HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 12/19/2022AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 180 Market Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Participation Options In Person: 180 Market Street - Auditorium - Main Floor Assistive Listening Service Devices Available upon request Electronically: https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/city-meeting-12-19-2022 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (312) 757-3121 Access Code: 617-805-037
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, December 19, 2022
1.Pledge of Allegiance (6:30 PM)
2.Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology options –
Jessie Baker, City Manager (6:31 – 6:32 PM)
3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items (6:33 – 6:34 PM)
4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda (6:35 – 6:45 PM)
5. Councilors’ Announcements and Reports on Committee assignments and City Manager’sReport (6:45 – 6:55 PM)
6.Consent Agenda: (6:55 – 7:00 PM)
A.*** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes from November 7th, November 21st, November 30th andDecember 5, 2022 City Council MeetingsC.*** Receive the November 2022 FinancialsD.*** Approve the 2022 Grand List Errors and Omissions as presentedE.Appoint Donna Leban to the Planning Commission for a term expiring June 2025F.*** Appoint Jessie Baker to serve as the initial representative to the ChittendenCounty Communications Union District BoardG.*** Approve application for a Vermont Transportation Alternatives grant for the
scoping, design, and construction of Allen Road Shared Use PathH.*** Approve application for a Vermont Transportation Alternatives grant to design andconstruct the Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Replacement project
I.*** Approve application for a Reallocation 2020 Homeland Security Grant for securitycameras at the Wastewater FacilitiesJ.*** Appoint Donna Kinville to serve as the Assistant Treasurer
7. *** FY24 Budget: Receive the Public Works presentation (including Penny for Paths and Open Space) and provide feedback to staff – Tom DiPietro, Public Works Director (7:00 –
8:00 PM) 8. *** Consider a Necessity Resolution and Declaration of Intent on the need to bond for
improvements to the Bartlett Bay Water Treatment Facility and consider placing the question on the Town Meeting Day 2023 ballot – Tom DiPietro, Public Works Director (8:00 – 8:20 PM) 9. *** FY24 Budget: Receive the Community Development presentation (including the Energy Fund) and provide feedback to staff – Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director (8:20 – 8:50 PM) 10. *** Tax Increment Financing District: Adopt a Necessity Resolution and Declaration of Intent on the need to bond for TIF Debt Authorization to fund the design and construction of Garden Street, Williston Road Streetscape, East West Crossing, and City Center Park Phase II and consider placing the question on the Town Meeting Day 2023 ballot – Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director (8:50 – 9:05 PM)
11. *** Receive an update from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and consider approving and update to the Committee's charge – Erica Quallen, Deputy Director of Public Works for Capital Projects (9:05 – 9:25 PM) 12. *** Discuss and possibly approve a proposed Encampment Policy – Colin McNeil, City Attorney (9:25 – 9:45 PM) 13. *** Continued First Reading on an ordinance to implement Education Impact Fees and set a public hearing for a Special Meeting on January 23rd at 6:30 PM – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (9:45 – 10:00 PM) 14. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on Climate Change (10:00 – 10:15 PM) 15. Other Business (10:15 – 10:25 PM) 16. Consider entering a possible executive session to discuss pending litigation
17. Adjourn Respectfully Submitted:
Jessie Baker City Manager *** Attachments Included
Champlain Water District
Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund
From 12/20/2022 Through 12/20/2022
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number
12/20/2022
4503 Colchester Fire District #3 Rivers Edge Connection Fee Deposited into
SBWD - should be CFD#3 Connection Fee
1,352.50 DEPOSITTOCFD3-120122
12/20/2022 4504 Champlain Water District - Retail Retail November 2022 Invoice to SBWD 55,121.04 SBWD-392
12/20/2022 4505 Champlain Water District November 2022 Wholesale Invoice to
SBWD
937.25 SBWD-385
12/20/2022 Champlain Water District November 2022 Water Consumption 126,328.31 SBWDWTRCONS-113022
12/20/2022 4506 E.J. Prescott Valve Box Tops 144.91 6112107
12/20/2022 E.J. Prescott Valve Box 233.80 6113245
12/20/2022 E.J. Prescott Silt Bags for break trailer 179.08 6115073
12/20/2022 4507 Masterson & Son Excavation, LLC 1421 Spear Street - Replaced Hydrant and
Valve
5,559.70 5858
12/20/2022 4508 Office Essentials of Vermont Copy Paper 195.96 39128
12/20/2022 4509 South Burlington Sewer Department November 2022 Sewer Billings 261,883.74 SBSEWER-113022
12/20/2022 4510 South Burlington Stormwater Department November 2022 Stormwater Fees 88,724.66 SBSTORM-113022
12/20/2022 4511 Ti-Sales, Inc.Meter Washers 43.94 INV0151160
Total 70 - South Burlington Water
Department
540,704.89
Report Total 540,704.89
70 - South Burlington Water Department
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
Page: 1
CITY COUNCIL 7 NOVEMBER 2022
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 7 November 2022, at
6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; C. McNeill, City
Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; I. Blanchard, Community Development
Manager; B. Sirvis, D. Albrecht, L. Smith, R. Gonda, D. Peters, L. Bailey, G. Nelson, A. Rowe, E.
Quallon, N. Hyman, A. Chalnick, M. Mittag, J. Bellevance, C. Rainville, S. Dopp, M. Abrams, M.
Murray, J. Louisos, C. Freeman, C. Trombly, L. Murphy, A. Guyette, D. Giambatista, H. Bik, B.
Barber, K. Moore, S. Saperstein, M. Simoneau
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
No changes were made to the Agenda.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Mr. Barber, a Trustee of the Community Lutheran Church, spoke of concern with a tent
encampment behind Church property which has been there for 3 weeks. The access to the area
is through Church property. When the Police were notified, they told Church people that it was
OK for the “campers” to have a fire there. Mr. Barber said that if the Church wants to have a
tent on its property, they have to get a permit. He felt this is a city issue as the sanitary
conditions are deplorable, and the “campers” have ripped off the gate to the Church dumpster.
There are also safety concerns.
Ms. Baker said the city has known about this since mid-September and is trying to relocate
these people to safe housing. At this point, they don’t seem to want to leave. Ms. Baker said
she would like to bring a policy to address this to a future meeting.
Mr. Albrecht cited poor conditions at the Farrell Dog Park and also said it needs lighting. He felt
frustrated seeing this park ignored. This is an area where the city wants to put housing which
will result in more pets. He said it feels like this section of the city is ignored.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Mr. Albrecht asked if there is any consideration being given by the City Charter Committee to
having a “ward” system. Ms. Emery said that is being considered.
Ms. Moore spoke to the need to ban gasoline-powered leaf blowers. She noted that 30
minutes of use uses the same amount of gas as driving from Alaska to Texas, which is harmful
to health. Mr. Gonda and Ms. Saperstein agreed and said this was important to deal with. Mr.
Mittag said many communities have banned them, and the difference in price for an electric
leaf blower is only about $20.00.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Mr. Cota added
congratulations to the State Champion SBHS Boys Soccer team.
Ms. Baker: Urged residents to vote in the 8 November election. She noted that people now
voting at City Hall will be voting in the Senior Center.
At a meeting with Let’s Grow Kids, there were a number of ideas for providing
childcare.
The FY24 budget development process is proving very difficult. The COLA is 7.42.
Options will come to the Council on 5 December and the numbers will be bigger than in past
years.
The Public Safety Authority is struggling as to how to start up. This will be on the
next agenda.
Effort is being made to fill staff vacancies.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Approve minutes from 19 September, 27 September (joint meeting with
Planning Commission), 3 October, and 17 October
c. Receive the September financials
d. Approve the ARPS/Housing Trust Fund grant agreement to Summit at O’Brien
Farm and authorize the City Manager to execute
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 3
e. Approve the loan documents related to the Vermont Community Development
Program grant award to Summit at O’Brien Farm and authorize the City
Manager to sign all related documents
f. Approval of Road Impact Fee credit requests for construction at 303 Market
Street and 112 Garden Street
g. Approve application for a USDOT “Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing
Transportation” grant to pilot adaptive technology
h. Authorize City Manager to execute a replacement irrevocable offer of
dedication related to O’Brien Farm Road
Mr. Cota expressed concern with the 4,000 hours of Fire Department overtime for one quarter
when the total for last year was 6,000 hours. He cited the tremendous amount of work done
by the Department to keep the city safe. Mr. Cota also cited the new affordable housing in
connection with the O’Brien family project.
