St. Albans seeks control of a segment of VT‑36 to speed local safety and water‑sewer projects

St. Albans town leaders testified before the Vermont Legislature’s Transportation Committee on Feb. 18 asking the General Assembly to authorize the town to take over a 2.8‑mile segment of Vermont Route 36 so the municipality can move faster on two local priorities: a redesigned intersection near the bay and a water‑and‑sewer extension from the city.

The request would relinquish an identified Class 1 town highway segment from state control to the town, shifting day‑to‑day maintenance and many design decisions to St. Albans while retaining the segment’s legal status as a public highway under Title 19, committee materials show.

Why it matters: Town control would give St. Albans authority to set posted speeds, place crosswalks, install signals, alter travel‑lane widths and make other street‑design choices without waiting for state approval — a change local officials said could speed both a near‑term intersection fix and a longer water‑and‑sewer project they said is critical for shoreline development and water quality.

Sean Atkins, the town manager for St. Albans, told the committee, “We’re gonna keep it limited to just this stretch right now,” and described two projects he said the town wants to pursue: a relatively small intersection redesign near the park and a larger water‑and‑sewer extension from the city. Atkins said the intersection project “we can address probably this year if we were to be relinquished,” and called the sewer extension “a heavy, heavy lift” that the town is already planning with an engineering firm.

Ashley Atkins, deputy director of district maintenance and fleet division at the Vermont Agency of Transportation, reviewed the statutory process and the functional difference for Class 1 town highways: “Class I town highways are connected links to the state highway system,” she said, and the segment would retain its legal character while daily control shifts to the town. Agency staff also told the committee that VTrans typically assists with periodic reconstruction when a Class 1 segment needs it.

Representative Linda Gibson, who represents St. Albans, emphasized water‑quality and economic development goals tied to the relinquishment. “It would be important, very, very important, the safety of water and for the sake of a whole lot of other things to have that water and sewer situation,” Gibson said, linking the road control change to access for shoreline development and pollution reduction for Lake Champlain.

Committee members pressed town officials on costs and liabilities. Members asked whether bridges or culverts on the segment would become town responsibilities; Atkins said the road “is in pretty fine shape” and that the town believes it owns the bridge at the end of the stretch but that payment arrangements with the state were not fully clear. One committee member said the draft language places the transfer as an authorization to the Secretary of Transportation under the bill’s statutory provision.

Agency staff and several legislators noted tradeoffs. A member who had considered similar transfers said taking on roads can add long‑term costs such as street lights and plowing; others said local control can speed projects that otherwise might wait years in state prioritization cycles. Michelle Boomhower of the Agency of Transportation said the idea had been under discussion before the COVID‑era pause and that “it has resurfaced again this past year.” She confirmed VTrans would include the section in its periodic reconstruction cycle where appropriate.

The committee did not take a vote. Members asked the town to provide a selectboard letter or other municipal documentation of support and said the committee would keep the section open for further review as it examines the full draft of the bill.

The committee also heard several clarifying questions about exact limits and maintenance responsibilities and recorded concerns about long‑term costs for paving, culverts and potential bridge work should failures occur.

Looking ahead: Committee members asked for documentary proof of the selectboard’s position and indicated they would continue to review the proposed statutory language alongside other sections of the Transportation (T) bill.