City engineers and planners told the Montpelier City Council that upgrading Country Club Road and bringing water and sewer to the lower Country Club Road site entails multiple design alternatives and substantially different cost estimates, and that a decision on a preferred alternative will shape grant applications for CDBG‑DR and other funds.

VHB engineers described five main alternatives — regrading Country Club Road to reduce slope (10% or 12%), raising U.S. Route 2 to remove an abrupt grade break, and re‑aligning the road within its right‑of‑way. The combined cost estimates presented in the meeting ranged roughly from about $4.0 million (raising Route 2 alone) up to $7.3 million for more extensive regrading plus utilities; the water and sewer work and design fees are major components of the totals.

Why it matters: The council is pursuing grant funding (CDBG‑DR, Northern Borders and Vermont’s CHIP) to pay infrastructure costs. The preferred roadway alignment and how much infrastructure the city asks grantors to fund will affect total project scope, the award competitiveness and long‑term maintenance obligations.

Alternatives and estimated costs

Planner Mike Miller and VHB engineer Evan (surname not given in the transcript) summarized alternatives and order‑of‑magnitude costs: a design that regrades Country Club Road to a smoother 12% profile with required water and sewer would be in the neighborhood of $5.6 million; raising Route 2 paired with a similar Country Club Road grade would push costs higher (an estimate the consultant gave was about $6.9 million); a full 10% regrade option showed an estimate near $7.3 million. A lower‑cost option limited to changes on Route 2 (leaving Country Club Road mostly as‑is) produced the smaller ~$4.0 million estimate.

Council discussion and grant strategy

Councilors asked about sidewalk continuity, long‑term maintenance, impacts on existing parking, and whether the state and Vermont Rail Systems had been consulted about raising the Route 2 profile or lowering tracks. VHB said raising Route 2 by roughly a few feet was feasible in concept and that rail operators declined to lower the tracks; staff noted the city has not yet formally spoken with VTrans on Route 2 profile changes.

Staff emphasized that greater advance design (moving a chosen alternative to 90% design) would strengthen competitive grant applications. The council expressed interest in selecting a preferred alternative before VHB proceeds to final design; staff said that level of detail is needed to be “shovel‑ready” for CDBG‑DR and other infrastructure programs.

Next steps and caveats

- Staff recommended selecting a preferred alignment and advancing the corresponding design to a higher level so the city can apply for CDBG‑DR and CHIP funding.
- Councilors asked for clearer, consolidated cost tables that match the alternatives to expected engineering fees, construction inspection costs and grants.
- Several councilors urged caution — noting that the town needs a broader master plan and clarity on future housing density and stormwater needs before committing to a final roadway design.

Council did not take a final vote on an alternative at the meeting; staff will return with a clearer recommendation and refined estimates once the council narrows preferred design choices.