

Seconded. Motion by Councillor Turco, seconded by Councillor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. Motion passes. All right, let's see what we have next on our agenda. Council report. Why don't we start with Councillor Goldenberg.

Yeah, so we had our Municipal Infrastructure Commission meeting on May 21st, where we reviewed the highlights and concerns about the upcoming Winooski Bridge and parks. We also discussed a new stormwater project coming up on Burson Court and Cedar Street. Our next meeting will occur later in June. We haven't decided if it's going to be the fourth or third week yet, and we hope to see you all there.

Thank you.

Wow, nervous. The downtown Winooski board met on Wednesday, May 20th. Our executive director, Melissa Corbin, provided a report back from her time at a recent conference and provided ideas on how to bring what she learned from other downtowns across the country here to Winooski. The airport commission has a meeting this Wednesday at 4 p.m. that is open to the public. We have a joint inclusion and belonging and safe, healthy, connected people commission on June 11th here at City Hall. And then I have two things that are more of less commission-based and just more sort of like things that are happening in our city that I want to make sure that folks know about. Last week, I had the chance to attend the Winooski School District spring concert that I just thought was incredible. It was open to the public and the musicians and these students. It was a high school and middle school concert. And the fifth graders got to play with some of the high schoolers. And it was just so wonderful to see these students playing Wing, wing, nope. Wind instruments, string instruments, percussion. And so I just wanted to highlight that on this Wednesday at 6 p.m. is Senior Speech Night, which is where Winooski seniors do basically like TED Talk style speeches. They're a few minutes long and they talk about their experiences being within the Winooski School District. It's open to the public. I will definitely be there. My wife is gonna join me. I highly recommend it if you have a chance to go. It's a great way to see how our students sort of have moved through our city and through the school system. And then there's an anti-racism block party on Thursday as well from 4 to 6.30. And that's happening on the track field and in the back of the school. And that's open to the public as well. And so there's a lot of different ways to be civically engaged and also to support our school.

Thank you. As far as Safe Healthy Connected, our next meeting is on June 11th as mentioned, joint meeting with Inclusion of Belonging and the Housing Commission met this past month and we had similar agenda items to the Safe, Healthy, Connected Commission looking at equity in housing and an assessment that the University of Vermont is conducting. So lots more to come on that as the months ahead roll out. And June, our Housing Commission meeting will be on the 23rd. So keep an eye out for an agenda for that close to that date. Councilor Goodrich.

Thank you. Angela, Commission Member Logan and I met with three applicants for the Finance Commission. Alejandro was just appointed tonight. and we met with two other candidates today who we will be recommending for council at our next meeting. We are still recruiting for one open seat. The Finance Commission will meet next Tuesday, June 9th at 6 p.m. here or on Zoom. The agenda will include voting in a new chair, vice chair and secretary as well as an overview and discussion of the commission itself since we're having new members and a broader discussion on the topics that came up in our April 27th, 2026 special city council meeting regarding commissions.

Wonderful. Thank you. And city updates.

Yes. Speaking of, Winooski Board Commission and committee terms are expiring on June 30, 2026. Residents with relevant experience, skills, interests, or a willingness to engage are encouraged to apply for these great opportunities and participate in local government. Groups include the Development Review Board, Finance Commission, Housing Commission, Inclusion and Belonging Commission, Local Resources Advisory Board, Municipal Infrastructure Commission, Planning Commission, Safe Healthy Connected People Commission, and the Winooski Memorial Library Committee. The City Council and staff welcome a diversity of voices, and if you've never served on a board, commission, or committee before, we will do our best to support you. To learn more and apply, visit winooskivt.gov slash news. Everyone's invited to the Main Street Community Parade on Saturday, June 6th, 2026. That's this Saturday. The parade starts at the Winooski School District at 12 p.m. and will be followed by community lunch at the Winooski Senior Center. That'll be free. We are still looking for volunteers to carry banners in support of businesses impacted by the Main Street construction project. Anyone can apply to be in the parade as well. You can sign up for either of those opportunities carrying a banner for the businesses or for yourself. And you can learn more about the parade too at downtownwinooski.org slash mosaic. That's M-O-S-A-I-C. Everyone is also invited to the City of Winooski's Comprehensive Plan Open House Series. Comprehensive plans serve as a guide for local government projects and budgeting for the community. By state law, cities and towns adopt a comprehensive plan every eight years. Winooski is due to adopt our next one in March of 2027 and we want as many people's voices informing the plan as possible. We'll have four open houses this summer, each one focused on a particular topic. The next will be held on Tuesday, June 16th from 5 to 7 p.m. at the Winooski Senior Center. That one will be focused on... revaluating the objectives of the economic vitality section of the 2019 master plan and the 2017 economic development plan. Light refreshments are provided. It is your annual opportunity to file a grievance about the city assessed value of your property. To appeal your appraisal, you must submit a written letter to the city clerk's office by June 5th, 2026. You'll also then need to call or email to set up an appointment. The phone number is 802-655-6410, and the email address is clerk at WinooskiVT.gov. More information is available on the city's website at WinooskiVT.gov. On the homepage, under the news alerts section, click on change of appraisal notices. Notices are mailed to those whose property appraisal changed this past year, but again, anyone may file a grievance about the city assessed value of their property during this time of year. That's all.

If someone, for the parade on Saturday, if someone doesn't remember to sign up to volunteer, if they just show up on Saturday morning, are they still able to help to carry a banner? Yes, that would be great.

Thank you.

