8.B – DOWNTOWN LEBANON TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES

AGENDA LEBANON CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 19, 2018 8. OLD BUSINESS:

8.B – DOWNTOWN LEBANON TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES

BACKGROUND At the July 11, 2018 meeting, Council was presented with seven (7) possible alternatives for future use of the downtown tunnel as follows:

• Alternative 1 – COMPLETE DECK REPLACEMENT – This alternative includes full replacement of existing precast concrete panel deck with new precast/prestressed concrete butted slabs. This alternative maintains tunnel access, parking above, plaza area and new tunnel lighting with paved bicycle and pedestrian path within the tunnel. Approximate cost $2.29 Million

• Alternative 2 – DECK REPLACEMENT WITH OPENING – This alternative includes full replacement of existing precast concrete panel deck with new precast/prestressed concrete butted slabs, similar to Alternative 1, however an opening would be created at the east end of the parking lot to provide light, air, and a visual connection below. This Deck alternative also maintains tunnel access, parking above, and plaza area and new tunnel lighting with paved bicycle and pedestrian path within the tunnel. Approximate cost $2.21 Million

• Alternative 3 – DECK REPLACEMENT WITH PARTIAL FILL; NO CONNECTIVITY – This alternative fills-in the west end of the tunnel with granular backfill, eliminating pedestrian and bicycle access through the tunnel. Both the plaza at the east end and parking above the west end are maintained. This alternative does not maintain connectivity along the Mascoma Greenway (see Alternative 3A). Approximate cost $1.98 Million

• Alternative 3A - DECK REPLACEMENT WITH PARTIAL FILL; WITH CONNECTIVITY – This alternative is duplicative of Alternative 3 but includes the construction of a Riverwalk along the Mascoma River to accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists through downtown, maintaining connectivity from the Northern Rail Trail to the Mascoma River Greenway (Feasibility Study Completed by Dubois & King; total cost $2.5 Million). Approximate Cost $4.48 Million

• Alternative 4 – DECK REMOVAL, PARTIAL FILL, AND NEW PARKING AREA; NO CONNECTIVITY – This alternative fills-in the west end of the tunnel, similar to Alternative 3, however, the plaza area at the east end is eliminated and a new at-grade parking lot is created. Parking above at the west end is maintained. This alternative does not maintain connectivity along the Mascoma Greenway (see Alternative 4A). Approximate cost $1.00 Million

• Alternative 4A - DECK REMOVAL, PARTIAL FILL, AND NEW PARKING AREA; WITH CONNECTIVITY – This alternative is duplicative of Alternative 4 but includes the construction of a Riverwalk to accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists through downtown, maintaining connectivity from the Northern Rail Trail to the Mascoma River Greenway (Feasibility Study Completed by Dubois & King; total cost $2.5 Million). Approximate cost $3.5 Million

Lebanon City Council September 19, 2018

7

LEBANON CITY COUNCIL September 19, 2018 Agenda Item #8.B

• Alternative 5 – TUNNEL REMOVAL AND ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION – This alternative completely removes the existing tunnel, the adjacent Route 120 Bridge, and adjacent buildings as needed. A new roadway is constructed along the existing tunnel alignment. Approximate Cost $4.19 Million excluding any ancillary work.

After some discussion, it was decided to move Alternatives 1, 2, and 4A to the Planning Board, Pedestrian & Bicyclist Advisory Committee, Economic Vitality Exchange Committee, the Arts & Culture Task Force, and the general public at a Community Conversation, for review and recommendations. All reviews have been completed and the general consensus of all groups is to proceed with Alternative #2. Discussion during review also included the possible incorporation of an interior staircase (from the base of the tunnel to a glass encased opening on the mall), an elevator, and replacement of the existing exterior staircase at the east end of the mall plaza with a ramp. Supplemental preliminary information on these options are included herein and will be presented by representatives of VHB at the meeting. ACTION MOVED, that the Lebanon City Council hereby requests administration to proceed with development of design plans for Alternative #2, amended to include _________________________, as presented and discussed at the September 19, 2018 City Council meeting. Included in this Section: 1. August 14, 2018 - Tunnel Alternatives PowerPoint Presentation (Presented to

Board/Committees and Public during outreach process) 2. September 14, 2018 – Tunnel Alternatives Supplemental Information PowerPoint

Presentation 2. July 11, 2018 – Excerpt of City Council Meeting Minutes 3. Excerpt of Meeting Minutes:

− August 14, 2018 Arts & Culture Task Force − August 22, 2018 Economic Vitality Exchange Committee − August 27, 2018 Planning Board − September 4, 2018 Arts & Culture Task Force − September 4, 2018 Pedestrian & Bicyclist Advisory Committee


Page 18

Dow

ntow

n Le

bano

nTu

nnel

Alte

rnat

ives

Augu

st 1

4, 2

018


Page 19

Back

grou

nd


Page 20

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Publ

ishe

d in

201

6 as

a

com

preh

ensi

ve re

port

mea

nt to

in

form

and

gui

de fu

ture

pro

ject

s ai

med

at i

mpr

ovin

g Le

bano

n’s

Dow

ntow

n ar

ea

Si

gnifi

cant

com

mun

ity in

put a

nd

publ

ic p

artic

ipat

ion

“T

he p

urpo

se o

f thi

s st

udy

is to

id

entif

y an

d as

sess

, thr

ough

citi

zen

enga

gem

ent a

nd p

rofe

ssio

nal

anal

ysis

, the

rang

e of

alte

rnat

ives

an

d fe

asib

ility

for r

evis

ioni

ng th

e do

wnt

own,

and

to e

nhan

ce th

e ph

ysic

al a

ppea

ranc

e an

d fu

nctio

nalit

y of

the

area

”


Page 21

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Ke

y Co

ncep

ts w

ere

iden

tifie

d th

at

colle

ctiv

ely

form

the

fram

ewor

k fo

r im

plem

entin

g re

com

men

datio

ns th

roug

hout

the

dow

ntow

n


Page 22

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Ke

y Co

ncep

ts w

ere

iden

tifie

d th

at

colle

ctiv

ely

form

the

fram

ewor

k fo

r im

plem

entin

g re

com

men

datio

ns th

roug

hout

the

dow

ntow

n

Th

e Tu

nnel

impa

cts

seve

ral o

f th

ese

conc

epts

:


Page 23

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Crea

te th

e D

ownt

own

Arts

Wal

k

Th

e tu

nnel

ent

ranc

e w

ould

re

pres

ent t

he s

tart

of t

he

Mas

com

aRi

ver G

reen

way

ex

tens

ion,

eve

ntua

lly c

onne

ctin

g to

the

exis

ting

path

“F

illin

g th

e cu

rren

t dow

ntow

n ga

p by

reus

ing

the

tunn

el a

s its

pr

efer

red

alig

nmen

t will

pro

vide

se

para

tion

from

veh

icul

ar tr

affic

an

d w

ill o

pen

a w

ealth

of

recr

eatio

nal o

ppor

tuni

ties,

from

ev

eryd

ay s

trol

ls b

etw

een

dow

ntow

n an

d ne

ighb

orho

ods,

to a

mbi

tious

bi

cycl

e tr

eks

acro

ss th

e re

gion

.”


Page 24

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Crea

te th

e D

ownt

own

Arts

Wal

k

To

pro

mot

e in

fill d

evel

opm

ent,

a ne

w s

pace

con

nect

ing

the

Mas

com

aRi

ver a

nd H

anov

er

Stre

et to

the

Dow

ntow

n M

all w

as

prop

osed

A

25,0

00 –

35,0

00 s

f ret

ail o

r m

ixed

use

hou

sing

dev

elop

men

t w

as a

lso

prop

osed

, loc

ated

ad

jace

nt to

the

exit

of th

e tu

nnel


Page 25

Dow

ntow

n Vi

sion

Pla

n &

Tun

nel A

sses

smen

t

Crea

te th

e D

ownt

own

Arts

Wal

k

D

ownt

own

Arts

Wal

k en

visi

oned

as

a c

ultu

ral a

nd c

omm

erci

al h

ub

Em

ergi

ng fr

om th

e tu

nnel

, vis

itors

w

ould

ent

er in

to a

wal

kabl

e an

d ac

tive

publ

ic s

pace

feat

urin

g pu

blic

art

, pro

gram

min

g, a

nd

com

mun

ity e

vent

s

Concep

tual Vision

Plan


Page 26

Exis

ting

Cond

ition

s


Page 27

Leba

non

Tunn

el O

verv

iew

29

0 ft

long

exi

stin

g tu

nnel

loca

ted

unde

r the

mal

l pla

za a

nd p

arki

ng

lot (

Red)

62

ftw

ide

exis

ting

brid

ge

unde

rnea

th R

te12

0 (G

reen

)