Ms. Emery noted that the Police Department is also understaffed and has had a busy month.
Mr. Cota moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
6. Public Hearing: On an ordinance to regulate fuels for heating and hot water in new
construction:
Mr. Cota recused himself from this discussion due to a potential conflict of interest.
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 3-0.
Mr. McNeill noted this is the second reading of the Ordinance and suggested a motion to waive
the reading of the entire ordinance.
Ms. Riehle moved to open the hearing under title only and to waive the reading of the entire
ordinance. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 3-0.
Mr. McNeill said the ordinance is similar to the one passed by the City of Burlington. He noted
waivers regarding hot water. The ordinance will go into effect in February and will affect all
new buildings whose permits become effective after 15 February 2023. The city would appoint
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 4
a building inspector who would certify that a building is in compliance which would allow the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Public comment was the taken as follows:
Mr. Smith: Thanked the Council and said, “We are on a highway to climate hell.”
Mr. Giambatista: (Director of Public Affairs for Vermont Gas Systems). Vermont Gas serves
7500 residences. They are trying to provide insulation and reduce and displace fossil fuels by
developing alternatives using State-wide guides. They are also piloting ways to install heat
pumps. He noted that energy costs have increased recently, and this Ordinance could drive
costs up even more. He asked the Council to be sensitive to any cost that could be imposed at
the local level.
Mr. Abrams: He as “dreamt” of biogas usage. Dependence on fossil fuels is like an addiction,
but the medical profession learned the problems with total withdrawal. He urged due diligence
and said the immediate opposite poll is not the answer. Just to ban fossil fuels has “an
hysterical tone.” He recommended tabling the issue for further study.
Ms. Dopp: Endorsed the Ordinance and said we are obligated to do as much as possible at
the local level.
Ms. Freeman: GMPs energy mix is 40% nuclear and 40% hydrogen. In 2032, we will no longer
have Seabrook for nuclear energy. She felt that before we put restrictions on new buildings,
there will have to be an energy mix. She has been told we cannot all have heat pumps. She
added that natural gas emits less energy than wood pellets. She spoke with someone in
Switzerland and learned that electricity itself isn’t clean. She asked where the energy mix will
come from if everyone is forced to go electric. That question should be answered before
making a decision.
Mr. Cota: New England will not have enough natural gas to heat this winter. If there is an
extended cold snap, there will be major blackouts. Eleven percent of electricity comes from
diesel fuels. He stressed that there are real consequences to moving away from fossil/diesel
fuels, and diesel fuel is needed to keep the power on this winter, and there are now historic
lows of diesel fuel. He was also confused by the fines and asked how they can be waived.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 5
Mr. Abrams: Cited a letter in The Other Paper regarding heat pumps and suggested that
people read that. He said the Ordinance is “an over reach.”
Following public comment, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Sen. Chittenden
seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. McNeill explained that if a heating source is changed so that it is no longer renewable, that
property would be in violation and subject to a fine. Sen. Chittenden asked if fines can be
waived. Mr. McNeill said “absolutely.” The goal is compliance.
Ms. Emery asked how Seabrook will no longer be providing energy. Mr. Barritt said their
license expires in 2030, and there is a question of what will happen to them. He felt it is a
legitimate question to ask.
Ms. Emery said Ethan Goldman had told her there are some woodchips made specifically for
biomass furnaces. She has been persuaded that having a diversity is a good thing as not
everyone can be sustained with heat pumps. She felt there would be time to “adjust” is it
became an issue. She is willing to go ahead, knowing there are very active members of the
public following this.
Mr. Barritt said developers have told him the use of mini-splits is here to stay, and that’s where
developers want to go. Technology will improve as years go on. This is a chance to codify
changes we need, and he supports the Ordinance.
Sen. Chittenden said he agrees with both Ms. Emery and Mr. Barritt.
Ms. Riehle said she is very comfortable taking this step.
7. Potential action on an ordinance to regulate fuels for heating and hot water in new
construction:
Sen. Chittenden moved to approve an ordinance relating to building and building construction
in regulating of heating and service water heating systems in new buildings as proposed to be
ordained and considered by the City Council at the public hearing and without amendment. Mr.
Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 6
8. First reading of a Land Development Regulations change (#LDR-22-07 & LDR-22-08)
to re-align zoning districts along Shelburne Road to enable auto sales in the vicinity
of the former Hannaford and the Lowe’s sites and prohibit auto sales in the area
between the cemetery and the Lakewood Commons site on the west side of
Shelburne Road. The review was initiated by a request from Tesla. And set a
Public Hearing for 5 December at 8:30 p.m.:
Ms. Louisos said the amount of land in the 2 districts is fairly similar. The amendments would
allow auto sales on the Hannaford site and prohibit auto sales in areas where the city is
promoting housing. Ms. Louisos explained that the Planning Commission wasn’t comfortable
just expanding the amount of land for auto sales, so they re-arranged the boundary lines to
accommodate the reuse of the existing building.
Mr. Conner said the amendments would also allow municipal uses in the C-2 area. The C1 Auto
and C1-15 uses would be similar with the exception of auto sales and added uses in the Auto
zone.
Ms. Emery moved to warn a public hearing on the proposed changes to the Land Development
Regulations LDR-22-07 and LDR-2208 for 5 December at 9 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded.
Sen. Chittenden as whether the Planning Commission has heard from land owners. Mr. Conner
said they heard from some landowners during the Planning Commission public hearing. Sen.
Chittenden asked if there were any objections. Mr. Conner said there were objections to the
fact that existing car dealerships would not be able to expand. Residents of the Holmes Road
area were also concerned with how the changes could affect them.
In the vote that followed, the motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Cota rejoined the Council.
9. Presentation of the East-West Crossing (Bike/Ped bridge over I-89) preferred
alternative and approval of design in advance of a Town Meeting Day ballot item:
Ms. Blanchard said this is a huge project and has had lots of public outreach. She stressed that
this presentation is a concept as there are things the city wants the design team to explore.
Prices are also not stable now, and materials will continue to be looked at to where there can
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 7
be cost savings. The intent is for the bridge to be open 24/7 and to be comfortable and
attractive with greenery and shielding from the wind.
Mr. Guyette reviewed the history of the project from the original study in 2018. He showed
recommended alternative plans. He noted that in addition to general alignment, they are
working through several connections to various properties.
The total budget for the project is $14,550,000 of which $9,800,000 is funded by a USDOT
grant.
Mr. Guyette then reviewed the public process including meetings with abutting property
owners. He stressed that the most important word is “connections.” The elements of the
project most appreciated by the public included the integration of public art, the greenery,
shielding from the weather, panel perforations to allow for views, and separation between
bikes and pedestrians.
Other considering included landscape upkeep, selection of sustainable materials, safety,
security/cameras, solar power lighting, snow removal and “anti-graffiti.”
The final concept includes a curved, sinuous approach, shielding barrier, light color, rest
benches, public art, and adequate lighting.
Mr. Guyette then showed a plan of the bridge layout and concept drawings. He noted that the
architect will select the exact color, and the “goose sculpture” artist is on the team to integrate
bronze-crafter bird sculptures along the pathways and bridge. The project will use “made in
America” products, LED lighting, stormwater treatment, and a low maintenance design.
Next steps include the City Council discussion on TIF financing, the March vote on TIF funding,
the start of construction in 2025, and the grand opening in 2026.
Mr. Cota asked who would plow and salt the bridge. Ms. Blanchard said Public Works would do
that maintenance.
Mr. Cota asked if the ramp toward the Hannaford side of the bridge is part of the project. Ms.
Blanchard said it is still vague where that ramp ends. It is now close to the rear public entrance
to UMall but may move closer to the access road to the Mall. She added that this is part of the
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 8
“big number.” Sen. Chittenden said they city would be missing an opportunity by not working
with UMall on that.
Sen. Chittenden asked who gets “naming rights.” Ms. Blanchard said that goes to the City
Council.
Mr. Conner noted that CCRPC is conducting a study of the regional network so the bridge
connects with other facilities in the region.