Okay. And with that, we can move on to our regular items. So at this point, we will continue the public hearings. from our last council meeting on the necessity and just compensation amount for temporary and permanent rights for Burlington Winooski Bridge project from the Willam Mill. I'll invite Public Works Director John Rauscher to come join us.

John, come over here.

Thanks.

So this is a continuation, as mentioned.

So I'd also recommend inviting up our attorney, Christian Trova, kind of walk through the next steps.

If you want to come to the mic now, it's fine. Is anyone else joining online or in person?

I actually have the, this just came in, the most up-to-date list of folks who are joining us. Okay. So, as you may recall, two weeks ago, we, the city essentially presented its case regarding the necessity for condemning these three individuals Portions of a parcel owned by the woolen mill associates and now today is the opportunity for the woolen mill associates to present its case regarding necessity if it wants to and compensation if it wants to. My understanding is that representatives from the Woolen Mill are joining us remotely this evening, and that's based on my conversations with Attorney Hans Husey, who represents the Woolen Mill Associates. And they have provided their appraisal report. So this is really going to the issue of compensation to be paid. I forwarded that report to John. This would have been just about 15 minutes before this hearing started that came in. So hopefully we can get that to you. And then on our end, we are being joined online by Bob Kleinfelter from VTrans, Josh Oland, Eric Furs, Trey Polk, and Kevin McManus, in case you have any questions of them before you go into executive session to deliberate regarding the proposed resolution for these takings.

OK. The offset here, I would want to ask if there's any updates from your perspective before we move on to the existing property owner and their representation.

I don't believe that we have anything to update you about regarding the city's case. And I believe we can just go to the Woolen Mill Associates and their representatives, including Hans Husey.

Okay. And I saw most people that you mentioned on the call. So, Paul, will you give Hans permission? Who's he? Permission to speak? Sorry if I mispronounced the last name.

Hans, I think you can unmute yourself at this point. We're not able to hear you in the room just yet.

I suppose well, they are troubleshooting. Is there anyone else from the woolen mill associates that would want to. But it looks like video is getting lined up.

I believe their appraiser is Michael Keller. He may be joining.

No, I see a phone number on here, 802 number.

Do you know if anyone's joining by phone?

Yes, we present evidence on both necessity and value this evening Our necessity case is very simple. We have no expert testimony or witness Our position is solely that at the current status of the project We don't know who the contractor is. We don't know what their means and methods of construction are going to be and We don't know exactly what they need this area for. And therefore, it's impossible to determine whether this area is necessity necessary. To the project as a whole, because the contractors that accepts the bid. May very well propose a method or means that does not require the use. Of the easement area for the eases for the uses proposed. By B trans at this time, B trans is making a best best. A good faith estimate as to why this area might be needed and for what purpose. But at this point, no 1 can say for sure what that need is or what that purpose is. And so that's that's our position on necessity. With respect to value, I would like to present the testimony of Mike Keller.

who hopefully is available online paul i'll rely on you to see if there's oh we have mike in the room come please come come on up to the mic it's hard to understand anybody yeah i'm sorry about that

Christian Chorman for the city.

I've never met you before.

Hi. Hi, Mike. This is Hans. Could you just state your name and give a brief description of your background and experience? I get the name Michael Keller.

And a brief statement of your background and experience.

I've been paid in real estate for probably 50 years. I think that probably suffices. Okay.

All right. And in your capacity as an appraiser, did the Shoreline Corporation ask you to review the appraisal that was prepared by V-Trans with respect to the property at issue tonight? Yes. And did you prepare your own appraisal of the property at issue tonight? Yes. And what method did you use to determine the property's value?

I don't understand.

What method did you use was the question to...

The method I used and what the state appraiser used or the city appraiser, whomever, is the same. Exactly the same.

All right. And what value did you come up with?

I came up with... And the before, $5,900,000. And the after, $5,770,000. Land only.

And so, right, so the value to be paid, the consideration to be paid would be what?

Don't understand.

The amount that, the question that Han said, the amount that you're proposing, to be paid for compensation would be what amount?

That would be $162,000.

All right. And as I understand it, the state's appraiser came up with a value of approximately $117,000. Can you explain the difference between your value and the state's value if you use the same method?

Yes, and that's easy to do. Can I give these to you, people?

Yes.

There's seven of these, so you have to take the tabs off of them. I can do that. Then I'll explain it to you.

You can start explaining while I hand them out.

We can hear you. So if you want to start with your explanation, that's fine.

Okay, well, there are two issues, and only two issues. Other than that, we're basically the same. And the first one is... called the larger parcel. And when you're doing federal assisted money that's involved, then the larger parcel has to be considered. And that, I'll show you with those documents. I considered the larger parcel. The other person did not. As a result, I have more acreage than the other appraiser. Because the other appraiser considered another willing mill. It's the willing mill where the billing is. Fraternity organization was there last. There's three units there. And not counting the parking lot across the street. So he was about 5.6 acres and I'm about 6.51 acres. Okay. Okay. So now that that's put aside, then we go into the highest and best use. And if you see the back of those sheets, the last two pages, I think, are about highest and best use. And what they say is it has to be legal, feasible, fiscally doable, but most importantly, most profitable.

Sorry, which one are we looking at? Which page were you referring to?

The land sale number three. Sorry, if you are able to help to direct us which page, that would be helpful.

You can see high is the best use definition of the plot.