Ve

hicu

lar a

nd p

edes

tria

n tr

affic

pr

ohib

ited


Page 28

Leba

non

Tunn

el O

verv

iew

Roof

is in

poo

r con

ditio

nG

arba

ge h

as a

ccum

ulat

edPi

er c

aps

and

colu

mns

are

cra

cked

View

in tu

nnel

look

ing

sout

h En

try

to T

unne

lRe

stric

ted

park

ing

Area

–Tu

nnel

Bel

ow


Page 29

Tunn

el P

ropo

sals


Page 30

Alte

rnat

ive

1: C

ompl

ete

Dec

k Re

plac

emen

t


Page 31

Alte

rnat

ive

2: D

eck

Repl

acem

ent w

ith O

peni

ng


Page 32

Alte

rnat

ive

4A: D

eck

Rem

oval

, Par

tial F

ill, N

ewPa

rkin

g ar

ea w

ith C

onne

ctiv

ity


Page 33

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns –

Colu

mns

and

Wal

ls

Leba

non

Tunn

el

Leba

non

Tunn

el


Page 34

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns –

Ligh

ting

and

Art

Leba

non

Tunn

el

Leba

non

Tunn

el


Page 35

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns –

Ceili

ng a

nd N

atur

al L

ight

Leba

non

Tunn

el

Leba

non

Tunn

el


Page 36

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns -

Colu

mns

and

Wal

ls

Leba

non

Tunn

el

Leba

non

Tunn

el


Page 37

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns –

Furn

iture

and

Pav

er S

yste

ms

Plaz

a w

ith tu

nnel

bel

ow

Plaz

a w

ith tu

nnel

bel

ow


Page 38

Ana

logo

us D

esig

ns –

Cont

ext a

nd C

onne

ctio

ns

Path

/Brid

ge O

ver M

asco

ma

Rive

r (S

outh

End

of T

unne

l)

Park

ing

Area

with

tunn

el b

elow


Page 39

Nex

t Ste

ps


Page 40

Dow

ntow

n Le

bano

nTu

nnel

Alte

rnat

ives

Supp

lem

enta

l Inf

orm

atio

n

Sept

embe

r 14,

201

8


Page 41

Exte

rior R

amp

~

150

ft lo

ng ra

mp

loca

ted

at e

ast

end

of tu

nnel

(Ye

llow

)

St

eel o

r tim

ber s

uper

stru

ctur

e an

d ra

iling

, with

con

cret

e fo

unda

tions

Es

tim

ated

cos

t: ~

$225

,000

(can

va

ry w

idel

y de

pend

ing

on tr

im

leve

l, le

ngth

, and

mat

eria

ls)


Page 42

Exte

rior R

amp

View

of R

ailin

g an

d D

ecki

ng

View

of R

amp

with

Sta

ir


Page 43

Inte

rior E

leva

tor

El

evat

or lo

cate

d in

side

tunn

el

(Yel

low

)–ex

act l

ocat

ion

may

var

y

Pl

aceh

olde

r co

st: ~

$200

,000

(c

an v

ary

wid

ely

depe

ndin

g on

tr

im le

vel,

leng

th, a

nd m

ater

ials

)


Page 44

Inte

rior E

leva

tor

Si

ze v

arie

s de

pend

ing

on n

eed

St

anda

rd w

heel

chai

r lift

s ca

n se

rvic

e up

to 1

4-fe

et b

y co

de.

Ove

r 14-

feet

, a L

imite

d U

se/L

imite

d Ac

cess

(LU

LA)

Elev

ator

is re

quire

d.

Ca

n be

pur

chas

ed w

ith a

n en

clos

ure

or p

lace

d in

a s

haft

way

by o

ther

s

Ca

n be

co-

loca

ted

with

a s

tairw

ay

(if a

vaila

ble

spac

e al

low

s)

M

any

diffe

rent

sty

les,

optio

ns, a

nd

trim

leve

ls a

vaila

ble


Page 45

Inte

rior S

tair

way

St

airw

ay lo

cate

d in

side

tunn

el

(Yel

low

)–ex

act l

ocat

ion

may

var

y

Es

tim

ated

cos

t: ~

$100

,000

(C

arrie

d in

cur

rent

Tun

nel C

ost

Estim

ate)

Co

st c

an v

ary

wid

ely

depe

ndin

g on

trim

leve

l, le

ngth

, and

mat

eria

ls

Co

uld

be lo

cate

d in

side

tunn

el o

r on

the

east

end

Ca

n be

co-

loca

ted

with

ram

p or

el

evat

or, i

f spa

ce is

ava

ilabl

e


Page 46

Inte

rior S

tair

way

Top-

side

Vie

w o

f Sta

irway

with

Rai

ling

View

of S

tairw

ay


Page 47

Gla

ss E

nclo

sure

En

clos

ure

loca

ted

mid

-tun

nel

(Yel

low

)–ex

act l

ocat

ion

may

var

y

Es

tim

ated

cos

t: ~

$200

,000

(can

va

ry w

idel

y de

pend

ing

on tr

im

leve

l, le

ngth

, and

mat

eria

ls)


Page 48

Gla

ss E

nclo

sure

Prov

iden

ce E

nclo

sure

Vie

w fr

om B

elow

Prov

iden

ce E

nclo

sure

Vie

w fr

om A

bove


Page 49

Sum

mar

y

Ra

mp:

~$2

25,0

00

El

evat

or: ~

$200

,000

G

lass

Enc

losu

re: ~

$200

,000

St

airw

ay: ~

$100

,000

*

* St

airw

ay c

ost i

s in

clud

ed in

cur

rent

Tu

nnel

cos

t est

imat

e.

Not

e:

The

abov

e co

sts

are

for p

lann

ing

purp

oses

onl

y. D

esig

n, la

yout

, and

es

timat

ing

shou

ld b

e co

mpl

eted

in

the

early

sta

ges

of fi

nal d

esig

n.


Page 50

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 1 OFFICIAL (EXCERPT)

CITY OF LEBANON CITY COUNCIL

Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 City Hall – Council Chambers

7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Assistant Mayor Tim McNamara, Councilors Jim Winny, Bruce Bronner,

Clifton Below, Erling Heistad, Karen Liot Hill, Karen Zook MEMBERS ABSENT: Mayor Suzanne Prentiss and Councilor Shane Smith STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Shaun Mulholland, Deputy City Manager Paula Maville, City

Clerk Sandra Allard, Police Chief Richard Mello, Fire Chief Chris Christopoulos, Deputy Chief of Police Phillip Roberts, Assistant Director of Public Works Bruce Temple, Director of Recreation and Parks Paul Coates

___________________________________________________________________________________________ The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Assistant Mayor Tim McNamara.

9.D. Presentation of Options for Tunnel Fix Bruce Temple (Interim Public Works Director) and VHP Consultants Greg Goodrich and Geoff Morrison-Logan introduced themselves to the Council and members of the public. Mr. Temple stated they were here to present several alternatives to the tunnel that we closed several years back. He said one of the requests from the Council in the past was to revisit some of the options and get more detailed estimates. VHP was engaged to do a site assessment and bring in an independent cost estimator to assist us. He said that DPW has monitored the inside of the tunnel every 4-6 weeks since its closure to look for further deterioration. They have found, particularly over the course of the winter, some deterioration between some of the slabs. In addition, they have done their very best to secure the ends of the facility, but there has been some significant damage to the chain link gate and lock system, which is in the process of being re-secured. Mr. Goodrich provided a brief overview of all seven alternatives for the tunnel and described each alternative, their design maps & matrix that was included in the agenda packet. • Alternative 1 – COMPLETE DECK REPLACEMENT –.Approximate cost $2.29 Million. • Alternative 2 – DECK REPLACEMENT WITH OPENING – (Keeps the tunnel open) Approximate cost

$2.21 Million. • Alternative 3 – DECK REPLACEMENT WITH PARTIAL FILL; NO CONNECTIVITY –This alternative

does not maintain connectivity along the Mascoma Greenway (see Alternative 3A). Approximate cost $1.98 Million.

• Alternative 3A - DECK REPLACEMENT WITH PARTIAL FILL; WITH CONNECTIVITY – This alternative is duplicative of Alternative 3, but includes the construction of a Riverwalk along the Mascoma River to accommodate pedestrians & bicyclists through downtown, maintaining connectivity from the Northern Rail Trail to the Mascoma River Greenway (Feasibility Study Completed by Dubois & King; total cost $2.5 Million). Approximate Cost $4.48 Million.


Page 51

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 2 • Alternative 4 – DECK REMOVAL, PARTIAL FILL, AND NEW PARKING AREA; NO CONNECTIVITY –

This alternative does not maintain connectivity along the Mascoma Greenway (see Alternative 4A). Approximate cost $1.00 Million. (Mr. Goodrich stated this was a new alternative and said this cost does not include connectivity.)

• Alternative 4A - DECK REMOVAL, PARTIAL FILL, AND NEW PARKING AREA; WITH CONNECTIVITY – (Feasibility Study Completed by Dubois & King; total cost $2.5 Million). Approximate cost $3.5 Million.