Ms. Emery asked the life span of the bridge. Mr. Guyette said about 100 years with proper
maintenance. He noted this is a harsh environment which increases the need for adequate
maintenance and potential resurfacing at times. Ms. Riehle asked the cost of maintenance.
Ms. Blanchard said they are working closely with DPW and others to do a maintenance plan.
Landscaping will be in a specific location and will get a lot of attention. Ms. Riehle cited the
need to protect the bird sculptures.
Mr. Barritt asked if there has been progress with Quarry Hill connections. Ms. Blanchard said
there has been progress, but it will be a long process. Mr. Barritt asked about traffic flow
during construction. Mr. Guyette said there could be short-term closures. Ms. Baker added
that there will be some lane narrowing coming up.
Mr. Cota then moved to approve the resolution for the preferred alternative and public TIF vote
for the March election for the East-West Crossing as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
10. Receive information on a potential Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote for Town
Meeting Day 2023. Consider warning a public hearing for 5 December 2022 at 9:15
p.m. on Article 1 regarding TIF District Financing Debt Authorization to fund the
design and construction of the following projects: Garden Street Phase II, Williston
Road Streetscape, East West Crossing and City Center Park Phase II:
Ms. Blanchard explained that March of 2024 is the last time to incur TIF debt. The city is now in
the 10th year of its TIF district with $14,200,000 in bonding. There has been $30,000,000 added
to the City Center tax base, and the city can expect a $306,965,599 incremental increase in
property values in 2037. There are now 4 projects left that are TIF eligible:
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 9
a. Garden Street Phase 2 - $8,270,000, 100% of which is TIF eligible and also
federal aid eligible). The project includes the alignment of Midas/White St.
b. Williston Road Streetscape - $2,600,000 of which 50% is TIF eligible. The city
also has an $800,000 grand for this project which will include a shared use
path and will address some utility conflicts. The project is federal aid eligible.
c. East-west crossing bridge
d. City Center Park Phase 2 - $1,100,000, 100% of which is TIF eligible. The
project involves the boardwalk connection.
The total amount of debt recommended to be authorized is $15,086,430. Ms. Blanchard noted
that the city will be looking for additional funding for these projects.
Ms. Blanchard then showed a preliminary model of TIF increment (income) through 2037. This
model continues to be updated based on assessment changes and what developers indicate
they will develop. Total project development and development in the “pipeline” is estimated to
be $47,729,044.03. Existing development is at $37,574,585.53. Ms. Blanchard explained both
the Catamount Run” project with UVM and Snyder-Braverman. Ms. Baker noted that all of
those units are market rate and will remain that way. Mr. Conner then explained the status of
Prospect Place. All of those 120 units are also market rate.
Ms. Blanchard then reviewed the expenditures to be funded from the increment. She noted a
big increase in interest, but it is still less than the model that was submitted. She also noted
that if the city ends up with all the properties in the model, there will be a $6,900,000 fund
balance. She recommended that the city talk with potential developers and noted that 95% of
the development existing today began that way. She also recommended continuing to seek
grants.
Mr. Barritt asked if there is a point in the future where the city doesn’t have to maintain the TIF
reserve fund because the income has reached that point. Ms. Baker said they have been
looking at models through the years and need to see how development keeps up with the
models.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 10
Sen. Chittenden said he has a lot of peace knowing that UVM and the Medical Center are
involved. He is willing to support this.
Ms. Blanchard then reviewed the proposed schedule including public hearings on the TIF
financing question on the March ballot.
Mr. Barritt then moved to approve the Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote for Town Meeting
Day 2023 and to warn a public hearing for 5 December 2022 at 9:15 p.m. on articles regarding
TIF District Financing Debt Authorization for the projects indicated. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. Receive the annual presentation from Town Meeting TV including their FY24
budget request:
The Town Meeting TV representative was not present. This item was thus postponed to a
future meeting.
12. First reading of a change to the Impact Fee Ordinance and Public & Private Sanitary
Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Ordinances, and consideration and approval of
an update to the Planning & Zoning Permit Fee Schedule regarding timing of
payments of fees for affordable housing projects and set a Public Hearing on the
ordinance changes for 5 December at 9:00 p.m.:
Mr. Conner explained that all the fees being considered are paid by the development
community. The proposal is that in projects where the City is a party to the development, the
indicated fees would be payable at occupancy instead of at the time the zoning permit is issued.
This could be an 18-month period but could save $30,000-$40,000. Mr. Conner recommended
a public hearing on 5 December. He noted that the change to the Planning & Zoning Permit Fee
Schedule requires no public hearing.
Ms. Riehle asked whether this would affect cash flow for the Planning Department. Mr. Conner
said sewer fees would come in later and would not be available to spend on another city
project until received. Ms. Baker added that this is only for projects in which the city has
invested. Mr. Conner said that is about one project every 3 or 4 years. Mr. Bolduc noted the
city would not collect interest on those fees until they are collected. Mr. Conner stressed that
there are many levers to be sure the fees are collected.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 11
Members voted unanimously to approve the motion as presented in the meeting packet.
13. Review and consider approval of draft 2022 Chittenden County Multi-Jurisdictional
All-Hazards Mitigation Plan base plan and South Burlington jurisdiction annex:
Mr. Conner explained that the City partners with all but one community in Chittenden County.
A firm has been hired to look at various threats which are enumerated in the plan (e.g., COVID,
climate change, etc.). South Burlington has updated its objectives and will be doing projects to
clean up the lake and protect property.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the enclosed Resolution relating to the draft 2022 Chittenden
County Multi-Jurisdictional All-Hazards Mitigation Plan as presented. Mr. Cota seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Conner thanked the Police and Fire Departments for all their work on this plan. Ms. Riehle
noted that the Air Guard was also involved.
14. Discuss Planning Commission’s recent vote to maintain the current number of
Planning Commissioners and the Charter Committee’s discussion to accept their
recommendation and not move this forward. Consider if the Council wants to give
additional guidance:
Ms. Baker reviewed the history. She said the question is whether the Council will accept the
recommendation.
Mr. Cota said he wouldn’t oppose that decision, but he noted there is a tremendous amount of
work for both the Planning Commission and DRB and suggested a possible “bench” member
who could move in when someone is ill or recused.
Mr. Conner said attendance at meetings is pretty good especially with the added use of remote
participation. He noted that Statutes authorize “alternates,” and this could be explored. He
recalled that this was used by the DRB a few years ago. Ms. Riehle said an alternate could be
former board member who is familiar with the process.
Members agreed not to pursue a change to the current number of Planning Commission
members.
CITY COUNCIL
7 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 12
15. Approval of lease for 19 Gregory Drive:
Mr. McNeil said the lease is for CSWD for 5 years at $15 per square foot with a 2.5% rate
increase each year. The lease can be renewed for an additional 5 years. CSWD will do the fit-
up, so the first 3 months will be rent free.
Ms. Baker noted the City is pleased to have a tenant with whom there is already a relationship.
Sen. Chittenden moved to approve the Lease Agreement negotiated between the City and
CSWD as presented, authorize the city’s administration to negotiate and settle the Lease
Agreement’s final details such as dates fit-up will begin and rent an occupancy will commence,
and authorize the City Manager to execute the Lease Agreement on behalf of the City. Mr.
Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
16. Other Business:
Ms. Emery asked that the Council take up the gas-powered leaf blowers on a future agenda.
Members agreed to do this after “budget season” as the leaf-blowing season is now over. Mr.
Barritt said he would like to hear Burlington’s experience with this issue.
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05
p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 21 NOVEMBER 2022
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 21 November 2022, at
6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; D. Kinville, City Clerk;
C. McNeil, City Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Machar, Finance
Department; Chief S. Locke, Fire Department; Chief S. Burke, Police Department; V. Nichols,
Superintendent of Schools; C. Shaw, V. Bolduc, N. Hyman, M. Ostby, C. Trombly, L. Bailey, R.
Greco, G. Silverstein, P. Stabler, A. Lazarz, S. Dooley, T. Jarvis, J. Slason, E. Krasnow, G. Nelson,
B. Sirvis, E. Goldman, A. Chalnick, D. Albrecht
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Ms. Baker asked to add to the Warrants #A, a payment to the School District.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended.