So the point here is it has to be most profitable. Now, the other appraiser that had the property, and only part of the property, because I don't think he knew the other parts were involved. I think he thought they were somebody else's property. But anyways, I can't say for sure because I don't know. I'm not in his mind. But he valued it. the highest and best use of 168 units, which is what the existing property, big mill building is, 168 units, plus has 12 commercial units. But forget that for now, 168 units. And I valued it based on 325 units. And where did I get the 325? I looked at the sales. and what their density. I can do, according to your director of planning here at Winooski, there's not how many units they can put on there as long as I don't go above 60 feet and I have parking. That's it. But I did only 325 units because it was about 50 units per acre is what's being developed. Now where he came up with 168 was based on his, on the actual mill building. But it has nothing to do with the value of the land at its highest and best use. May I ask a question?

Do you have anything else that you want to present on? I know you mentioned two elements, did you already cover the second element?

That was the second element. Okay. Highest of issues. Okay, and what that does, it involves, once you do the highest, larger parts and highest of issues, and then you get your density at 500, and the rest of it is walk in the park.

Okay. Is there anything else that you want to present on before we move to some questions?

I wanna just say one more thing. His 168 units, if you really think about this, the mill building wasn't built for apartments. It was built for a mill. And its present use needs the parking lot across the street. It's permitted for 168 units with the parking lot across the street. Why he gets 168 units without considering that, I'm not sure. Okay. That's it.

Okay. Is there anyone else from the Willow Mill Associates that would like to present? That sounds...

Uh, no, if you have no questions for the appraiser, we have no other evidence to present tonight.

Okay. We, I just wanted to give opportunity for the testimony before we move to questions. So, um, at this point, we'll open it to questions. Um, counselor goes, go first. Counselor, you can go.

I just want to confirm that I'm understanding what you're saying. The state's appraisal was based on the current 168 units that exist in that building and that parking lot, which is currently there, and they are currently permitted for 168 units and that parking lot. Your appraisal is based on the potential for- It's based on the highest and best use.

What is the highest and best use of the property? Forget the buildings there. Forget all that, because now what you're doing the land. You'll get caught up with the building. There's a piece of land standing there. Actually, there's three pieces. Where the building is, across the street, the parking lot, and then that little red building. All is one property. All owned by the same people, used for the same purpose. That's the larger parcel. Now, Put that on the market. What's the highest and best use of it? Housing. How many units?

And where did the number of 350 come from?

If you read the report, which you probably haven't got a copy.

I have not had a chance to. We literally received it 15 minutes ago. And I've been at a city council meeting since 6 p.m. It's now 6.30.

We'll explain it in the report. But it's from sales. What properties are sold and what?

The densities range from about... Market value for sales would be the market value, not the assessed value.

I said I had nothing to do with this.

But it's a question, so you're basing it off of market value, not assessed value, correct? Yeah, okay.

Okay.

You can follow up on the question. Sorry, I was just... No, I...

I think maybe I don't understand enough about appraisals to have a follow-up, but I'm going to pass the baton, and then I might have a follow-up later.

Let me tell you. Let me help you a little bit.

Go ahead.

Do you mind if I ask a few questions? On your birthday. Please go.

There are two buildings built over on East... on Falls Way, just past Champlain Mill. And one's River Run, and the other one's River House. They were built by the same person. And they have, their density is 79 units per acre. They have parking underneath. If you go to Cambion Rise on North Avenue, where the old church orphanage was, that there is, they're doing 48 units per acre. Proposed for Riverside Avenue in Burlington is 158 units per acre.

And it's my understanding that the compensation would be attributed to what would be permitted under Winooski ordinance and not Burlington. So while having the Riverside property for 158 units, that would not. necessarily be something that would be apples and apples for permitting for Winooski.

Well, for appraisal purposes, we consider it. We don't just hold ourselves to Winooski.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. So a sale via one, 46 units. That was too screwed up to do. That was too screwed up to do.

Too screwed up to do.

But you get the gist.

Yeah, is there anything, so looking back at, because I don't have your report, unfortunately, right now to look at, but at the B-Trans report, their appraisal, was there any issues you had with their temporary use of the land and then the easement? Was there any issues with that compensation? Because you only gave me the overall number. I don't have the breakdown of which.

With the temporary rates?

Yeah, temporary rates.

Yeah. The only thing I use four years, they use three years. Okay. We're talking peanuts here, but the reason why I use four years is because it began in the fall of 2027, I believe. They go 28, 29, and sometime, so they think, in the spring of 2030. So normally what we do is we give the tie goes to the renter, so to speak. It goes to the property owner. So what are they gonna do after they've been paid, everything's over with, and all of a sudden they're behind schedule and they run into the summer or the fall? So we give them the year. We give them the year to start with, we give them the year to finish with.

So yours is four years instead of three years. Is there any rate difference in terms of how you calculate that value?

Yeah, what we do is we rent. And I don't think there's a big difference between us. What we do is we rent the land. We do a prorated share, rent the land, give a 10% return, nice round, easy number, and put down a number of years.

That's it. So there was nothing, okay.

There's nothing magical about it.

Do you happen to know the difference between your value and their value in terms of the temporary use?

That's right.

Okay.

Hans, are you still online by chance? He's on the phone, so it's possible just didn't hear the question.

Hello, I was just getting talked to by your system, but is there a question for a council or is there a question pending for the appraiser?

You can repeat.

Yeah, the question is, we're talking about the temporary use of the land. I want to know the overall value difference between the V-Trans appraisal and your woolen mills appraisal.

On the easement alone?

On the easement alone, yes.