• Alternative 5 – TUNNEL REMOVAL AND ROADWAY RECONSTRUCTION –Approximate Cost $4.19 Million excluding any ancillary work. (Mr. Goodrich noted there was a lot more involved with this alternative along with added risks and the cost does not include site development, including the purchase of a building. The cost also does not address connectivity.)

Mr. Goodrich also presented a matrix for the above. Assistant Mayor McNamara stated that the purpose of tonight’s meeting was hear the presentations, get public and Council comments, and hopefully narrow down this list of seven options down to two or three that staff can then take to the community and others for further discussion and ultimately come back to the City Council for a decision. He stated the Council is not making a decision on any one or two alternatives, but simply gathering information. Assistant Mayor McNamara opened the public meeting up for additional comments/questions. The following comments were heard from the public: Bob McLellan, Ward 3. Mr. McLellan indicated he was an avid biker and would very much value the connectivity with the Mascoma Greenway. He felt it was a valuable resource as was the access to river. He further pointed out that any who has had the opportunity to go to other cities that have invested in, what is otherwise covered by roads and concrete, a river has seen enormous potential for economic opportunity. He noted that he didn’t hear that presented and thinks this should be one of the factors considered as we think about options (i.e., what is the upside for the City as we consider economic development and tourist attractions.) Bart Guetti, Ward 1. Mr. Guetti concurred with Mr. McLellan about the connectivity and the opportunities that a river walk would present (i.e., walking along a river as opposed to a tunnel). He did not see, on the criteria, anything about the current problem of getting the trail across the parking lot behind City Hall and whether the River Walk would eliminate that problem. In response, Mr. Morrison-Logan (VHP) stated that a lot of options had been contemplated a few years back. Part of those plans looked at reconfiguring connection across the parking lot to the river front, so if an option gets further refined tonight (looking at a safe crossing through the parking lot to the riverside and heading east through the community up to the existing trail) would be part of it. The costs are not associated here and adjustments would have to be made. He said some things are standard (i.e., marking lanes and safety issues for traversing across parking lots). Mr. Goodrich stated that the task they (VHP) were given by the City Council was to specifically look at tunnel costs, so they were not looking at the bigger picture. Robert Humphries, Ward 2. Mr. Humphries indicated he lived at the Woodlands and is a senior citizen. Like many of the residents, he enjoys the new paved part of the trail going west. He is also a cyclist and is getting more and more nervous about getting on busy roads, so he felt some kind of maintenance from the Greenway from where we are through town is a wonderful benefit.


Page 52

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 3 Kimberly Lohr, Ward 2. She indicated she is also a cyclist and her company just relocated from Lyme to Lebanon. She had the fortunate experience of walking to work for the first time, in a long time, and riding her bike. Unfortunately, she noted it was along Mechanic Street. So along with this whole view into extending more and more access to the Mascoma Trail, she is an avid fan of opening the tunnel again. She felt it was extremely safe to take as many cyclists off the road as possible, but to Mr. Humphreys’ point, the economic value is a big deal. We have a community of residents that want to attract young people, and we want to keep growing the residency in Lebanon. She feels that to do this you have to look at ways of getting people more and more outside, and making it safe for them to be there. She noted that she would appreciate if you would consider kind of looking at an overall cycling plan and walking plan in the city. Paul Coates, Director, Lebanon Recreation Dept. Mr. Coates noted that the main thing he wanted to comment on is the importance of separated pathways. When we go back and review City Council comments at the presentation of the original Vision Study, and as we looked at the benefits that were discussed at these meetings about the value of the Greenway as a whole being a separated pathway and an ADA pathway all the way through, we seem to have really capitalized on the notion that we know the safer pathway is when it is separated. He pointed out the success the City has had on Mt. Support Road. He noted that people are very interested in seeing a separated pathway. People are learning how to ride their bikes on the Mascoma River Greenway and there are people with mobility challenges who are already using an area that is very different from just having a bike lane or sidewalk that is next to our roadways. He felt that one thing to note is that the options that are being presented tonight that included access through the tunnel or maintain a Mascoma Greenway connection through downtown, which allows for separated pathways, seems very attractive. The alternatives that cut off the tunnel, but allow for the riverside access so we still maintain the option of a separated pathway to connect downtown with the new Greenway, is very attractive. However, we also see other options on here that do not include any real option for how we are going to connect downtown, or the existing Rail Trails (Spencer Street to the new Mascoma River Greenway where it picks up at High St.). This is a concern to him. Speaking from a recreational standpoint, and certainly having followed this project and being very intimately involved with this project for a number of years now, the idea that we might be looking at an option that takes what would become a seamless corridor connecting everything (ADA compliant and the whole nine yards), accentuates the river and all of the things we have looked to accomplish and, then, all of a sudden, arriving at a big retaining wall and saying “ok”, now how to I get from here to there is concerning. Maybe there are options for having roadside options, but we will no longer have ADA compliance, we no longer accentuate the river like we wanted to do, and we no longer provide folks a user-friendly way of getting people to park Downtown and get on the Greenway to head west. Now we are asking people to park, most likely at Goss Logan Insurance. I spoke with the owner (of Goss Logan Insurance) and he said this is a cost burden he would most likely have to bare. He is very much a fan of the Greenway and is very much a fan of the new Pocket Park, but is really concerned about not having connectivity to the Greenway and where the Pocket Park and bridge has been rehabilitated (on the western end of the tunnel) now becoming an oasis for undesirable behavior because it is not a flow through part of the Greenway any longer. So, that’s the main thing I want to bring out and call attention to.” Mr. Coates stated that looks forward to the public process and thinks we have seen some of the public processes happen with the Visioning Study that went on. There are many public avenues, and going back and looking at some of the results of those surveys seems overwhelming that the public desire is for connectivity that involves separated pathways. He believes the future of this will hold the same and think the support around this room would represent that as well. His strongest caution is that we maintain separated pathways. He noted he was not at the recent Pedestrian and Bicyclist meeting but believes they submitted a letter.


Page 53

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 4 Franklin Gould, Ward 2. Mr. Gould indicated he has been working on the MRG (Mascoma River Greenway) forever and was recently on the paved section. He noted there was a young man out there with his two little children, who were walking on the corridor and he was just elated that he could get his kids out in the sun on a sidewalk to practicing walking. He thinks about the tunnel and the people who live on this side of the Greenway: how do you get, with your kid, from here to the Greenway so you can walk your child on the Greenway. He noted he really can’t envision a process of crossing roads that have so much traffic coming into Lebanon on them. The tunnel is the way we really should be going in order to make a safe crossing and connect the two sides of our community with something other than automobile or a bus. Mr. Guetti, Ward 1. In addition to his previous comments above he stated he ran into somebody who has been walking from downtown Lebanon to the Price Chopper just about every day for groceries. After chatting, apparently this person had lost important family members in an automobile accident and this (Mascoma River Greenway) was a place where he could go and just relax. He mentioned to Mr. Guetti that the lack of a tunnel is forcing him to go through traffic (crossing streets) and it just kind of reduces the therapeutic effect of the walk along the Greenway. Alan Schnur, Ward 3. Mr. Schnur indicated he was a member of the Pedestrian and Bicyclist Advisory Committee, although he will be speaking on his own personal capacity this evening as he was not authorized by the Committee to speak. He noted there was a Resolution passed and discussed at some length at the meeting (Ped/Bike) yesterday. No one objected to having connectivity from the Rail Trail and the Mascoma River Greenway. He felt all the members agreed that was very important and essential. He noted they were concerned about removing any points of conflict between the motor vehicle and the pedestrians and bicyclists, which would arise if anyone had to walk across a very busy street like Rte. 120 or Rte. 4. This is one of the reasons why we were agreeable that connectivity was an essential point to consider. He noted that in his personal statement, that in opening up the tunnel, there is a Pocket Park at the west end of the tunnel that has a nice view over the rapids of the Mascoma River. This is one of the nicer views of the Mascoma River and is easily accessible from downtown, if the tunnel is reopened. Therefore, opening the tunnel would also meet some requirements in the Downtown Visioning Study in improving the City except the accessibility to the river and enjoyment of the view of the river. Tom Jacobs - West Lebanon. Mr. Jacobs indicated he was just another vote for keeping the tunnel open. He noted that in any case, it sounds like the City is going to be spending a lot of money and the additional expense over keeping the tunnel open seems to me to be a real bargain. Bob Heitzman of Hartford, VT. Mr. Heitzman noted that he actually live in Harford, but works on clearing a section of the Greenway. He indicated that it was really a joyful experience traveling on the Greenway now that it’s paved. He stated that he works in Lebanon but spend a lot of time in the afternoons on the Northern Rail Trail and having the direct connection that is separate from traffic is wonderful. Regarding the drawings in the presentation on the River Walk proposal, he doesn’t know how safe that would be for unescorted youth, how accessible it would be for senior citizens who are out for a walk, and also how high does the water level come to that proposed level during the spring runoff. Francis Oscadal, Ward 3. Mr. Oscadal spoke in favor of all the positive comments that have been made about this. When the original Rail Trail was opened going out from Enfield, and since, he doesn’t think there is anyone in the City who doesn’t believe that was a huge boom for Lebanon and the quality of life we have here. Now that the Greenway is opening up, he has been walking his young dog out there on many days and it is wonderful. He noted that you do see young parents teaching their kids to ride bikes already, and it’s only been paved for about a