Mr. A. Bolduc: Noted the property insurance payment. The city went to bid on this and the
low bid was $750,000 which represents a reduction from last year’s $1,000,000 premium.
Ms. Baker: Reported on the upcoming meetings:
30 November - Special City Council regarding ARPA fund recommendations
5 December – Proposed budget presentation and 3 public hearings
2 December – “Spark the Park,” 5:30-7:30 p.m.
9 December – Senior Meal, 5:30
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
17-18 December – “Illuminate Vermont” festival
20 December – Senior Light Show, 5:30 p.m.
` 19 December – Judging of holiday lights
23 January – Steering Committee budget presentations
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. October Financials
c. Receive the General Liability, Property and Workers’ Compensation Insurance
Renewal Award to Hickok & Boardman
d. Approve the submittal of a Municipal Planning Grant application to develop an
equity framework for planning projects
e. Appoint Marty Gillies as an action Zoning Administrative Officer and Acting
Code Officer
Mr. Conner explained Mr. Gillies’ role and the reorganization of the Planning Department. Ms.
Baker added that Marla Keene has been promoted to oversee planners and the hiring of
another review planner.
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
6. Consider the appointment of Allison Lazarz to be South Burlington’s Alternate to
the Chittenden Solid Waste Board of Commissioners:
Members interviewed Ms. Lazarz.
Following the interview, Ms. Emery moved to appoint Allison Lazarz as Alternate to the
Chittenden Solid Waste Board of Commissioners. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
7. Public Hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations on
expanding the Transferable Development Rights (LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06):
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Mr. Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Conner reviewed the history. The Planning Commission reviewed the amendments and
had no further comments.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 3
Public comment was then received as follows:
Mr. Albrecht: The process did not seem current with today’s standards for outreach. He was
dismayed that such a dramatic increase in density is being considered. Current transit service is
inadequate, and the “Transit Overlay District” exists in name only. The District is based on the
old idea that all jobs are in downtown Burlington when there is a large, new employment base
in the eastern part of South Burlington. He felt the scope of the Transit Overlay District needs
to be increased. Mr. Albrecht also said that any increase in the Grand List needs to have those
additional funds earmarked for those units that have transit. It would also be nice to see some
community assets, such as a recreation center, in the Shelburne Road Corridor and
improvements and upkeep made to the Farrell Dog Park.
Mr. Trombly: The maximum density allows flexibility to allow for more affordable housing, but
TDR purchase does add cost to units.
Ms. Bailey: Supported Mr. Albrecht’s points. She liked the higher density, but felt it was
questionable to require people to buy TDRs to get that density. She noted that once TDRs are
sold, it is “forever.” She felt it would make more sense to have it be for something like 30
years, then have it reviewed because we cannot predict what will be important in the future.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Ms. Emery noted the Shelburne Rd. bus schedule is every 20 minutes which she felt was
reasonable. But #11 is every 40 minutes. She felt GMT would increase service if the need
arose. She also felt the policy was appropriate because the city will be facing an inflow of
people needing housing.
Mr. Barritt noted the State Supreme Court upheld the city’s TDR policy. He hoped these
amendments would help market TDRs.
Mr. Cota said TDRs are a great tool to conserve land. He also felt density is a good thing, but
there is also a need for amenities.
Ms. Riehle hoped the points made by Mr. Albrecht will be addressed.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 4
Mr. Mittag acknowledged that the TDR Ordinance is not perfect, and there are ways to improve
it.
8. Potential action on amendments to the Land Development Regulations on
expanding the Transfer of Development Rights (LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06):
Ms. Emery moved to approve LDR amendments LDR-22-05 and LDR-22-06 as presented. Mr.
Cota seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
9. First Reading of an Ordinance to implement Education Impact Fees and set a Public
Hearing:
Ms. Baker reviewed the history and said that thoughts from recent discussions have been
integrated into an Ordinance.
Supt. Nichols said the School District needs to ensure that it can continue to provide quality
schools. Because of increased numbers, two elementary schools are now over capacity. The
District is asking to implement impact fees to pay zero emission modular units (ZEMs) which
have not been budgeted. The impact fees would be ended once the ZEMs are paid for. In the
future, similar issues will need to be addressed at the Middle and High Schools where today’s
elementary school students will be heading.
Supt. Nichols said they would like to move forward as soon as possible and would hope for a 21
December public hearing so the impact fees could be imposed by the start of the next fiscal
year. She also noted that there would be an exemption from these fees for affordable housing
units.
Mr. Slason said the fees have been updated to account for a change in the number of bedrooms
(3 and 4 bedroom units have been added). Recent census data was also reviewed, and
households in the 1 and 2 bedroom category have more students than originally thought.
Inflation has also resulted in a modest increase in the costs.
Mr. Slason said the School District will be pursuing a bond to make the purchase of the ZEMs
now. The impact fee will cover only the ZEMs in the financing of the bond cost. Mr. Slason
noted that the impact fees will not cover the full cost of the ZEMs.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 5
Mr. Cota asked whether the ZEMs are under contract and whether the final cost is known.
Supt. Nichols said they have final quotes which are lower than the last presentation. She also
said the goal is to avoid the “double dip” that was noted last time. Mr. Cota asked about
permanent affordable housing. Mr. Slason said that for legal reasons all housing would be
charged, but once an impact fee is determined, the city can waive the fee for affordable
housing. Mr. McNeil said they will have to determine how to incorporate that into the draft.
Mr. Slason noted that an estimate has been done so those credits would be offset.
Mr. Barritt said he would not support the 4% tax on top. He said there should be language
regarding the type of interest rate that would be accrued so it doesn’t cost more than
expected. He asked when the impact fee would be payable. Mr. Conner said they have to work
out the math regarding the interest rate. The actual cost will be known before anything is
charged.
Mr. Barritt said he didn’t understand the credit table. Mr. Slason said the annual amount of
property tax for the ZEM bond is $250,000. That amount is a fraction of the total of the total
houses. So it can be known what percentage that is of the $250,000. That is what is credited.
That becomes a credit on the impact fee and assured there is no “double dipping.”
Mr. McNeil said Section F has been added to the city’s Impact Fee Ordinance for this school
impact fee on a per bedroom basis for new construction and the addition of bedrooms to
existing housing. Mr. Conner said the effective date of the impact fee is the date of the zoning
permit application.
Mr. McNeil said an affordable housing agreement can be added.
Ms. Riehle also questioned the 4% administrative fee. Ms. Baker said it is a difference of about
$100 or so per impact fee. Mr. Cota suggested making it part of the fee. Ms. Baker said that
will require redoing the tables. She cited issues of adding tasks to staff without a means of
paying for what they cost the city. Mr. Conner noted the city doesn’t currently charge an
administrative fee to impact fees but could do that. State law is silent on that subject.
Ms. Emery cited the need to be sure staff has the resources to do this work. Mr. Riehle said
they can agree it’s a property tax expenditure.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 6
The question was raised about calculating the fee for 3 and 4 bedroom units. Some members
felt the fee should just be the cost of one bedroom. Ms. Rihele said she would like more
information on this. Ms. Emery was OK as it is presented.
Mr. Cota asked what other communities have impact fees. Mr. Slason said there aren’t many
with school impact fees. Burlington still has them. Ms. Riehle said that is probably because
school enrollments are going down elsewhere in the state.
Ms. Emery asked whether the table can be adjusted in time for Town Meeting vote. Ms. Baker
said the Council should see the numbers before there is a bond vote. A public hearing would
have to be held by mid-January, so there is time. Supt. Nichols said timing is critical as there
needs to be early conversation with the public, and they want the ZEMs in place before the
start of the next school year.
Members agreed on a public hearing in January when the new language would be crafted. Ms.
Baker said she would bring the language to the Council before that hearing.
Mr. Barritt suggested a flat administrative fee instead of a percentage. Mr. Conner said staff
will bring some options to the Council.
10. Receive a proposed Encampment Ordinance and provide direction to staff:
Mr. McNeil said there already is an Ordinance but there is no way to carry it out. Issues include
how to notify people, what to do about their property, etc. The proposed policy is largely
based on a Portland, Maine policy tailored to South Burlington. The people in Portland say it is
working for them. It applies to city-owned land and requires notification to campers. It also
provides areas where people can go. It also allows the keeping of personal property for one
week before disposing of it.