I don't have that information at my fingertips. I'm sorry.

No worries. I think I just got the appraisal report.

I can tell you, I had $31,812.

OK. And wasn't the other one $18,000? $18,241.

OK.

So that's 2x1.

So divide that one by 3, multiply by 4. OK. That will tell you how we line up.

OK. Thank you.

Did I read the sheet of questions?

I guess I'm struggling a little bit to understand the highest and best use. I'm not very familiar with this, so bear with me.

Let me give you an example.

Well, if I could ask, so your case is that the highest and best use would be to fill the entire property with as much housing as our code would allow, which is 325, and I understand how you got to that number, but how does that factor in with the existing building and the existing parking being there?

It's gone, it's mentally, I mean, it's an abstract, it's gone. Okay. Just gone. Okay. Got a piece of land sitting there.

Okay. Could you give your example?

Say you got, say whatever street you live on, okay? Let's say it's zoned as the form zoning. So form zoning can really develop heavy duty. And they're all single family. Say a house burns down. Then somebody comes up and buys that lot. And what are they gonna do? build another single-family house? Or are they going to check zoning to see how they can maximize the value of that property? Same with the seller. What's the seller going to do? Sell it as a single-family lot? Or something more than that? That's the highest investment. What's most profitable? Let's say the farm can do, let's say the farm's selling, you're going to do 20 units. And say that single-family house sites are $100,000 a site. You're going to sell it for $100,000? Or are you going to sell it for something more than that?

Right. The concept is you have to imagine that everything on the site's been raised. You have X acres of raw land. What could you do with that land? And that's the assumption you have to make at the front end of this valuation for federal regulation.

Okay. Thank you.

Any additional questions?

I guess my follow-up to that, thank you so much, Councillor Goodrich, because I've also been struggling with this highest and best use, is I'm not a zoning expert, but do we know if this parcel would be able to be zoned for 325 units?

I already asked your zoning.

Right, you asked Revy. Yeah. And the response was?

He said it's basically unlimited. I can do 94 lots there, according to Revy. Okay, at 3,000 square feet per lot. Okay, I can do 94 lots.

So then is the answer yes or no? Yes, you could be zoned. Yes, 325. I can do more than 325.

Got it, okay. I can do a lot more. Okay.

Okay. Thank you.

I just have to stay below 60 feet and provide parking. No setbacks, nothing. Go for it. Got it. Okay. No one's going to do that. But what are they doing? They're doing about 50. But I can't go back to 168 because it'd be less than 30 units. per acre. Nobody's doing that. That'd be like selling the lot for a single family when I get the farm zoning on it.

Do you have an additional question?

Not at this time. Thank you, Tiffany.

Additional questions?

Do you mind? Yeah. So in your appraisal, did you also consider setbacks in the property? So this particular land is a very irregular shape L configuration where you can't build in the majority of it due to setback rules that we have in our own ordinances, even though, because we don't have, that's what I'm mostly asking. Is that considered in your appraisal, the setback rules in terms of development of?

I don't understand what you're saying.

Sorry, I can repeat the question if you'd like.

Shape can be very important. In this case, it's not that important. The density is the important thing because that parcel Basically, that's the . So I can put a couple of buildings over here, say 30 units each. I can put one here, I can put one here, one here. Do you follow me?

Yep, I understand that aspect of it, the density.

So I can move around as long as I have the density. The shape's not going to bother me with this piece.

Well, the reason why I ask is because our land use has our own setback rules and regulations in terms of how close you can be to other parcels next to you. And this is on the edge of the parcel in a very peculiar configuration where does it have much use to be for development? That's mostly what I'm asking.

You're talking about setbacks?

yeah i understand your point but if you look at the shape of the woolen mills like the parking lot the whole interior of the property is one big parking lot they could put a floor of parking there and go straight up 60 feet and add additional units they wouldn't be building anywhere near the outside of the property once again you have to we're not starting with the building in place you're starting with a piece of raw land And so the setbacks would go around that property and limit development around the fringes. But the overall density limitation would allow you to develop the center of the property much more intensively than is currently developed.

OK. Ravi told me I didn't have to worry about setbacks. That answers your question.

Okay. I think I understand how you're calculating the values.

And this isn't something that Mike dreamed up on his own. This is, there's a code of federal regulations that dictate use of this methodology when federal funds are involved.

Any additional questions for the Will & Mill Associates?

Any other testimony from the Will & Mill Associates?

Not tonight, no.

Okay. At this point, I will take some direction from the city manager. Are we able to take questions from V-Trans and the V-Trans attorney?

Yes, you might also ask them questions. Yes. Yeah.

I guess at this point I will give you the opportunity and representatives to present any additional testimony.

Well, I think, you know, what I've asked our witnesses to do is just sort of stay on standby in case you had any questions. Okay. And my understanding is I do believe we have our appraiser here. We have a few folks from V-Trans. Obviously, there's been some testimony about different methodologies, but they could potentially be helpful in weighing in on those different methodologies.

Wonderful. I will open it up to council for questions. I will reserve mine until the end, so if there's anyone that would like to go first.

Yeah, so I just mostly want to hear V-TRAN's opinion of this different approach to the appraisal. And I kind of want to know their thoughts of it and things like that. Was it broad questions?

You might ask Kevin.

Ask Kevin?

If Kevin is. Kevin McManus.

I think it's important to note that the same appraiser for Chase Mill for the same project did the larger parcel. I had no idea why he didn't do it this way.

Okay, thank you. I think at this point we're... Am I done? Yes, you're done. Can I go? If you'd like.

