Algiers Scoping Study Consultant Selection Committee Meeting Draft Minutes 01.22.26

Posted on

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Morse (liaison to SB), Eric Morse, Jeanne Eastman, Barry Aleshnick (on Zoom), Erika Elder (Project Manager), Colin Bratton (Windham Regional Commission (on Zoom))

PRESENT IN PERSON: Bill Jewell

PRESENT VIA ZOOM: Tammy Sargent, Sheila Brannen, Cindy Clark, Tara Cheney

Draft Minutes

The meeting began at 10 a.m. 

I. Review Scoping Study Proposal from Hoyle Tanner

Erika clarified that this meeting is the Scoping Consultant Selection Committee, a necessary process for VTrans to use the at-the-ready (ATR) vendors for our scoping study.  Erika: The committee rated top 6, in the meantime, the top 2 were no longer available. Hoyle Tanner is still reputable and it was the 3rd on that list. Their RFP is higher than our grant amount. The goal today is to review the proposal and make sure it is appropriate. Then we will see if it is possible to narrow it down. Thereafter, it will need to go into negotiations with Hoyle Tanner.  They have Hartgen for the archeological study. The timeline is good and with the finish by December 2026. The grant was for $50,000 ($10,000 match $40,000 grant).  This proposal is for $72,000.

Sheila: We already have the studies. We do not need utilities, wetlands, all these already exist. 

Colin: Unfortunately, all these are federal highway administration (FHWA) requirements to be done as part of this study. It then gives VTrans the funding for this project. They consider it integral to the process for this grant. There will be a report that is included in this project that may be able to be pared down significantly. The process could be shortened because you have the existing information. It can be given to that consultant. It is necessary prior to any future town construction.

Eric: Part of the proposal is to collect existing data and studies available. Ask Hoyle Tanner to meet all of these needs within the budget that matches the grant.

Erika: I will start there. Great suggestion.  

Tara asked to see the documents the committee was reviewing, whether this would be reviewed for approval by the SB, and asked clarifying questions regarding existing data. Eric reviewed the process. Tara: Other than the scoping study, what else do you need? Eric: The topic is complicated because it pertains to a state road (US Rte 5), and it involves the town with federal funds and state agencies.   If it were a town road, we would address it locally.  A lot of boxes need to be checked even before we can proceed with this project. It involves: identifying the problems, coming up with a solution, cost, sources of funding, and how it will get constructed.  Sheila: Eric has been working on traffic and pedestrian safety in Algiers for 20 years. It’s been an active issue for the town government for at least the last 10 years. We have to go through many steps before we can start to apply anything.

Erika: All these steps involve input from the community and approval from the SB. 

Erika projected the map and commented that it could be narrowed to the actual area of focus. 

Tara: Erika, where was this meeting listed. It’s not on the calendar for today. Where is it on the website?

Erika: It’s on the front page under “Announcements” as well as under this Committee.

The committee discussed the map and commented on the extraneous area highlighting the area that is key: the intersection GCR and Rte 5 and the section of Rte 5 from the bridge over Broad Brook Rd to Partridge Rd.

Colin: The map is the designation by the State of VT of the village of Algiers, included in the RFP but not indicating the full scope of the project.

Eric: In reality there’s two major issues that have motivated this whole effort. The intersection of GCR and Rte 5 and the speed of traffic through the village. Sheila: And exiting the Guilford Country Store onto Rte 5 which is the speed of traffic. 

Erika: Their note about reducing cost is that they would work with WRC to get pedestrian and bicycle counts, reduce the archeological assessment area, delay some construction phase planning tasks until future design phases which makes a lot of sense. Those are the things that they have already offered. Bill commented on the plan versus the possible two solutions, avoiding extra work and mitigating cost. The committee discussed the need to tailor the proposal so that it meets the highest priorities while staying within budget.

Tammy asked about the scoping study and which entity identifies the problems.

Erika: We have brought what the community has indicated as problems: excessive speed in an intersection that is prone to accidents.

Eric reiterated that it’s a combination: preliminary meetings with this committee, public hearings, this proposal. Eric: Everyone has different opinions on what the problems are or if there are any problems. Part of the process is to gather what are the problems. Then we can gather possible solutions. That’s what we are trying to get to right now.

Erika: The first meeting, after we secure a consultant, is called “Local Concerns Meeting,” where the public is invited to hear everyone’s concerns about the area we are discussing.

Tara made recommendations about the community meeting (early evening). Eric refocused the task for today’s meeting and reassured that there would be more than one public meeting. The committee discussed the map.

Eric: The area of focus is the intersection GCR and Rte 5 and the section of Rte 5 from the bridge over Broad Brook Rd to Partridge Rd.

Colin: Looking at the proposed budget it appears that a big component of the cost is data collection, which already exists. WRC has the counts as well. Hopefully, the budget can be pared down. We started with 6 consultants and were told that the first 2 choices were considered to be at capacity. We had to go with Hoyle Tanner despite that it was the committee’s 3rd choice. It may be possible that the full list will be reset in March/April. Hopefully the negotiation works out, and we come to an agreement. However, in a couple of months, we’ll have access to the full list. There would not be a worry about whether or not they are at capacity to resend a new proposal.  

Eric: This is not an uncommon project in this area. Putney, Westminster, Newfane have done this. There’s a lot of local and state experience that have had comparable situations to ours.

Tara: Look at other towns’ final costs, after the grant. 

Sheila: We’re not going to know this until we have some alternatives to look at. Each town’s situation has been different. Each resolution, each proposal.  The towns are presented with different alternatives. We would have to know that after the scoping study. That would be an essential question so that we could compare like-solutions.

Eric: We can expect that whatever the projects cost in the past, they will be more expensive now.

Sheila: This meeting is being recorded and will be posted on the website so that people can see what’s going on. 

II. Next Steps
Negotiate with Hoyle Tanner to pare down the proposal to align with our budget.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Meeting Recording: https://youtu.be/kDlgeOKinBw