Ms. Riehle asked about funding for this. Chief Burke said it is how they use the community
outreach process with Howard.
Mr. Cota asked the Chief if this policy is what he needs. Chief Burke said it will help
enormously.
Mr. Barritt felt it was very sensitive and the best that could be done.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 7
Ms. Dooley asked the difference between a “policy” and an “ordinance.” She also said that
Montpelier’s ordinance has a nice “preamble” and that 7 days was too short a time for people
to get their personal property back.
Mr. McNeil noted that Section 3 does not criminalize people engaging in these activities. He
added that Portland, Maine uses 7 days. It is a question of having room to store these items.
Mr. Trombly said it was good to have a standard policy on how to handle these situations. He
suggested this might be an opportunity to discuss affordable housing.
Other speakers felt that 30 days for storage was preferable if there is room. Mr. V. Bolduc
noted that people’s belongings helps them keep a sense of personal history, which is a vital
connection.
Mr. Nelson said his concern is why people are choosing not to be in a shelter. He said if a
campsite is removed and people choose not to go to a shelter, they will camp somewhere else.
He did not support removing people unless they posed a danger to people or to the
environment.
Ms. Riehle asked how many campsites are there in the city. Chief Burke said usually 8-12,
mostly on private land. Mr. McNeil said that falls to the property owner.
Chief Burke stressed that they use community outreach first.
11. Discuss and possibly adopt a Policy on Delinquent Ambulance Billing Accounts:
Chief Locke said that as of January, 2021, a new company does the ambulance billing, and the
city gets a very careful accounting. After the third notice, the city has no means of collection,
and these delinquencies stay on the books. They are looking for a way to write off what is not
collectable every month and need a formal policy to do that.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Policy on Delinquent Ambulance Billing Accounts. Mr. Cota
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
12. Discuss and possibly approve a Resolution amending the Ambulance Billing Rates:
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 8
Chief Locke said this was last done in 2019 and would now bring the city up to the county
average. It applies to 16% of patients with private insurance and represents $60,000 additional
yearly revenue.
Mr. Cota moved to approve the Resolution amending the ambulance billing rates as presented.
Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
13. Receive the Annual Report from the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission:
Mr. Baker reviewed the report including the history, representatives and the projects done with
South Burlington in FY22.
Ms. Riehle asked to what extent CCRPC works with GMT. Mr. Baker said it is a “chicken-egg”
issue. In CCRPC, there is more emphasis on public transit, but it is not a stable thing because
GMT is not in a stable financial situation. GMT is constrained by how the State has set up their
functioning. Mr. Baker said it is not realistic to ask for more buses without the ridership being
there. He added that more density along bus lines can help.
Mr. Cota said this is a challenging time. Passengers want to know they won’t be waiting in the
cold.
Mr. Baker said CCRPC worked with GMT and VTrans regarding funding options last year. The
State has helped in the past few years which is why there could be free fares. He added that he
would not be surprised to see free fares continue in Chittenden County and not in the rest of
the state. It costs $500,000 in the rest of the state and $2,000,000 in Chittenden County.
Ms. Emery suggested reaching out to places of employment. Mr. Baker said they do but there
is still more work to do.
Mr. Cota asked whether the building of 5,000 homes will be reached by 2025 in the Building
Homes Together effort. Mr. Baker said he wasn’t sure even if they do that it will be enough.
There hasn’t been enough housing built in the state for decades. He also noted the “climate
refugee” influx is beginning to be felt. People sell homes in New York and pay cash for Vermont
homes. This has given rise to a “gentrification” concern.
Ms. Baker thanked CCRPC for all they do for the city’s managers and Public Works people.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 9
14. Receive a proposal from the Climate Action Plan Task Force to put a charter
change on the Town Meeting Day ballot to regulate thermal energy systems I
existing residential and commercial buildings:
Mr. Goldman said the Task Force is now asking to transition existing building stock away from
fossil fuels. The plan requires 360 housing units a year to be electrified. Mr. Goldman said this
is a small first step and allows a meaningful conversation as to what a policy should look like.
There are different routes a Charter change can go through. The Task Force recommends a
hearing and then putting the issue on the March ballot. If passed, it would then go to the State
Legislature and then for approval by the Governor. The City Council could then decide how to
exercise that power.
Ms. Baker said there is very short timing to get onto the March ballot. She also noted that the
State could give all municipalities this authority in their next session. Then it could go to ballot
in2024. Ms. Baker stressed that municipals have very little local control in Vermont. Mr.
Goldman said it could be a nightmare if each town had different language.
Ms. Emery said she learned about this after the previous Ordinance. She also said there would
have to be a decision as to who can pay for this. She favored going ahead with it and hoping it
would incentivize the Legislature.
Mr. Barritt said he was trying to understand the “end game.” What he heard was a “carbon
tax.” He suggested that when there is a renovation, that the furnace be replaced. Mr. Chalnick
noted that Burlington is thinking about an “end of life” rule. Mr. Barritt said this is doing it
backwards. He wanted to see the end product before doing this. He added that there was a
definitive plan for new construction, and he wanted a definite plan for this in advance so
people could see very clearly what is coming.
Mr. Chalnick said there could be many variables in a few years with different technology. Mr.
Goldman added that the regulations could evolve and change as technology changes.
Mr. Cota noted that the City of Burlington owns the power plant, and it has been said that there
may not be enough electricity for New England without blackouts. He was concerned with
putting a tax on fossil fuels under these conditions. Mr. Chalnick acknowledged that new
sources of electricity have to be found. Mr. Goldman said that Green Mountain Power has said
they have no concerns.
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 10
Ms. Emery said they have to be true to the goals that were set and have to start this discussion.
Mr. Silverstein said the cost of switching from natural gas to electric heat pumps is extensive.
Heat pump companies recommend a backup system when it gets very cold. He said people
can’t survive in Vermont without a system that uses fossil fuels. He also said that what is done
in South Burlington is inconsequential in the world picture, and what is proposed is “insulting
and degrading.”
Mr. Chalnick said technology is improving all the time. He agreed that requiring someone to
pull out something that is working doesn’t make sense.
Mr. Taylor said the last City Charter Committee meeting was the first time members heard
about this. The Committee would be happy to take this into their current work effort, but it
would not be ready for a Town Meeting vote. In 2023. He added that the Committee can get a
feel from the community and report back as they have done with other issues the Council
assigned to them. He felt this is now being “rushed.”
Ms. Riehle said she appreciates the committee process, but this is an energy policy, and she felt
it was a different kind of Charter change. She didn’t feel it should go to the City Charter
Committee.
Mr. Barritt said he would agree if the tax and other things were removed. He also felt what is
being proposed is too general.
Ms. Greco agreed that what is done in South Burlington is small, but felt its “all of us in this
together,” and real change starts at the bottom. She felt that giving it to the Charter
Committee would be business as usual.
Ms. Riehle asked what the next steps would look like. Ms. Baker said there is a very short
window. The Council could look at ballot language at the special meeting on 30 November and
then warn a public hearing. Two public hearings would be needed. Mr. McNeil suggested one
public hearing in early January and one in late January.
Ms. Riehle asked staff to come with language on 30 November so a public hearing can be set.
15. Receive the annual presentation from Town Meeting TV including their FY24
budget:
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 11
Ms. O’Rourke said they are very proud of the work they have done to shore up their archives
which are now available to the public. They are doing legislative advocacy because cable
revenue is declining, and they lost a lot of money from Comcast in one year. They are asking
for $1,000,000 for FY24 from the State Legislature to tide them over until funding issues are
solved.
Ms. O’Rourke noted that South Burlington could add Planning Commission meetings to the
archives at a cost of $95 an hour.
Ms. Riehle noted that the proposed cost to South Burlington for FY24 in 5% over FY23.
Mr. Barritt asked if there could be a merger with Vermont Public. Ms. O’Rourke said they are
collaborating and are making sure hybrid systems are available to the public.
16. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on
Climate Change:
Mr. Cota noted that $35,000,000 has gone to be sure that people have heat this year. He also
noted that all auto dealers in Vermont will be required by 2035 to have all electric vehicles.