We might have follow-ups for you.

Yeah, we might have follow-ups.

Don't leave the room.

Oh, I can't leave.

We just might have follow-up questions. But it's, yeah.

So I might have to come back? Yes. I'll just sit right here.

So I guess... Questions for V-Trans team and appraiser. If you can provide additional insights about the difference in methodology presented and an explanation as to whether or not you believe that you conducted a highest and best use and whether or not that was appropriate for the methodology that you chose.

I want to make sure that they are unmuted. Kevin, I believe you're unmuted if you want to present.

We cannot hear you at the moment for some reason.

Perhaps some technical difficulties tonight.

If we're having difficulties with Zoom, I could try calling him, putting him on speakerphone.

Yeah.

I don't know if there's a way to help troubleshoot.

Kevin is not muted, and his video is off.

Is Kevin in the room? No.

No.

No, I mean, is Kevin in front of his computer right now?

I believe so. OK.

No, yeah, yeah.

Kevin, so if you're trying to speak, we still are unable to hear you. I believe you can call in. Paul, do you have that number handy? I don't want to give out the incorrect one.

The number to call in is 1-646-5555.

at the top of the packet, just below the link to join Zoom.

He's not texting back. Okay. Do you need that?

No, no, no.

I'm saying I think that Kevin is okay. Okay.

Uh, I don't know if there's anyone else. Available to speak while we're troubling troubleshooting. Sound and audio for Kevin.

This is this is Bob.

I don't think we have anybody that would be able to speak specifically to the appraisal aside from Kevin since he performed it. Okay. Um, but if there's other questions, maybe we could. Go to those while we're waiting for Kevin to get connected.

Sure. Yes, Councillor Oakley.

Yeah, so one of the things that were discussed was the timeline of three years versus four years for the temporary easement. For the tentacle side of it, how likely will it be four years instead of three years?

So our construction contract will require the construction contractor to vacate the temporary easement to not exceed three years.

And that being said though, are there penalties or conditions if they are not able to meet that three year?

Yeah, given the size of this temporary easement, which is very small, and the access drive, I don't foresee that as being an issue since it's sort of on the fringe of the project. Whereas if it were more central to the project limits, that could be at higher risk of delays. But seeing as they should be buttoned up with that work on this temporary easement well in advance, of the completion date. I really don't see that as being a risk, but if they, for some reason, can't get it done, the work done that they need to by that date, then the contractor would have to, they simply just won't have the rights unless there's another agreement made to extend them. But given the shape, the limits of this temporary easement, I really don't see that as being a likely issue.

Okay. Bob, while we are waiting, a follow-up question. Will Mill Associates started their testimony by indicating that there's essentially a number of unknowns about what the area is needed for? And... and not having a contractor secured. Can you speak to those elements?

Sure. Yeah, we've been going back and forth with Wall and Mel since I believe the initial offer was sent in August of last year. So we've got a number of questions over the last nine to 10 months. And we've done our best to try to answer those, but ultimately it's a construction project and we can't say exactly when certain work is occurring and the sequence of everything. We did, I think, provide pretty detailed information to what we think is most likely, but we can't certainly guarantee that. so it is it is a design build contracting method which is a little more open-ended than a typical design bid build project but at the end of the day even with a design bid build project we can't tell a property owner exactly what's going to happen throughout the course of the project so i feel that we've we've done provided as much information as we can and

don't know what else we could we could do okay um and can you speak to your experience of similar design build projects and easements elsewhere um in the in the state or even in chittenden county yeah i mean this project is of course very unique so there's not necessarily a um

Great comparison for specifically for design build, but I think. You know, in general, any large construction project, I mean, even just your main street project and when you see, I'm sure. At the beginning of it, you wouldn't have been able to tell property owners, you know. Exactly what was going to happen in front of their business. Throughout the duration of the project, so it's again, we've tried to do the best we can. We understand the impacts that this is going to have on. the entire community and we're doing everything we can to balance those challenges. But I think just in general with a construction project and any easement, there's going to be unknowns.

Okay, additional council questions? Do we have any luck getting a hold of Kevin?

I am texting with him. And he's just asking for the meeting ID number.

That's also at the top of the agenda. Yeah.

Is it 843-6484-9328? Correct. Okay. So I just sent that over to him. So hopefully he can join us soon.

And then Paul, if you're able to keep an eye. On the attendees for somebody calling in. Just assume it's good, thank you.

I think I see that a 603 number joined and that would be Kevin.

OK. Great. And then for unmuting yourself on by phone. Do you remember what they need to press to to do that all?

There's a prompt when they. OK.

Kevin, just let us know when you've got sound.

I believe it's star six.

Yeah, that sounds like it.

Any luck, Kevin?

Kevin is rejoining with a different login. Hello?

Yes, we hear you.

Hallelujah.

Yeah. Were you able to hear the previous testimony?

Yes.

Okay, wonderful. Okay, so based on that, we have some follow up questions for you. Sure. We are curious about the difference in methodology, the two elements noted by Mike from the Will and Mill Associates Appraiser, as well as some questions on the highest and best use. So whatever you feel like makes the most sense to which order you'd like to take those questions in.

Sure. I went with, in my highest and best analysis, with what is legally permitted in the Windows City Town Office's parcel of land, which is 168 units.

Okay, there was also some testimony that the entire parcel as well as the parking area should have been considered. What was the reasoning for including or not including that in your assessment?