Page 54

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 5 week. To make this connectivity between the existing Rail Trail and now the Greenway, he feels would be another boon to the City. The quality of life that we have here is improving all the time. He thanked the Council for all of their efforts and said he thinks we can do a great deal more by keeping this rolling, whether it is through the tunnel or the path along the River Way. He said that it really needs to be done correctly and it will be a real service to all of us now and long into the future. The following comments were heard from City Councilors: Councilor Below stated that both he and Councilor Heistad attended the Ped/Bike meeting last night and there was a lot of discussion which took up most of the meeting. Even though it is sort of jumping the gun, they wanted to go ahead and let us know that maintaining connectivity was very important, and he agrees with them completely. He would like to rule out any alternatives that do not maintain connectivity, and as a practical matter, the idea of financing $2.5 million for the Riverwalk from taxpayer funds is not realistic. He spoke about the study from Dubois & King that found a River Walkway could be done that is above the 100 year flood plain. He said that a minimal alternative of just filling it in the tunnel and repairing the mall is about $2 million, where opening the tunnel is only about $2.2 million. He said the incremental cost to maintain access to the tunnel was not great compared to just shutting down the tunnel and doing the restoration that we need to do on the mall. Councilor Below spoke about the possibility of parking at the lower level and said he talked with Chip Brown (the Realtor who had the listing of the former Shoetorium), and noted that the Visioning Study pointed to the fact that one of the City’s greatest asset of opportunity is more dense development in the downtown area, including the possibility of using some City land for that kind of redevelopment. He noted that a TIFF District was approved earlier in the meeting said that at the next Council Meeting we will be looking at updating our Real Property Disposition Policies, so we have the option, of not just looking at surplus land, but looking at land that we would like to see redeveloped in a public/private way. He described the area and said it is large enough to accommodate parking. He spoke about redeveloping the Shoetorium land site and reconfiguring the site to make a 12-14K footprint that could go up 4-5 stories to creating a 30-40K foot new building. This building would probably create $100K to $200K a year in tax revenue. Chair Below felt alternative options 1 & 2 were good options, but the option to look at would be 4A, with the idea of the Shoetorium site being redeveloped. He said a 30-unit development, if the sewage would allow, would also be a good source of revenue for the City if you look at the incremental cost of 4A, compared to alternatives 1, 2 or 3, at the cost is $1.5 million. He said that in a building of this nature, the tax increment would cover the cost of the amortization. Chair Below read a letter from Dan Nash and showed the proposed mall design (which came to cost of about $500K). Mr. Nash expressed his concern over the cost of the options presented. Other possible options and alternatives were mentioned. Councilor Heistad presented a picture of a Tin Whistle tunnel, which is now being used in St. Johnsbury, noting the height, even with a long tunnel, is enough to add light. Assistant Mayor McNamara stated that we all know some simple things which are: 1) something has to be done or the tunnel will collapse; 2) this study has showed us that the bottom line number is most like to be between $1-2 million; 3) incrementally, anything above $1million we have to look at the benefits and costs; 4) we know that we do not have unlimited resources; 5) that we have, particularly in the context of the Downtown Visioning Study, a number of projects that could be done. He said we have to look at rehabilitation beyond the basics, in the


Page 55

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 6 context of all those other projects (i.e., if keeping the tunnel open costs us $1.25 million to simply deal with the problem, is this where we spend our $1.25 million, or are we better spending it, for instance, in redoing the traffic pattern around the green). He said we need to look at this as far as avoiding cost (i.e., what can we do with the incremental costs that we would spend, over and above whatever the minimum). He also stated he is hopeful that whatever solution is picked, it does not foreclose the future of redevelopment of the northern end of the mall, where the former Shoetorium was located. He said he would love to have a solution, if connectivity is the solution that allows redevelopment of that area. He said he is concerned about the differential costs of maintaining an open tunnel and spending $2.5 million dollars on a River Walk and its safety. He stated there are many places where bikes and pedestrians can successfully integrate with vehicles. He also stated that it would cost around $6K per linear foot to rehab the tunnel and noted that different options were not looked at (i.e., suspension bridge to connect with Hanover St.). His initial feeling is that River Walk is not our best alternative and in his mind, he could eliminate those alternatives unless we can come up with a solution that allows us to combine access through the tunnel with redevelopment. Councilor Bonner stated he is in favor of keeping connectivity and likes alternative #2 the best. He said we are 3-5 years from developing that area down there and we could deal it with when it happens. He said we do not need to do anymore studies because we have spent tons of money on studies and are still arguing about solutions. His position is that we should repair the tunnel for access to the Greenway and would like to see two openings. Councilor Hill stated that the Downtown Visioning Study was yet another way for people to talk about what they love about downtown Lebanon and improvements they would like to see. She said that one of the overall arching themes is that people want access to the river: this incredible feature that just, somehow is not featured. She noted people also want connectivity: they want to be able to walk, they want to be able to bike, they want to be able to get to all the places that they need to get to and they do not necessarily want to deal with the burden of using their cars. One of the burdens of being this micropolitan area is that some of the areas where a neighborhood really should be walkable become intimidating. She said she agrees with the positive comments about our quality of life in Lebanon and that the Rail Trail has contributed to this significantly. She said the Mascoma River Greenway is really special and a treasure. She said that if we can just get through this 300’ we could create something very special for Lebanon and Downtown West Lebanon. She said she is interested in the future of redevelopment of the old Shoetorium building and spoke about the advantages of being able to get on your bike, or go walk along the River Way as incredible. She said, for her, any alternative that does not provide for a separated pathway is just a deal breaker. She talked about financial investments made to the Mascoma River Greenway and said the donations/investments were based on the promised that there would be a separated pathway to navigate through downtown Lebanon: not based on the idea that there would never be an on-street path through the heart of Lebanon. The reopening of the tunnel would be her least preferred option and her preferred alternative would be 4A. She would support moving forward with looking at redeveloping, redoing the tunnel in place, and the 4A alternative that would look at the separated pathways and would look at the river front walkway as well as the redevelopment of the Shoetorium and adjacent City land. Councilor Zook stated she could not support an option that does not meet the connectivity she has been hearing about. She agrees with the river front walkway. She said that in talking with Chip Brown (Realtor), the lack of development along the river front was a sticking point for the future developers he was looking to bring into the City. From her point of view, either we are paying a lot of money to stay level or we are spending a little more to get a lot more. Councilor Heistad that the Council does not have the Motion from the Pedestrian/Bicyclist meeting, so he read the following for the public record:


Page 56

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 7 Marie McCormick moved that the Ped/Bike Committee support a tunnel alternative that maintains pedestrian and bicyclists’ connectivity along the Mascoma Greenway and provides the following benefits:

• Increases safety by reducing points of conflict, • Provides access between the Rail Trail and the Mascoma River Greenway, • Completes the transportation corridor between Lebanon and West Lebanon, and • Improves Pedestrian and Bicyclists’ access to downtown businesses.

The Committee also prefers an alternative that has minimal impact on the tax rate. The MOTION was seconded by Mark Bradley. *The vote on the MOTION was 5-1-1. Alan Schnur voted nay. Megan Chapman abstained. Councilor Heistad spoke about parts of the Rail Trail and the river, the need for thinking about the corridor between Lebanon and West Lebanon, ped/bike safety, and improving ped/bike access to businesses. He described the possibility for bike access in an open tunnel and the potential of having a bicycle accommodation built into the stairway like those in Europe. ADA stairwell requirements were also mention as something to look into. Councilor Winny stated that connectivity is great, but he is thinking about the cost. As we all know, courtesy of the CSO and other things, taxes are going to keep going up and he is not sure how much appetite people have to actually pay for some of the more expensive options. In a vacuum, he would love the River Walkway and thinks it would be great. He spoke with Len Jarvi to get some numbers from him in terms of what a $1 million will cost our tax payers. The assumptions he received from Mr. Jarvi assumes a 20-year amortization at 3% in 2019, so $1million ends up costing each tax payer $160 over that 20 years. He said it doesn’t sound like a ton, but we need to consider the increases we are likely to have with the CSO and other things such as the cost of living increases. He said understands that something needs to be done with the tunnel so he would prefer something that keeps the connectivity and is separated from the road, but noted that $6K per linear foot is a lot. He noted that at some point, especially for people living on a fixed income, it becomes too much to bare. Whether this is the breaking point, he is uncertain and would love to hear from people at this meeting, or at home, to see if option 4A, cost for each tax payer would be approximately $522 over 20 years at a $250K property evaluation is viable. He is certainly in favor of this sort of thing, but the cost have to be sorted out. Ms. Hill stated it would be a shame if we ruled out something that actually could have a mitigating effect on taxes because taxes are going to go up. She said we should seriously look at an option that ultimately would end up paying the tax payers back over time. Mr. Winny stated that we do need to take a serious look at this option but cautioned about counting our chickens before they hatch, noting that what he is hearing from his residents in Ward 1 is their concern about taxes going up and would have a hard time telling them that this is definitely going to pay off. There was another discussion regarding alternatives/options that could eliminated. Assistant Mayor McNamara opened a public hearing for further comments. Bob McLelland, Ward 3. Mr. McLelland reiterated what he said before, which was that he felt we should look at this, not just as a cost, but as an investment and we should optimize that investment. The second piece to this is can we choose paths that would phase in. So, do not close off an option that everyone likes (i.e., the connectivity option, many people liked open access to the river, also the tunnel and then the redevelopment). He is not sure