Trucks will have different standard. The challenge is that it isn’t known if local dealers can get
those cars, and it might require them to have more impervious surfaces and other changes in
the next few years.
17. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
18. Consider entering executive session for the purposes of discussing:
a. Contract negotiations
b. Pending or probable litigation and confidential attorney-client communications
made for the purpose of providing professional legal services to the Council
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public
knowledge of the Council’s discussion of contract negotiations, pending or probable litigation to
which the City is or may be a party, and confidential attorney-Client communications made for
the purpose of providing professional legal services to this body would clearly place the City at
a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously
CITY COUNCIL
21 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 12
Mr. Barritt then moved that the Council enter into executive session for the purpose of
discussing contract negotiations, pending or probable litigation to which the City is or may be a
party, and confidential attorney-client communications, inviting into the session Ms. Baker, Mr.
Bolduc, Chief Locke, Chief Burke, and Mr. McNeil. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
The Council entered executive session at 10:32.
Following the executive session, as there was no further business to come before the Council
Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL 30 NOVEMBER 2022
The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Wednesday, 30 November 2022,
at 6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote
participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; A. Bolduc, Deputy City Manager; C. McNeil, City
Attorney; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; M. Machar, Finance Officer; I. Blanchard,
Community Development Director; J. Murray, Librarian; J. Bellevance, J. Klllacky, J Simson, J.
Morrill, P. Engels, L. Bailey, D. Peters, T. Perrin, J. Burton, S. Dopp, E. Quillen, S. Dooley, A.
Holland, G. Silverstein, S. Babbitt, D. Leban, E. Goldman, M. More, K. Buckley, N. Simson, V.
Bolduc, M. Bailey, M. Simoneau, O. Pierson, B. Britt, L. Kupferman, B. Milizia, P. Gagne, C.
Trombly, P. Tompkins, T. Stratman, J. S. Chalot, T. Brady
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Ms. Baker asked to add 2 items to the agenda: the Planning Commission’s recommendation for
the use of ARPA funds (as item 9J) and a Resolution honoring Andrew Bolduc, outgoing Deputy
City Manager
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
No issues were raised.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had and/or will attend.
Ms. Baker: As of midnight, the winter parking ban will be in effect from Midnight to 8 a.m.
until 1 April 2023
At the regular City Council meeting on 5 December, the Council will receive
budget presentations. There will also be several public hearings.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Illuminate Vermont will be held on 16 and 17 December, 4-8 p.m. on Market
Street and in City Hall.
5. Resolution recognizing the service of Deputy City Manager Andrew Bolduc:
Ms. Riehle read the Resolution.
Mr. Barritt noted that Mr. Bolduc filled very big shoes when he became Deputy City Manager.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the Resolution as read. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Bolduc said it has been an honor to serve the city.
6. Consider placing a proposed change to the City’s Charter on the Town Meeting Day
2023 ballot enabling the regulation of thermal energy systems in existing
residential and commercial buildings and setting two Public Hearings for 3 January
2023 at 8:30 p.m. and 17 January 2023 at 8:30 p.m.:
Mr. Conner said the language is the same as what the Council previously saw with the
exception of where in the City Charter it would be placed. Mr. McNeil said the Council would
have to approve the language at this meeting for it to be placed on the March ballot.
Sen. Chittenden said that though he agrees with the regulation he is not in favor of doing it now
for a number of reasons including the reliability of income sensitivity and the fairness of the
carbon tax (which he felt the State could do better), the comparison to the City of Burlington
since South Burlington does not have an electric utility or a power plant, and the process of
bypassing the City Charter Committee as they have asked for time to see it. Sen. Chittenden
said the State is likely to do this at this session.
Ms. Emery felt the city could possibly do it more quickly than the State. She also did not
understand the comparison to the City of Burlington. Regarding the City Charter Committee,
she said this is an issue regarding governance, and it is the Council’s job to decide whether to
put it before the public. She did not see any reason not to put it on the ballot.
Sen. Chittenden said the City of South Burlington does not have the infrastructure to do this
right.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 3
Mr. Barritt said he did not support passing this tonight. He would support the thermal
regulation without the tax as he was concerned with equity and with seeing “an end plan.” He
did not want the city to have to administer this. He felt that should fall on the State as they
regulate utilities. He added that when he sees a plan as to how this will work, he will look at it.
He also said the city can make a regulation without a Charter change.
Ms. Riehle said this will require a lot of public education, and this could be a start of that.
Mr. Cota said he also would not vote in favor.
Mr. Silverstein said he was not clear that the public has the wealth of knowledge to make a
decision on this. People conclude that Green Mountain Power (GMP) is 68% carbon free, and
that is not true. They are part of larger grids. All the electricity in the City Hall building is from
larger grids. 40-45% of ISO New England is fossil fuel, and if the city required all electric, 40-
45% would be coming from fossil fuel (natural gas). GMP does not deny this. They only say
they “follow state policy.” He was concerned that people don’t understand this. They also do
not understand the cost. Mr. Silverstein said fossil fuels are not going away any time soon, and
natural gas is the one who can most quickly ramp up the grid.
Mr. Goldman said he did not dispute the grid information but felt it was irrelevant as emissions
are still lower that using natural gas. He felt the city needs to do more conversion to electricity
than it is doing, and there is need of an enforcement method. He did agree that there are
equity issues to sort out.
Mr. Chalnick said he would love to see a clean heat standard at this Legislative session. He felt
this was something the city could attack as a town that would be a “guard rail” if the Legislature
doesn’t act.
Mr. Engels noted there was no vote at the City Charter Committee following Mr. McNeil’s
acknowledgement that this would be happening.
Mr. Mittag reminded the Council that the target is to switch 360 homes a year from fossil fuel.
He felt the Charter change is a way to go in that direction.
Ms. Yankowski said electricity is wonderful until it doesn’t work. She cited massive outages
during the ice storm when people did not have power for 3 days. She said the city needs to
wait and learn more.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 4
Ms. Emery then moved to place a Charter change on the Town Meeting Day 2023 ballot
enabling the regulation of thermal energy systems in existing residential and commercial
buildings and to set two public hearings for 3 January 2023 at 8:30 p.m. and 17 January 2023 at
8:30 p.m. Ms. Riehle seconded. The vote on the motion was 2-3 with Messrs. Barritt,
Chittenden and Cota voting against. The motion was deemed to have failed.
7. Receive an update from the Vermont League of Cities and Towns on services
provided and American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) assistance:
Ms. Baker explained the city’s relationship with VLCT.
Mr. Brady explained the nature of VLCT and enumerated the 5 services it provides to Vermont
towns:
a. Supports municipalities by bringing resources and people together
b. Provides knowledge through attorneys, staff, model policies, etc. They have
now hired a government finance person to provide free high-level assistance
and training.
c. Represents communities with a lobbyist in Montpelier who lost year logged
2500 hours. Affordable housing was the #1 issue.
d. Provides risk pools for insurance.
e. Provides the opportunity for connections between municipalities including
an annual “Town Fair.”
Mr. Brady noted the most recent offering has been an ARPA assistance and coordination
program. They were charged by the Legislature to inform municipalities how ARPA dollars can
be spent.
Ms. Buckley said there were 277 recipients in Vermont who signed up for ARPA funding. She
has been tasked to work with communities as to how to use those funds. The State received
$1,250,000,000. $200,000,000 of that was earmarked for municipalities.
Mr. Brady said the spirit of ARPA is to help communities recover from COVID and to be more
resilient going forward. He noted that South Burlington received the second largest allocation
in the State. He added that using some of those funds to promote affordable housing was a
great use.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 5
Ms. Buckley said the entire award can be claimed as “lost revenue.” The funds can be spent on
the provision of government services. She felt decisions should be “big and bold.” She also
noted that ARPA money can also be used as a match for other State and Federal grant
programs, which is very rare.
Mr. Bolduc asked what are the best uses VLCT has seen for these funds. Ms. Buckley said the
money for affordable housing which the City of Barre also did. There have been water and
wastewater projects in smaller towns as well as Town Hall renovation projects.
Ms. Riehle asked about child care. Ms. Buckley said Alburg is using the money for that. She
acknowledged this is a major concern state-wide.