Honestly, the extra parking across the street would have resulted in a larger parcel of land to begin with and would have resulted in a lower value per unit, per acre, than if I had used the lesser, the 5.6 acres.

And why do you say that it would be a lower value?

Simply because the value is based on the number of units. And if that, in my case, 168 units divided by six acres would have given a lesser value per acre.

then divided by 5.6 acres okay um so the lone mill associates is uh testifying that the correct assessment should have been for vacantly essentially a vacant parcel can you provide some additional depth of detail as to why that is not the approach that you took

Well, it was done as vacant land. Mike and I both understood that was the way to value it. I'm kind of losing my track. Can you give me a little refresher on this question? I'm sorry. Sure.

It probably rounds out the question likely relates to the entirety of the parcel or the six acres as opposed to the 5.6 and essentially the developable that would be including the parking lot. So units on that land over across the street.

I think I can give you an answer. The unit of comparison is the number of approved apartment units. so that that extra parking lot across the street wouldn't have increased the number of units and so it would not have affected the bottom line for what that land or what land with that many approved units is worth.

Okay. Follow-up questions from council?

Kevin, I just wanna make sure. Is that a question for me? I have a question for Kevin who was just speaking. So I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding this. Kevin, your appraisal was based on what you're saying was only legally permitted, which is 100. I guess my context is I'm getting very hung up on the 168 versus 325. And so Kevin, what I'm hearing you say, And the beginning of your statement, you said something along the lines of what was only like legally allowed. And I'm putting that in bunny ear quotes. And so you were saying that your appraisal was only able to be assessed on 168 units. But then Mike is saying that his appraisal is based on 325. And so I'm getting very hung up on the difference, and I don't know if I so much have a question here, but I'm just really hung up on this major abyss in the difference of numbers.

Yes, go ahead.

Kevin, go ahead, and then Mike. Go ahead, go ahead, Kevin.

The difference, a key word here is legally allowed versus legally permitted. So legally allowed would be referring to the zoning and the whole physical character of the lot. But legally permitted is what is in the documents in the City of Winooski records.

Okay, Mike, go ahead, and then I might have a follow-up.

Well, if it was, try to put apples to apples. Take mine, and I'll use, say, 5.6, whatever his acres was. Put my 50 units per acre on that, and put his, whatever he has, on his. That's the difference. The density's the difference. And his density, he says... He's bound, I guess he's bound to be, all he puts there, and that's not the definition of highest and best shoes. Highest and best shoes is where you get the most buck. And your zoning guy said, happy as hell. And I didn't go that far. I just went what the market does. The market is what speaks. They do 50 units an acre. Not what's permitted. The bill is gone. It's just on the land. So he's saying, I'm stuck with the 168. He's not stuck with the 168. He can do whatever he can do, whatever the market will do.

Okay, so are there any additional questions for B-trans and B-trans employees, B-trans representatives? Okay. Are there additional questions for Will and Mill associates at this time?

I just want to clarify a question. So your valuation is based off 50 units per acre, correct? Is that how you valued it? 50 units per acre?

What's that?

Did you value your appraisal based off 50 units per acre?

Yes.

Okay. And?

His is about 30 units per acre.

Okay. And you got that value from looking at other units around the area?

Yes.

Okay. So you went the market rate route instead of what is approved through zoning. Yes.

I got over here, you got 79 units an acre.

Yeah.

Okay. And then I gave you some highs, and then I used some of the sales that I used for comparables. were presented as comparables and looked at what they were being developed for. And 50 units is right in there.

OK.

Right. The use of the comparables was to look at the density that other projects have been developed to. According to the city's zoning administrator, the density level could be much higher than 50 units per acre, but Mike ratcheted it back based on what the market will actually support. The market won't support the 90 units per acre that could be built. It's because for reasons people don't want to live in development that dense or for other reasons, it's just not feasible, so people develop to a lower density. But the 50 per unit is based on market. It's less than what is actually possible under current zoning. And the distinction is that I believe Kevin is looking at what's actually permitted today as opposed to what someone who bought this property could apply for under current zoning circumstances.

Okay, thank you. City Manager.

I would suggest asking the question of where we can find a definition of highest and best use. That's right in there. I don't see it. Could you point me?

like the third to last page in the packet.

Here, I'll give it to you.

I'm unclear. There you go. It appears to be an AI.

Yeah, I would have gotten the other AI. I would like to see their roles. Like regulation or statute, if you have that, if you could point us to that.

Do that one again.

Do you have the original regulation or statute or code?

No, but the federal government has one I can get for you. If you do an appraisal for the federal government, They have a requirement that you have to do. You can ask Kevin.

Is there a citation for that requirement, like to the US code? Or what is the citation for that requirement? Maybe Hans knows?

I'm not aware. I have no idea.

I don't have that citation this evening. We would happily present it to the board. at some point in the future, but I don't think we have it at our fingertips tonight.

Ask Kevin, he'll give you the same answer I gave you. Exactly the same.

Okay, so the question was the U.S. Code citation for where highest and best use is required to be the method to appraise parcels that are receiving federal funding for compensation.

I'm not familiar with that code, but I agree with Mike that all evaluations are to be used.

Right, but the two of you are defining it differently, so I'm trying to get back to the source that tells us which one to look at, which one to use.