Page 57

Lebanon City Council, Minutes, Regular Session, July 11, 2018 Page 8 that all of these can be accomplished, but if they can be phased, he felt we could go step-by-step and potentially accomplish, if not all four goals, at least three of those. He feels the biggest mistake we can make, and that town make, is to close off access to natural wonders that exist in downtown. Francis Oscadal, Ward 3. He wanted to add that a phrase he has not heard is public/private partnership and felt this is an opportunity. He stated that if we have not thought about this before we really should. The River Walk could be a great opportunity here if we can pull it off. He appreciates the numbers he has been hearing about in the paper, and what he is hearing about tonight sort of blew him away. He can’t imagine why it would cost $1 million to fill in a tunnel, but if we can find a way to do this with public/private cooperation, it would be fantastic. Hearing no further comments, Assistant Mayor McNamara closed the public hearing. Mr. Mulholland urged caution surrounding the impact of maintenance costs to the tunnel when thinking about alternatives. Councilor Below MOVED, that the Lebanon City Council hereby requests administration to present Alternatives #1, #2, and #4A to the Planning Board, Pedestrian & Bicyclists Advisory Committee, Economic Vitality Exchange Committee (EVEC), the Arts & Culture Task Force, and the general public at a Community Conversation (date to be determined) for review and recommendations. Recommendations to be presented at a future meeting and considered by the Council when a decision is rendered on the future use of the tunnel. The MOTION was seconded by Councilor Winny. The MOTION was approved, 7-0.


Page 58

DRAFT (EXCERPT) ARTS & CULTURE TASK FORCE

Tuesday, August 14, 2018 DHMC Auditorium A, Lebanon, NH

7:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert Welsch (Heritage Commission Rep.), Sherry Fiore (Public Rep.), Devin

Wilkie (Public Rep.), Chip Brown (Economic Vitality Rep.), Suzanne Prentiss (Mayor/City Council Rep.), Jessica Giordani (Local Art Rep.), Karen Zook (City Council Rep.)

MEMBERS ABSENT: Susan Weber Valiante (Public Rep.), Joe Clifford (Local Art Rep.) STAFF PRESENT: David Brooks (Planning and Zoning Director), City Manager Shaun Mulholland GUESTS: Marianne L. Barthel (Arts Program Coordinator, D-H Arts Program) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Prentiss called the meeting to order at 7:03 PM. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

B. Review and Comment to City Council re: Downtown Lebanon Tunnel Alternatives Mayor Prentiss gave a brief background of the tunnel discussions. City Council had suggested that the Arts & Culture Task Force should be made aware of the proposed tunnel alternatives. City Manager Mulholland presented the Downtown Visioning Study. He reviewed each of the key concepts contained in the presentation. The Lebanon Tunnel Overview contained photos of the tunnel, including the maintenance issues. City Manager Mulholland presented the three tunnel options. There is widespread support for allowing connectivity while minimizing vehicular traffic. The group discussed the pros and cons of the various proposals. Mayor Prentiss spoke about what potential opportunities might exist for the arts. Councilor Zook said that it is also important to consider maintenance costs. City Councilor Mulholland said that the city is considering video cameras and lighting to ensure safety. He showed examples of potential designs. There is a community conversation happening next week and the Council has asked for input from the city’s committees. Mrs. Barthel suggested using the tunnel to promote local artists and organizations. Mayor Prentiss said that the Task Force will need to decide on a recommendation and in the future the Task Force will likely be involved in making decisions regarding the use of art. Mr. Brown talked about potential development of the site in the future and the potential for increased tax revenue. Options 1 and 2 both offer full connectivity. The group discussed the under utilization of the land along the river. It was agreed that a final recommendation would wait until the rest of the Task Force members could offer their perspective. It was also discussed that the Arts & Culture Task Force would like to have input on the design elements of the tunnel that would facilitate art.


Page 59

PAGE INTENTIONALLY

LEFT BLANK


Page 60

Economic Vitality Exchange Committee Minutes, Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Page 1 of 4 DRAFT (EXCERPT)

CITY OF LEBANON ECONOMIC VITALITY EXCHANGE COMMITTEE (EVEC)

Minutes. Wednesday, August 22, 2018 West Meeting Room - City Hall

4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Clifton Below (City Council), Jeff Goodrich, Karen Liot Hill (City Council), Dana Key, Kevin Purcell, Rob Taylor MEMBER ABSENT: Chip Brown, Dan Nash, Jay Simms, Steve Whitman STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Shaun Mulholland, Director of Planning and Zoning David Brooks, Shelley Hadfield-Consultant to the City of Lebanon I. CALL TO ORDER City Manager Shaun Mulholland called the meeting to order at 4:10 PM III. DISCUSSION ITEMS

Discuss downtown tunnel alternatives and provide recommendation to the City Council.

City Manager Mulholland began the discussion. He stated the City Council has narrowed down 6 tunnel alternatives to 3 options to be considered. The Council is asking four different committees for feedback, the Economic Vitality Exchange Committee, Planning Board, Arts and Culture Task Force and the Pedestrian & Bicyclist Advisory Committee. He is hoping the Council will make their decision regarding which option to move forward with at the September 19th meeting. City Manager Mulholland began with the background. The Visioning Process was conducted in 2014 and published in 2016. The City Manager discussed the key concepts of the downtown Visioning Plan. One of the key components is connectivity; addressing the tunnel and enabling the ability of pedestrians and bike riders to get across Hanover Street. The tunnel will be one of the last parts of the Rail Trail connecting Lebanon and West Lebanon. He showed the map of the areas of the city that will be connected and served by the 3 options regarding the tunnel to enhance connectivity and walkways within Lebanon. Option 1 is a complete deck replacement and fixing the tunnel in the footprint as it exists today. This would cost about $2.2-$2.3 million. Option 2 includes a glassed-in or open-air opening by the restaurant to let sunlight into the tunnel. Staff recognize that open areas bring the risk of weather, rain, snow and ice that would


Page 61

Economic Vitality Exchange Committee Minutes, Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Page 2 of 4 have to be addressed ongoing. Option 2 is about the same cost, $2.2 million. The footprint of the tunnel would remain the same as it is today. Option 4-A would close the tunnel and fill it in. This presumably would impact the replacement of the bridge over Hanover Street that is planned by the Department of Transportation (DOT). The DOT might fill it in, construct a retaining wall and close the bridge. This also conceptualizes taking part of the area above the mall, remove that level and create some additional parking underneath. This option also proposes the development of the Greenway Riverwalk that will go over the river underneath Hanover Street Bridge. There are some issues that would need to be addressed including propane tanks and utilities that would have to be moved. The exact number of parking places that would be available under this plan isn’t clear. The effect on the two nearby buildings is unknown. The cost is estimated at $1 million to close the tunnel and another $2.5 million to build the Riverwalk, but that cost could be closer to $4 million based on construction and impacts to other buildings. Clifton Below added comments about changing the footprint of the current Shoetorium building and using other City property to develop parking and another level of construction. He discussed the possibility of a public and private partnership that would invest in the development of upscale housing with parking spaces. This could generate tax revenue to help cover the costs related to Option 4-A. The City would still contribute about $2 million, similar to the other two options. It was stated that an initial conversation with one private developer was started but did not go anywhere. City Manager Mulholland said it’s important to move forward with an option because the deterioration of the current tunnel is a concern. Some of the concerns that Staff have with the Riverwalk pertain to ice, snow and the lack of sunshine. It will likely be difficult to keep the walk clear. Concrete, wood and metal would have problems with freezing temperatures. It also has the potential to be in the hundred-year flood plain. It may have environmental permitting issues. Head room for construction machinery could be an issue. The option does not preclude the development of the lower parking lots. Clifton Below stated the walkway could be constructed above the flood plain. He also confirmed there would be adequate headroom for people to walk at that location of the walkway. Karen Liot Hill discussed the Council’s desire the create a development of the Shoetorium building. They were not excited about having a parking canyon where once there was a mall courtyard. It could accommodate parking that is below a structure. There is a need for additional parking, especially with the potential development of the Shoetorium building. Staff are still concerned about the additional $2 million expense of Option 4-A and that the money could be used to address other projects of the Visioning process that they would like to focus on. Option 1 and Option 2 allow the focus on connectivity and don’t preclude developing the Riverwalk sometime in the future.