Mr. Cota asked if there is a way to facilitate towns working together on joint projects. Ms.
Buckley said she has heard those conversations and acknowledged that the Regional Planning
Commission is the best organization to facilitate that. She stressed that it is critical to channel
resources, and it is more financially sustainable if assets can be grouped.
Ms. Riehle said South Burlington is looking to do things that have a lasting impact, not just to
buy something.
8. Receive an overview of the City’s current allocation of American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funds:
Mr. Bolduc said the city has already allocated $2,500,000 for uses that include refunding 3
positions that were frozen during COVID, a grant match with Illuminate Vermont, COVID-
deferred Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects, and affordable housing. CIP projects in the
next budget have been discussed including DPW garage bay expansion, a generator at Fire
Station #2, and a second ambulance. This would leave $1,000,000 to allocate.
Mr. Cota asked where the money actually is located. Mr. Bolduc said it is in a bank account and
is generating interest.
Ms. Riehle said it was sobering when she looked at what all the committees asked for. Ms.
Baker thanked committee members who have spent time making suggestions. She said all
requests will be considered. No decisions will be made at this meeting.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 6
9. Receive presentations from City Committees on how best to use ARPA funds for
transformational projects to support community resiliency and provide direction
to staff:
Planning Commission:
The Planning Commission made the following suggestions:
a. Implementation of the Climate Action Plan
b. Acquiring additional open space/conservation areas
c. Support for child care
Recreation and Parks:
Mr. Pierson noted that the condition of facilities is an issue with crumbling infrastructure and
long-deferred maintenance.
The top 3 public responses related to recreation (including a pool) were:
a. A parks master plan ($150,000)
b. Deferred maintenance/upgrades
c. Red Rocks Park bathhouse facility ($1,500,000 cost)
Mr. Pierson said that pieces of these things could be done and still have a lasting impact and
help people connect.
Mr. Rees noted that the bathhouse was identified as a priority. It didn’t make the list for open
space funding because of the heavy cost.
Ms. Rees also noted the possibility of doing a parks master plan in conjunction with the
Bike/Ped Committee.
Pubic Art Committee:
Members suggested using fund to develop a South Burlington Cultural Plan to get a better
understanding of what the city has in the way of artists. Mr. Killacky noted an 18-1 payback
from the arts.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 7
Sen. Chittenden said he always laments that the city has nothing for 4th of July or New Year’s
Eve. He felt those were opportunities for local artists to shine.
Natural Resources and Conservation Committee:
Members opted for a plan to address the city’s tree canopy, especially in light of the emerald
ash bore issue. They also recommended open space planning and the hiring of a consultant to
help with that.
Mr. Kupferman noted these are modest requests.
Mr. Bolduc said the open space planning might be a questionable use of these funds.
Library Board of Trustees:
Their #1 request is a Book Van to make the Library more accessible to people who cannot visit
the new Library. It would be shared with Parks/Recreation for recreational activities. The van
could service city child cares and also older adults.
Sen. Chittenden noted that Essex does this.
Energy Committee:
Mr. Goldman outlined a number of small things recommended by the committee:
a. Education of the public regarding heat pumps
b. Public education regarding electric lawn mowers
c. Electric vehicle infrastructure
d. Mass transit (bus stop)
e. Micro transit services pilot
f. Implementation of the Climate Action Plan
Ms. Baker noted that staff time would be needed for some these things. Tax capacity would
also have to increase to do some of these things over time.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 8
Economic Development Committee:
Mr. Burton said investment in child care is key to retaining employees and businesses. The
committee encouraged talking with provided regarding issues and finding ways to help them
expand.
The committee also recommended a revolving loan fund that could help businesses to expand,
possibly with a matching fund requirement.
Their final recommendation was to help address the challenges with new stormwater
guidelines.
Ms. Riehle asked about the possibility of childcares located within a business. Mr. Burton said
this is not popular because of the liability issues.
Sen. Chittenden noted that he will be introducing a bill in the State Senate for a stipend related
to child care.
Committee for Common Areas for Dogs:
Ms. Milizia said this is an important concern for 40% of the city’s residents. She noted that the
new dog park is now drawing use from people from other towns. She cited the need for repairs
at the Farrell St. dog park, particularly fencing, resurfacing and grading.
Ms. Milizia noted that when City Center builds out, there could be hundreds of dogs living
there, and sanitation will have to be addressed. She noted there is only one reference to dogs
in the Comprehensive Plan and that relates to licensing. She also suggested working with the
Planning Department as dogs are not being considered in planning.
The Committee recommends hiring a consultant to look for 3 more potential dog park sites in
the city.
Bike/Ped Committee:
The committee recommends a 10-foot shared use path between Kennedy Drive and Hinesburg
Road. This would involve the O’Brien development and neighborhoods on Hinesburg Rd. They
also suggested a green path to connect children from the Prouty Parkway area to the schools.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 9
Ms. Gagne noted that having ARPA funds available can help them access grant monies.
Sen. Chittenden asked why they are asking for a 10-foot path instead of the usual 5-foot. Ms.
Gagne said there is the standard, and it is also a high stress area.
Affordable Housing Committee:
Mr. Trombly said that a lot of existing information is out of date, and they are looking to refresh
demographic data for the city. They also propose an RFP to support a child care grant and small
grants to kick-start accessory units as short-term rentals.
Sen. Chittenden asked how they would guard against using the money to start airbnbs. Mr.
Trombly said Montpelier has had some success with this, and the committee would use that
model.
Ms. Freeman asked where the allocated $1,000,000 for child care is going. She felt the decision
should be for the majority of the community and did not favor giving it to Let’s Grow Kids as she
felt they have enough money. Ms. Riehle said this was a major issue for the public. There has
been no decision as to how it will be addressed.
Ms. Dooley noted that she volunteers at a child care to read to the children. She expressed her
willingness to serve on a committee to address this issue. She also noted that it came out first
as a concern in the community survey.
Ms. Riehle stressed that a key piece in all of this is the capacity of the city to manage what is
decided upon as an investment for the city.
Sen. Chittenden suggested the possibility of a matrix that Council members could score. He
noted there could be lot of overlap to get the biggest advantage. Ms. Baker said staff could
provide a matrix by the end of December.
Ms. Riehle asked Council members to email her their top choices.
Ms. Baker noted she had been in contact with Let’s Grow Kids regarding shoring up existing
providers and capacity building. Ms. Emery said she would want to look at the quality of child
care.
CITY COUNCIL
30 NOVEMBER 2022
PAGE 10
10. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
As there was no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned by
common consent at 9:53 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
CITY COUNCIL 5 DECEMBER 2022
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 5 December 2022, at
6:30 p.m., in the Auditorium, 180 Market Street, and by Go to Meeting remote participation.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, Sen. T. Chittenden, M. Cota
ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; P. Conner, C. McNeil, City Attorney; Director of Planning
& Zoning; Chief S. Locke, Fire Department; Chief S. Burke, Police Department; J. Murray,
Librarian, I. Blanchard, Director of Community Development; M. Lyons, City Assessor; H. Rees,
Recreation Director; M. Machar, Finance Officer; B. Milizia, R. Fletcher, H. Gagne, P. MacLaren,
K. Auerbacher, E. Ranz-Schlifer, J. Stinnett, M. Maintner, D. Seff, P. Bartelloni, Jr., K. Warren, M.
Mittag, E. Breiland, L. Bailey, D. Peters, S. O’Brien, J. Louisos, J. Bellevance, Beth Z., G.
Silverstein, R. Hooper, B. Britt, C. DavidD. Leban, C. Johnson, F. McDonald, J. Moscatelli, T. P.
More, IV, D. Deslauriers, S. Pennington, M. Scanlon
1. Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency and review of technology
option:
Ms. Baker provided instructions on emergency exit from the building and reviewed technology
options.
2. Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Members agreed to add an executive session for appointments to boards and committees.
3. Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda:
Mr. Deslauriers spoke to two articles he had read in The Other Papers that had aroused his
concern. He felt the location of the bike/ped bridge was “very odd” as he didn’t see a lot of
people deviating from their normal route to get to it. He was also concerned with safety,
specifically with ice falling from the bridge onto vehicles on the Interstate for which the city
would be liable. He urged a careful reading of design documents, particularly with regard to
weight and with the ability of the bridge to withstand vibration from the Interstate.