Maybe it would be helpful to break down the highest and best use. It's supposed to consider what's legally possible, what's physically possible, and what is economically feasible. It's not unusual for two appraisers to come up with somewhat different highest and best used conclusions because of the way all of these pieces fit together. And this, in the Woodland Mills, I believe it was inappropriate to ignore the legal permits. 168 permits. think that when considering the highest and best use physical potential, it's inappropriate to just say, oh, this is five acres. I have sales that indicate this many units per acre and make no consideration for physical differences in the character of those different parcels. All of that should be considered. In my opinion, 168 units built in what was physically and legally possible for that property. In addition to reflecting the actual legal permits for that lot.

Okay, so it sounds at this point that we do not have clarity on the USC, the U.S. Code statutory language that would dictate what the definition of highest and best use is. and how that would be applied for the appraisal and compensation. Am I understanding that correctly for the city manager?

That's what I'm hearing. Okay.

I also believe, this is , I believe there may not actually be a code of federal agent definition. The AI, I know we don't accept, but referred to the Appraisal Institute. So I think we may be assuming incorrectly that such a regulation exists. This may be a term of art that a licensed appraiser would understand, and it may not be the subject of a federal regulation. I'm not sure.

Okay. Thank you. At this point, if there are no additional questions, I would move to close the hearing. Yes, please.

Could I ask a question of Bob?

Yes, please go ahead.

Bob, if council were to decide on a higher amount than the state approved appraisal value, would the difference be on the city's dime, be a non-participating cost?

uh if we i believe for the finance and maintenance agreement if vtrans agrees to that value then it would be eligible but if you were to decide on a value higher than what we presented without consulting with vtrans then it may not be participating without consulting

I have not taken any public testimony. I don't know if that's appropriate.

I think you certainly can if anybody wants to participate.

Is there anyone in the room that has questions or would like to... Is there anyone... on zoom i don't believe that there are any members of the public okay um so unless there's objections from the city manager or dpw director i would propose to close the hearing at this point in time okay um do we need a motion to close the hearing perfectly yeah okay uh i'll entertain a motion to close the hearing So moved.

Seconded.

Okay. Moved by Councillor Goodrich. Seconded by Turcos. All in favor? Aye. Okay. At this point, the next agenda item is for discussion approval to decide on necessity and just compensation amount for temporary permanent rights for the Burlington Winooski Bridge project from the Woollen Mill. I believe it may be most appropriate to enter executive deliberative session. I don't know if we need specific language to be able to do so.

You don't need any specific language. You know, just your standard language that you're entering into executive deliberative session to address that issue noted in the agenda. And if you could also invite me into that session.

Let me see. All right. So I'm seeking a motion to find that pursuant to the state statute VSA 3.1. Point three, that discussion of this compensation and necessity agenda item in the public would put the city at a disadvantage, and so would be discussed in executive session. And I would seek... A MOTION TO INVITE OUR LEGAL REPRESENTATION FOR BE TRANS INTO THAT DISCUSSION, DELIBERATION.

SO MOVED. WHILE YOU CONSIDER THAT MOTION, CAN I ASK FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE ONLINE, Should we hang out and wait? I assume we'll be cut out or unmuted or blank somehow. Or should I just wait and assume that either that Christian can either call me with a decision or call me and tell me that the council decided they needed to reopen the hearing and take more evidence?

Well, we close the public hearing. So at this point, I think it's up to you if you want to wait. I'm unsure how long our deliberation will take. So I don't want to promise that it will be a short deliberation. So I leave that decision to you if you kind of want to hang out or have someone contact you when we reconvene.

Christian, would you be willing to email me?

Yes, I can definitely contact you. And I think that when they come out of deliberative session, that will also be recorded. Yes. Yes.

Yes, absolutely. All right. Thank you. Yes, certainly. I was getting an indication from the city manager.

Oh, also Mike.

Yes, the city manager and John. No, Rousher. Sorry. Yeah, obviously. Yeah. Yeah. Anyway, I got everyone. Okay. Anyone else need to be invited to our deliberation? Please say your name. All set. Thank you. Okay.

So moved. So moved.

By Councillor Goodrich. Seconded. By Councillor Turcos. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you. Everyone in the room, we will be back, but you're welcome to wait if you'd like. You can join online. Do you want to? That was fast.

Thank you.

And we have just exited our deliberative session. And believe we are just get back to my agenda moment. All right, we are ready to seek a motion to decide on the necessity and just compensation amount for temporary and permanent rights for Burlington Winooski Bridge and project from the Willen Mill as presented by our partners and our legal counsel on a temporary basis shall last from June 2nd, 2026 until July 1st, 2030. Determine the compensation for such amount to be $18,241. And for the Mayor and Council to further determine compensation for condemnation to be $98,331. And to otherwise adopt the resolution as presented.

And to otherwise adopt the resolution as presented.

Thank you. Seconded. Moved by Councillor Turco, seconded by Councillor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. As motion passes, thank you all. We can move on to our next agenda item. Thank you for all that presented. Okay. And while we're working on setting up for our next agenda item discussion, public hearing for amendments to when you ski code chapter 15 parking, um, our finance director, we'll open this one up.

Sure.

So this is the public hearing for the proposed amendments to chapter 15 that were introduced at the last council meeting. The proposed amendments are an addition of a section regarding parking operations agreements as an allowable way to manage our parking garages and adding definitions that relate to that section.

Great. Thank you. I don't have any introductory questions. Are there questions from council? Okay. Being a public hearing, I don't see anyone in the room that may have comments on this agenda item. And I believe the only person in the attendees online may not have interest in this. But I will give you an opportunity to raise your hand if you would like to speak on this agenda item. Okay, hearing none, I will close this public hearing. Let's seek a motion to close the public hearing.