Page 62

Economic Vitality Exchange Committee Minutes, Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Page 3 of 4 City Manager Mulholland showed pictures of other tunnels from projects in other cities. They included good lighting and artwork on the walls. He stated that research has shown that murals on the walls reduce damage and vandalism. The Arts and Culture Task Force has several ideas for treatment of the tunnel walls. Lebanon is also proposing video cameras that can be monitored by the Police Department and will be apparent to the public. He expressed concern about the long-term maintenance of the addition of glass to the tunnel. Marking the walkways and tunnel with directions was thought to be important for people to find their way. Karen Liot Hill suggested a specific brand or logo for the Greenway to maintain the continuity of the way and add clear markings through the tunnel and parking lot to channel people toward safer places to walk. City Manager Mulholland stated that none of the committees have recommended one specific option. He asked EVEC to provide comment on the pros and cons of the three options and make a recommendation if they were so inclined. Clifton Below and Karen Liot Hill discussed in more detail the aspects of the proposed Riverwalk. One proposal was a suspended walkway to stay above the hundred-year flood level. Alternative materials such as skid resistant metal decking that allowed the rain, snow and ice conditions to pass through the deck were mentioned. They described the proposed pathway and how it would connect to the existing walking patterns in the city and suggested the possibility of alternative plans that are less comprehensive to reduce costs. Kevin Purcell said repairing the tunnel is likely a good idea. There are potential problems and incidents because it is a long, enclosed area but maybe those can be minimized with lighting and art work. The glass looks nice, but he noted the complications and costs of maintaining the glass. He mentioned there are environmental issues related to treatments weather conditions on a walkway over the river. They discussed the extreme long-term costs with maintaining anything that is built over the river; and noted that the river is peaceful sometimes and angry at other times of the year. There are additional considerations about public safety that should be considered about the Riverwalk. Maintaining the tunnel for flood resilience, by keeping it open, is likely more beneficial for the parking lot and the City by helping to reduce the amount of water during a flood. Plugging the tunnel is almost as expensive as refurbishing it. Perhaps a hybrid of the proposals can be considered for time and expense. The Committee was in support of Option 1 and Option 2. The possibilities could include some glass and open air and the option for stairs to get up to the mall. They were also in favor of keeping the tunnel open for future flexibility. The Riverwalk would still be an option for the future. Jeff Goodrich moved to keep the tunnel open, to maintain and repair it, to optimize flexibility with respect to the future Visioning Process and to address flood resiliency needs in the short term and long term. Seconded by Rob Taylor. * Vote on the MOTION passed 4-0-2. Clifton Below and Karen Liot Hill abstained.


Page 63

Economic Vitality Exchange Committee Minutes, Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Page 4 of 4 The Committee further discussed that the bulk of the money will be spent on concrete and steel and recognized there would be additional expense for some of these enhancements. They felt it is important that these improvements please the public, are aesthetically appealing, safe, peaceful and provide adequate seating. It’s the little things that will make it a value to the public. well laid out for the new work. It’s time to get the planning done so the city is in a position to move forward when the money is available.


Page 64

DRAFT (EXCERPT)

LEBANON PLANNING BOARD Council Chambers, City Hall

Monday, August 27, 2018 6:30 PM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Keith Davio, Vice Chair Carl Porter, Sarah Welsch, Bruce Garland, Gregory Schwarz, Laurel Stavis, Matthew Cole, Kathie Romano (Alt.), Matthew Hall (Alt.), MEMBERS ABSENT: Gareth Wyatt, Joan Monroe STAFF PRESENT: David Brooks (Planning and Zoning Director), Shaun Mulholland (City Manager), Sean Fleming (Library Director), Rebecca Owens (Associate Planner), Clifton Below (City Council) _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER - Keith Davio (Chair) called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. 3. STUDY ITEMS

A. Mall Tunnel-Review with City Manager per 7/11 Council Motion to Proceed with Alternatives 1,2 and 4A for Future use of Tunnel: City Manager Shaun Mulholland and City Councilor Clifton Below addressed the board, speaking about the Mall Tunnel and three options. Mulholland mentioned the Council has asked for four different committees to provide feedback on the small list of tunnel alternatives. He presented a slide presentation and invited questions. Mulholland mentioned the history of the process and showed diagrams where the tunnel is located. He noted key objectives and key concepts involving the tunnel assessment: 1. Create a downtown Arts Walk 2. Seek mix use development that enhances the vibrancy of the downtown area 3. Provide the Mascoma Greenway with a new river front and tunnel segments He noted the lack of clarity at the end of the Northern Rail trail, concerning its extension. His recommendations included adding pavement and signage to get to the tunnel. Utilizing an artist rendition, he described the three different path options proposed as well as the existing condition of the tunnel, pointing out different structures and buildings that could be added or renovated by the project. Path Alternatives to the tunnel: 1. Existing path (red path) and tunnel including a bridge over Hanover Street. (scheduled for

construction 2021) – pointing out the deterioration in the area. 2. Going around Taylor Street (green path) (Option 1 &2) 3. Going under the Hanover Street Bridge (purple path) (option 4A)

(Q &A with Mulholland) Proposals:


Page 65

Lebanon Planning Board, Minutes, Monday, August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 6

Option 1 – simply repair the tunnel in its present footprint ($2.2m) – just structural Welsch Questions: Q: Is there lighting in the tunnel? A: Not presently Q: About the repairs needed? A: Explained the deterioration and expected repairs Q: Would that allow a connection to the Rail Trail on each end? A: Yes. Also talked about the opportunity for art work, additional lights, paint, video cameras (for security). Hall Question: Q: Heading East-West from the parking lot – is the tunnel a straight shot? A: It’s straight, but has a large mouth and opening. Option 2 – the same as option 1, but will also have (red area) a daylight/glass opening Mulholland noted the concerns from staff related to weather and maintenance. Welsch Questions: Why are there very low corners that people can hide in? A: I’m not sure about that – previous construction a possibility. (Below noted that there are artifacts from years before the fire) Could they be eliminated? A: Only with additional cost Brooks Question: Q: Could they be fenced or blocked off? A: Could be opportunities for art work in that space- An opportunity- not a hazard. Cole Question: Q: About replacing parking with the lighting – Is there any discussion about the square footage that would be lost in parking lot? A: There would not be a lot of parking. This would be the throughway with people driving through the lot. You would lose a few spaces, but it’s not significant. Hall Question: Q: About the glass. Will it be a maintenance or potential vandalism problem? A: I don’t see it as a vandalism problem. More of a long-term maintenance problem. Brooks Question: Q: What is the size of the open area? A: It’s not measured. It’s more a concept. A: (Below) The way it’s drawn it’s about 17’x42’ - The trail itself requires 12’. One of the options could be a stairwell out of the tunnel. A: (Mulholland) That’s not budgeted in the project Q: Is that the only place an opening could go? A: They thought it was the best place – could cutback open area.


Page 66


Schwarz Questions: Q: Has the Police Department commented about the opening of the tunnel? A: I did talk to them about the video cameras, so they could monitor the tunnel. Q: I heard that people would hang around the tunnel? Do police have concerns? A: The amount of lighting will make it brighter in addition to the video cameras. If you put in art work – statistics show that those places on the wall are far less likely to be vandalized. Q: Will the tunnel be utilized in the winter? A: Yes. The tunnel will be open all the time. Romano Questions: Q: Could you drive through the tunnel for police and ambulances? A: They could, but they won’t be able to do that because of barriers – not designed for vehicles. Q: What happens if there was an emergency- how could they get in there? A: They would walk in. Stavis Question: Q: What is the anticipated utility in the tunnel - who is going to walk through it and why? A: The utility of the tunnel is to allow for traffic along the Mascoma Trail without having conflicts with vehicle traffic we presently have – this would avoid those conflicts. That’s the main objective. (Owens added additional information) Garland Comment: C: There are two types of bicyclists (road and trail) - what is the focus on the people who use the rail trail today and who would use it in the future. Romano Questions: Q: When you enter it from either end are you on ground level and go steadily down to the middle? A: No. It’s level. Because of the train they had to maintain a certain grade. Q: You said it was 22’ below the surface? A: (Below) Yes if it’s at the vicinity at the entrance of the mall. So when you come out the east end by the Taylor Street parking lot the grade is raised up where the tracks were. A: (Below) It would ramp down into the tunnel and be a gradual grade toward the Mascoma River to the west, but you won’t be able to recognize that – it would look straight to you. Q: Is there a danger it’s in the flood plain - Could it be filled with water? A: That was something EVEC recommended to keep the tunnel open for that very reason. You have another outlet for water to travel through. Now it has to go in the path of the river or gets hung up around there. This will allow the water to go through. That was one of the values of keeping the tunnel open. Q: You talk about the green part being part of a bridge, but it’s underground? A: (Below) It’s really the same as the tunnel structure, but the state thinks of it as a bridge and is responsible for that. Welsch Question:


Page 67


Q: Is the top part of the red at the very top where it fans out. What if you walk out there- what would you be standing on? A: (Below)With the stairs and a landing or two going down to the parking lot. Q: So the parking lot will be the same as the Shoetorium Building? A The tunnel will be at the parking lot level which is full grade. Schwarz Question: Q: Is the tunnel used for anything else. I notice some utilities? A: There are some utilizes in the corner. We are not sure if they are still active. Q: If the tunnel was filled in would it make a difference to anything else? A: We can talk later about 4A and closing the tunnel. Romano Question: Q: Can you review the difference between the first plan and the second? A: The only difference is the light opening. All of the construction is the same. Q: The difference in cost? A: It’s about the same. Option 4A – would close the tunnel completely and fill it in and that’s about a $1m to do that work. (Members shown a conceptual idea if you took the top of the deck off) But you would have several issues that need to be addressed and is not part of the total cost. You would be north of $5m. This option involves closing the tunnel completely and having a “roofer walk” (the purple path) that would go underneath the Hanover Street Bridge and follow the path of the river. That cost is $3.5 m plus $1m to complete that task. There would be long term permit and maintenance issues. And a question what materials would be used. (Below)In a way this is a proxy for the idea of creating a redevelopment opportunity with the Shoetorium site and change the configuration slightly. There is enough width to create covered parking and go up four stories and build housing units. And possibly work with the developers to also have restaurants and cafes. It would also create a tax increment if this property could make use of this space. Romano Question: Q: Was that city or private parking? A: (Below) The undercover parking would be private – but a public/private partnership. This is what the Downtown vision called for – recognizing the need to create housing in the simple core and not effecting the more rural areas. This could be a once-in-a lifetime opportunity to do something different here and can we help create a higher value to the society and in the meantime also be beneficial to the city in the long run. Q: Would you show me where the bikers would go from the Rail Trail? A (Below) Showed the Planning Board where this would go on the Map. Q: Would that be in the flood plain? A: No. It would remain under the flood level in the 100-year plan. Some people had concerns with the timing issue. Option #1 and #2 could be completed by this time next year. And option #4A - best guess is 2021. It’s certainly possible to do, but the timing is certainly an issue. It depends on the interest although it has never been presented as a full opportunity. Q: So you would only consider this option if you had developer interest?


Page 68


A: No. As councilor Bellow said if you took the top of the deck off here you can take advantage of this somewhere later on. Davio Question: Q: Why would it be 2021? A: (Below) The Riverwalk and harmony pieces. We already own the tunnel and we don’t have to get a permit for that. Going around the river will be a challenge including maintenance and materials – but you can fill it in and recognize the park above. You don’t want to fill this in until you’re sure you can get the Riverwalk because once it’s filled in it’s filled in and we have nothing. We need to get the signoff from all the agencies that allow us to go to the edge of the river. Cole Question: Q: What is the cost to fixing up the tunnel in the red section, leaving it open and still create the parking area? Why fill in the tunnel and then have a parking lot? A: The Riverwalk is the route you would have around – you wouldn’t need the tunnel any longer. If we don’t fill in and worry about a collapse above. Q: Why is the Riverwalk the only option for this concept? Why not renovate the tunnel, take the top of the deck off of it and still create that parking? A: We had this discussion with the owner of the property, but they are probably not interested. A: (Below) The cost of filling in the tunnel is about $1m. It’s the same cost to restore it and make it into a tunnel. So you can restore it and put the parking in place and bide some time. Would it make any sense to restore the tunnel and see if something else works out. If a developer did come along and gave it a little bit of time. A: The problem is if we take the whole deck off you don’t have access to the building any longer. Welsch Question: Q: If you refurbish the tunnel would there be parking on top of that? A: (Below) Right now it’s the top of the mall. Brooks Comment: A: One developer thought that the tunnel could be an amenity for the redevelopment of that site. It might be possible to keep the tunnel and still get the redevelopment of the Shoetorium. A: (Mulholland) They are not interest in the parking, but taking some city own land which would cause some reconfiguration of the roadway. Porter Question: Q: I’m disappointed that the option of just filling the tunnel is off the table and the committee didn’t have the opportunity to weigh in on that. I don’t see why a city full of taxpayers should be footing the bill for something that a fraction of the taxpayers use? Stavis Question: Q: When you’re talking about decreasing the access for businesses by taking that deck off. Which businesses do you have in mind? A: (Below) The TK building. There are one or two businesses that use this doorway.


Page 69


A: The council met and there wasn’t a single person who was not in favor of providing some access way through a tunnel or Riverwalk. That’s why the council narrowed the options down to three. Porter Comment: Voiced a concern about the speed of the cars going around the hairpin turn. That’s the weakest link getting to the tunnel. Other comments about the tunnel and project included crosswalks, bicycle routes/racks, the opening in the tunnel, rotaries, redevelopment, sewer issues, elevators, utilities, parking, traffic, the rights of business owners and the Master Plan.

Stavis Comment: I would ask the chair to go over this boards ability to make a meaningful contribution to this conversation - giving all the moving parts. Davio Comment: What we need to determine is which of these options work in the long vision and plan of the City? And that’s where we would provide input. Porter Question: Q: I know we’re not going to get 4A but what is the lifespan of the work being done? A: The engineers think 75 years with updated technology.

A Motion was made by Vice Chair Porter stating that the Planning Board is recommending Alternative #2 to the City Council, with a replacement opening, but highly suggested optional egress options be considered. Second by Ms. Romano. *The Motion past (6-1-2) No: Hall. Abstained: Welsch & Stavis.


Page 70

DRAFT (EXCERPT) ARTS & CULTURE TASK FORCE

MINUTES, TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018 COLBURN PARK

NORTH PARK STREET, LEBANON 7:00PM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Sherry Fiore (Public Rep.), Devin Wilkie (Public Rep.), Chip Brown (Economic Vitality Rep.), Jessica Giordani (Local Art Rep.), Karen Zook (City Council Rep.), Susan Weber Valiante (Public Rep.), Suzanne Prentiss (Mayor/City Council Rep.)

MEMBERS ABSENT: Joe Clifford (Local Art Rep.), Robert Welsch (Heritage Commission Rep.) STAFF PRESENT: David Brooks (Planning and Zoning Director), Paul Coates (Director, Parks & Recreation Dept.) ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Suzanne Prentiss called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. 3. DISCUSSION ITEMS: A. Discussion and Recommendation to City Council regarding Downtown Lebanon Tunnel Alternatives. Mayor Prentiss reviewed the proposed alternatives (Option #1, Option #2 and Option #4A) that were presented by Mr. Mulholland at the last Arts & Culture Task Force Meeting, and Mr. Brooks informed the Task Force what options other groups are leaning toward. The Task Force discussed the pros and cons for each of the three options which included:

• The potential (in an ideal world) that Option #4A would offer the City for downtown commercial growth and tax revenues.

• Potential flood resiliency with keeping the tunnel open. • Cost comparisons between the three options. (Cost was a recurrent theme from all members.) • The need for expediency on whatever option is chosen because the tunnel is in such disrepair there is a

fear it may collapse if not repaired soon. It was also noted that Option #4A would take the most time because of the permitting processes from the State and City, which could take months, and there still would not be a guarantee that Option 4A would ultimately be possible after the permitting process.

• Potential limitations on what types of development could be done at the Mall. Mr. Brooks stated that choosing Options #1 or #2 would not preclude future development of the Mall.

• Lighting/Natural Light options: Concerns about what types of natural light cover would be used (i.e., not the type of cover like a skylight that turns yellow and has scratches over time). Mr. Brown described different types of natural lighting overhead cover options that could be used.

• ADA compliance and way-finding options to mall, which included a possible elevator, bicyclist access and possible stair location for pedestrians.

• The need for tunnel security and maintenance to be in place. • If using Options #1 or #2, possible investment of funds to clean up the Riverway. A discussion took place

regarding the advantages of creating more parks and green spaces for the City and how these areas could potentially lure investors to the City.

Mayor Prentiss made a Motion for the City Council to consider Option #1 without natural light. There was not a second on this Motion so the following took place.


Page 71

Arts & Culture Task Force, Tuesday, September 4, 2018 Page 2 of 2

A MOTION was made by Mayor Prentiss that the Arts& Culture Task Force recommends that the City Council consider alternative Option #2 with Natural Light. The Arts & Culture Task Force also wanted the City Council to know, that in an ideal world, consideration would have been given to Option #4A (with the Riverwalk), but did not choose this option due to the cost, the permitting process and the timeliness in completion, which made this option unpredictable. The Arts & Culture Task Force also wanted to make the City Council aware of their concerns over the design and materials that would be used in the construction of the overhead natural light feature and how this would be maintained. The MOTION was seconded by Chip Brown. *The vote on the MOTION passed unanimously. (6-0)


Page 72

DRAFT (EXCERPT) PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, September 4, 2018 CITY HALL, WEST MEETING ROOM

7:00 PM

MEMBERS PRESENT: John Kelleher (Vice Chair); Erling Heistad (City Council); Mark Bradley; Alan Schnur; Carl Porter (Planning Board); Marie McCormick; Megan Chapman; Kenneth Warren (Friends of Northern Rail Trail); Clifton Below (Alt)

MEMBERS ABSENT: Colin Smith (Chair); Shane Smith (Alt. Council Representative) STAFF PRESENT: Rebecca Owens (Associate Planner) _________________________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER: John Kelleher (Vice Chair) called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.

Vice Chair Kelleher welcomed Guest Shaun Mulholland (City Manager), Carl Porter (Planning Board) as anew member to the Committee and two citizens who were observing. Sarah Akhtar and Ann Perbohner arepresent tonight because they are interested in becoming members of the Committee.

3. STUDY ITEMS:

B. MALL TUNNEL – Review with City Manager per 7/11 Council Motion to proceed withAlternatives 1, 2 and 4A for future use of tunnel

City Manager Mulholland began the discussion with the background of the Visioning Process that was conducted in 2014 and published in 2016. One of the key components is connectivity; addressing the tunnel and enabling the ability of pedestrians and bike riders to get across Hanover Street (Rt120). The City Council has narrowed down 6 tunnel alternatives to 3 options to be considered, eliminating the options that did not provide connectivity. The tunnel will be one of the last parts of the Rail Trail connecting Lebanon and West Lebanon. He showed a map of the areas of the City that will be connected and served by the 3 options for the tunnel. Each will enhance connectivity, pedestrian traffic patterns to get through the parking lot and walkways within Lebanon. He stated signage, marking and directions will be a significant part of the plan. He reviewed an artist’s renditions of what the Downtown center could look like including new buildings, a traffic circle, a promenade, the Riverwalk and the tunnel path.

The existing conditions were stated next. There is an existing DOT bridge that is slated for reconstruction in 2021. The actual path in the existing tunnel has deteriorated slabs from the salt and water that have accumulated there at times. The parking lot area above it is currently closed because the structure is unsafe in that area. There is substantial trash that has accumulated in the tunnel.

Option 1 is a complete replacement of the deck and the tunnel in the footprint as it exists today. This would cost about $2.29 million.

Option 2 includes an open area to let natural light in. The open area is the only difference between Option 1 and Option 2. The opening could be located near the edge of the building by the Diner. Staff recognize that open areas bring the risk of weather, rain, snow and ice that would have to be


Page 73

Pedestrian & Bicyclist Advisory Committee Minutes, September 4, 2018 Page 2

addressed ongoing. Subsequently a closed in glass area is being considered to allow natural light in and keep out precipitation. Option 2 is about the same cost, $2.21 million but that estimate doesn’t include the cost for the glassed in area. Option 4-A would close the tunnel and fill it in, remove the existing slabs and create parking. This option also proposes the development of the Greenway Riverwalk that will go over the river underneath Hanover Street Bridge. The exact number of parking places that would be available under this plan isn’t clear. The impact on the two nearby buildings is unknown. The cost is estimated at $2.5 million plus $1 million to close the tunnel. That cost could be closer to $4 million based on construction and impacts to other buildings.

City Manager Mulholland showed pictures of other tunnels from projects in other cities. They included lighting and artwork on the walls. Lebanon is also proposing video cameras. He expressed concern about the long-term operating costs and the maintenance of the addition of glass to the tunnel. The presentation included wall murals outside the tunnel and furniture and lighting to be placed above, on the Mall.

City Planner Mulholland addressed next steps. Option 1 or 2 could be completed by next year. Option 4A would take until 2021 or 2022 because there is additional work that needs to be done. He said that Option 4A is manageable and could be done without too much risk. However, there are environmental impacts. Long term maintenance expenses would be ongoing, partly because the Riverwalk lacks sunlight to address precipitation issues that will arise in cold weather.

Clifton Below added comments about redeveloping the Shoetorium building and using City property to change the building footprint, develop parking and construct another level. He discussed the possibility of a public and private partnership that could offset some of the original costs of the Riverwalk. This could create opportunities for a developer to help cover the costs related to Option 4-A with the incremental tax value. He stated there was a conversation with the owners who have the property for sale, about working with a developer to reconfigure the footprint of the Shoetorium building, extend parking at the lower level to expand the number of parking spaces and potentially build 30 units of housing on upper floors. One private developer was in discussion but hasn’t pursued the opportunity. With this approach there is a risk that a developer won’t come along to move this plan forward.

Vice Chair Kelleher asked Clifton Below to explain what the pedestrian and bike route would look like with Option 4A. Mr. Below discussed in more detail the aspects of the proposed Riverwalk. One proposal was a suspended walkway to stay above the hundred-year flood level. Alternative materials such as skid resistant metal decking to allow the rain, snow and ice conditions to pass through the deck were mentioned. He described the proposed pathway and how it would connect to the existing walking patterns in the City.

The Committee discussed the difficulties of the weather conditions and lack of sunlight on the Riverwalk. Megan Chapman suggested that the Riverwalk doesn’t need to be treated as a sidewalk, but rather similar to the Rail Trail which isn’t completely plowed in the winter. She discussed the environmental impacts to the river that maintaining the path during the winter would create. They


Page 74


also mentioned that the Riverwalk could have gates that could be closed during inclement weather and dangerous conditions.

The Committee questioned if the potential tunnel and walkway will be wide enough and have wide enough turns for both bikers and pedestrians. It was speculated that areas of the tunnel and Riverwalk could be used differently at various times of the year by different kinds of traffic. They discussed the importance of having a pathway with access to the Mall that will keep a walkway open between the two sides of the City.

Carl Porter discussed the Planning Board’s conversation related to the impact of urban renewal and the impact on the Downtown if the tunnel didn’t provide access to the Mall level. Alternative signage might help, but the tunnel could impact the use of the Downtown because it’s difficult to reach. Also, using the parking lot as a pathway is a danger for people passing through it. The Board is most in favor of Option 2 with access to the Downtown area. Erling Heistad added that an access point will provide a walkway between the west side of the river and the Mall. Presently there isn’t a safe way to cross 120.

Clifton Below discussed the options for stairs to provide new access to the Mall and said that if a new structure was developed perhaps it could include an elevator for use by the public. He said a ramp isn’t an option due to the 22 feet of elevation to get out of the tunnel. They discussed the other stairs that already exist and if they were useful for future plans.

Carl Porter stated the Planning Board is concerned about the expense to tax payers. Are the tunnel and Riverwalk a benefit to the majority of tax payers? What is the most prudent way to capture the ideas of the Vision Plan with an eye on the capital costs? Rebecca Owens mentioned the tax benefits and the increased number of people in the Downtown may be a reasonable offset to the economic costs. Erling Heistad restated it’s important to consider the safety of people getting from the west side of the City to the Mall.

City Manager Mulholland said that Option 1 presents the least amount of ongoing operating expense because it doesn’t have the maintenance of the glass. It has a life expectancy of 75 years. Long term costs are an important consideration as well as the cost benefit and safety of the public. Time to complete the project and reopen the tunnel is another important consideration. Option 1 and Option 2 allow the focus on connectivity and don’t preclude developing the Riverwalk sometime in the future. Keeping the tunnel open will help with flood waters that could occur in the future. Stairs could have a ramp for bicycles and strollers to roll along the side. It’s important to move forward with an option because the deterioration of the current tunnel is a concern.

Marking the walkways and tunnel with signage and access from the tunnel was thought to be important for people to find their way. Many options are available, they just have to be cost effective and maintainable. Clear markings through the tunnel and parking lot would direct people toward safer places to walk. Now is the time to make recommendations to fine tune the proposal to the Council.

John Kelleher MOVED the Ped/Bike Committee recommend to the Council Options 1 or 2 with an attention on controlling future operating costs with improvements, ensuring access to the Mall. Seconded by Carl Porter.


Page 75


Discussion: Add the word Tunnel before Options. Kelleher accepted the revision as did Porter.

John Kelleher MOVED the Ped/Bike Committee recommend to the Council Tunnel Options 1 or 2 with an attention on controlling future operating costs with improvements, ensuring access to the Mall. The Motion was seconded by Carl Porter. *The vote on the MOTION passed 6-1. Erling Heistad voted nay.

Mr. Heistad voted against the motion because the access to the Mall wasn’t clearly specified. The Committee further advises that time is of the essence and that access to the Greenway and access between Lebanon and West Lebanon should be completed as quickly as possible.


Page 76

8.B – DOWNTOWN LEBANON TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES

Documents

Transcript of 8.B – DOWNTOWN LEBANON TUNNEL ALTERNATIVES