So moved.

Seconded. Moved by Councillor Turco, seconded by Councillor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. Motion to move. Approved. Item D, discussion approval. So adopt amendments to Winooski Code Chapter 15 as presented by the Finance Director. Any further discussion? I seek a motion to adopt the amendments as presented. So moved. Seconded. Moved by Turcos. Seconded by Councillor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. All right, motion passes. Thank you. And you are still on deck for agenda item E, discussion approval, reserve assignment for Abenaki Garage.

Can you introduce this for us, please? Sure, absolutely. So as council is aware, the budget projections that have been being presented by the treasurer have shown a deficit. And we do know that part of that is related to Doug's delayed payment for the second lot, which is anticipated as a contractor. But it was a high enough amount that I wanted to dig a little further and make sure there wasn't anything else that we had included in the pro forma that we needed to research further. Digging into the pro forma, I found a fixed amount that had been included in the initial budget for this project, and it was the transfer of the remaining TIF balances to the parking fund to supplement the reserve balances. The reason that we had included that in the pro forma is that during the life of our tax increment financing district, the parking garage was subject to a bond covenant requiring it to pay any net profit that it had above 30 days cash on hand and budgeted capital reserves to the tax increment financing district. It was required to send any excess funds. It could not hold anything for undesignated capital reserves. So we thought that that was a good use of the remaining money, that a lot of it had been generated by the parking garage, and it was included in our pro formas that were distributed to the companies that bid on our solicitation.

Okay. Are there questions from council?

Okay.

I was trying to better understand what is happening with the transfer fund. So the overall 1.9, I believe, is like the TIF, overall TIF financing for this project. Is that?

So the entire tax increment financing district borrowed $25 million and had to repay that over the 20-year life of that district. The revenues that were pledged to do so were the incremental taxes for the new developments. And then because the garage was a significant portion of that, the net proceeds of the garage were also required as contributions, as well as pilot payments from VSAC and the Spinner student housing. So we had a lot of revenue sources that went in there. There was a delay in this last piece of doing that final transfer because we were waiting for the state auditor's office to complete their final audit of our TIF district. We paid our TIF debt in May of 2024 in full. I have my lovely paid in full $25 million bond in my office. but the state auditor's office did not release their final report on our district until April of 2025.

And then a tangential rewind. Pilot stands for payment in lieu of taxes, which is what some nonprofits voluntarily pay to host communities instead of taxes, which they don't actually have to pay.

Thank you. Additional questions?

For a part. Absolutely. That's why we're here.

I feel so silly asking these questions because I'm just like, trying to figure out where the money's going to. So the, okay, so the TIF fund, we are contributing, the ask is contribute from the TIF fund to the Abenaki Garage project. Yes. And the TIF fund was for the one that was closed? That was raised by, yeah, that's what I'm trying to figure out. Where's this TIF money? What TIF project is this for?

So it is the TIF project that was closed in May of 2024. The fund still exists because we had to wait until we paid that final audit bill to completely close it out. After paying off that final audit invoice from the state of Vermont, there's about $586,000 remaining in that fund.

I don't know that this helps anything, but the entire tax increment financing district includes where the Abenaki Garage is right now. So it's kind of part of the same story.

This was actually going to be the final component of our tax increment financing project, but because of the delays related to COVID, this project didn't get constructed in time to be considered as part of that district itself.

I have a question about the, you mentioned a delayed payment. So I'm unclear why the city is contributing to a delayed payment from the developer.

We're not. That's just what triggered me to do additional research. Like I knew that that delayed payment was a factor. However, that delayed payment is only $350,000. And in the pro forma, even with that payment being made with the existing balances the way they are, it was showing that we would have a deficit for several years. And I couldn't figure out what that was until I went back to the original pro forma. I actually talked with Elaine about this in her office and had it dawn on me what that number that had been hard keyed into the pro forma was and found my original reference document that it was the TIF balance. It was at the time of the pro forma estimated to be $616,000 and that was pre the audit payment that we owed to the state of Vermont.

Okay.

Doug is still going to be paying his $350,000 for his land sale. That is in a promissory note that has been recorded.

Question behind the question. Okay, thank you.

This is not in lieu of that. This is in addition to that. Both were included in the pro forma.

Okay, wonderful. Thank you for providing that clarity. Further questions?

Yeah, okay. So the preliminary reserve tracking is as of June 30th, 2025. Yes. Presumably we're then due for another update at the end of this month. Will that change this balance?

It will not change the TIF balance, no.

Okay.

At what point does the TIF fund get closed?

This would effectively close out the TIF fund. Once there are no longer balances to be tracked, this would end us tracking that. The fund would be kept on our books as inactive in the event that another tax increment financing district is developed in the future.

Okay. You're very excited about that opportunity.

I've got me watching a lot of videos about CHIP.

Let me get back to...

I appreciate Council wanting to understand. Absolutely willing to answer any questions about this. I know it is extremely unusual, especially as delayed as it was.

And I don't see any questions from the audience. And there's no one online for further questions from the public. So I will entertain a motion to sign the ending balance from the tax increment financing for the TIF fund in the amount of $586,480.22 to the Abenaki Parking Garage Project.

So moved.

Seconded. Moved by Councilor Turcos, seconded by Councilor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. Motion approved. Thank you for... the explanation and presentation. We are at the end of our agenda for this evening. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Seconded. Moved by Councilor Turco, seconded by Councilor Goodrich. All in favor? Aye. All right, have a good night, everyone.