Mr. Deslauriers other concern was the regulation of fossil fuel. He felt the information he read
was filled with a lot of opinions, not with qualified data, and said scientific studies are needed.
He also did not want the expense of a retrofit of his home at the end of his life and said the
Council should take into consideration the aging population. His other concern was with
qualified contractors as some homes would need to be torn apart to get some old equipment
out.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 2
Mr. Deslauriers also suggested a coffee hour prior to Council meetings in order to get more
people to attend meetings.
4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended.
Ms. Baker: Committees are beginning to work on the Comprehensive Plan.
As of 30 November, there have been zoning permits issued for 421 new homes
this year, 378 of which are in multi-family buildings.
The Stormwater team is almost complete. They have been working on issues at
the Farrell Dog Park.
The Fire Department has had a rash of odd fire events. They also provided aid to
the City of Winooski for a major fire incident.
Martha Machar has been designated as the new Finance Officer and City
Treasurer.
“Illuminate Vermont” will take place on 16-17 December, from 4-8 p.m.
Volunteers are needed to help with this event and can sign up on-line.
The Senior Light Tour will take place on 20 December.
5. Consent Agenda:
a. Approve and Sign Disbursements
b. Appoint Martha Machar to serve as City Treasurer effective immediately
c. Approve the Stormwater System Maintenance Agreement with Hillside at
O’Brien Farm Eastview
Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion
passed 4-0.
6. Interview applicants for the Planning Commission and consider making an
appointment:
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 3
The Council interviewed the following applicants:
a. Charles Johnson
b. Francis McDonald
c. John Moscotelli
d. Cory Michael Davis
e. Thomas Paul More, IV
f. Donna Leban
7. FY 24 Budget: Receive the FY24 Proposed Budget and set a Public Hearing on the
FY24 Budget and Capital Improvement Plan for 17 January 2023 at 7:00 p.m.:
Ms. Baker noted that whole management team was present at this meeting. She also noted
that this year the city will be doing a virtual budget book.
Ms. Baker stressed that there are needed investments the city needs to make as it comes out of
lean budget years.
The goals of the FY24 budget include:
a. Exploring what has been underfunded especially in the areas of growth and
service demands where the city is not meeting community expectations.
b. The city has added 20 miles of new roads without adding staff to maintain
them.
c. The Police Department has yet to hit 40 sworn officers
d. The Fire Department is seeing high overtime and needs to get to 30 full time
Firefighters. With 24/7 staffing, there will always be overtime (sickness,
etc.). At this point in time, Firefighters are being ordered in for overtime.
This is expensive and not good for people’s health.
e. A second ambulance is needed as a quarter of the time South Burlington
residents are being served by non-South Burlington ambulances.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 4
Chief Locke explained that the one vacancy in the Fire Department is critical. With 30 full time
members, there would be “normal” overtime staffed by volunteers. Mr. Cota noted that last
year had an historically high call count. Chief Locke said they are already ahead of that number
this fiscal year. He anticipates at least 8,000-10,000 hours of overtime.
Ms. Baker said the city needs tax capacity to fund the Capital Improvement Plan which has been
underfunded. She then reviewed the challenges in preparing this the FY24 budget:
a. Multi-year high inflation
b. The COLA at 6.9%
c. Recovery from COVID years
d. Increased cost of goods and services
e. 6% health insurance increase (which is actually quite low)
f. Worker’s Compensation insurance savings of $110,000
g. An increase from Green Mountain Transit
The proposed budget accomplishes three goals:
a. It maintains what the city has now
b. It restores cuts and keeps up with growth
c. It provides for implementation of the Climate Action Plan
This results in a baseline increase of $430,000. It restores the FTE to Assessing, eliminates the
Welcome Center person, and maintains the $800,000 TIF reserve. The cost to the average
homes for the baseline increase is $40.00.
With the addition of one Police Officer, one Fire Fighter, a GIS analyst, and second ambulance
staffing as of 1/1/24, the total tax increase would be 575%. This will result in a $78. Increase to
the average condo and a $117 increase to the average single-family home.
Mr. Barritt asked whether other Fire Departments are as stressed as South Burlington’s. Chief
Locke said most are “fragile, ready to break.” Demands are up all over due to substance abuse,
mental health issues, and an aging population. He noted that South Burlington does not stack
calls.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 5
Ms. Baker then outlined the expenditures for the Climate Action Plan which include adding 2
staff people in FY24, consultants, public outreach, and an enforcement team. This will result in
1 cent on the tax rate in FY24 and 2 cents in FY 25 and FY26.
Ms. Baker noted that an effort is being made to look at non-property tax revenues. These
include an $800,000 increase in local option tax receipts, recording fees, ARPA funds, zoning
and sign permits, and fire inspections.
The Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) will have $452,000 in new capacity. Ms. Baker cited the
importance of annually increasing the tax capacity of the CP. She noted there is no money in
the FY24 CIP for exploration of a Recreation Center though it is in the FY25 CIP.
Ms. Baker noted that there will be significant increases in water and sewer fees. South
Burlington has the lowest rates in the state. A comprehensive rate study is being done.
Emerging issues include:
a. Executive team transitions
b. Regional dispatch
c. Water storage
d. Marathon Health Plan
e. Wage pressures, especially in the area of public safety
Ms. Baker then asked the Council to set a public hearing on the proposed budget for 17 January
2023 at 7 p.m.
Ms. Emery moved to set a public hearing on the proposed FY24 City Budget for 17 January 2023
at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8. FY 24 Budget: Receive the General Government presentation and provide feedback
to staff:
Ms. Baker said 2 positions will need to be filled, a Deputy City Manager and an HR Coordinator.
Successes of the past year include:
a. Hiring of 20 new people
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 6
b. All staff receiving cultural humility training
c. Shoring up of IT
d. Many land development regulations being adopted
e. 307 new homes within the Form Based Code area
While receipt of zoning permit fees is up, recording revenues are going down due to increased
mortgage interest rates.
The proposed budget includes:
a. Increased utility rates
b. An increase in Planning & Zoning staff
c. Integration of the Police into the municipal IT team
d. Restoring of GIS policy and data analysis
The FY24 CIP expenditures will include:
a. Upgrade to the weatherization system
b. HVAC at Fire Station #1 and a generator at Fire Station #2
c. Heat pumps at DPW
d. Replacement of the Hinesburg Road generator (paid for by insurance due to
an accident)
Energy issues reflected in the proposed budget include:
a. Updating codes and ordinances
b. Increased complexity of elections and how to oversee/facilitate
c. Supply chain issues
Ms. Baker spotlighted the $100,000 savings due to the efforts of the Safety Committee and
improvements to cyber security.
Mr. Barritt said he worries about IT security all the time. He warned people not to click on
attachments they don’t recognize and to check addresses where emails come from.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 7
9. FY24 Budget: Receive the Recreation and Parks presentation and provide feedback
to staff:
Ms. Rees reviewed successes of FY22 and FY 23 including:
a. Pickleball facilities
b. Renovation of youth baseball field at Jaycee Park softball field
c. Regrading of baseball field at Veterans Park
d. Four “little libraries” at city parks
e. Wheeler Dog Park (already a huge success)
f. Upcoming “Illuminate Vermont”
g. Receipt of sponsorship grants
Proposed revenue is estimated at $151,650. Ms. Rees said they are trying to hone in on adult
programs and are not receiving as much revenue as in the past. They are also trying to make
youth programs more accessible.
The proposed expenditures are estimated at $887,169.
CIP projects include:
a. Baseball dugout replacement
b. Dog waste stations
c. Bleacher replacement ( safety issue)
d. Roofs at Jaycee and Red Rocks Pavilions
e. Bandshell safety upgrades at Veterans Park
Items to be paid for from impact fees include:
a. South Village recreation amenity (youth soccer field and bathroom amenity)
b. Additional dog park creation
c. Park signage
Emerging issues include:
a. Deferred maintenance at parks
b. Need for Master Plan for park system
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 8
c. Storage
d. Summer camp season question
e. Community garden access (there is a long waiting list)
f. Equity and accessible parks within a quarter mile of each residence
g. Community facilities
Department highlights of recent years include the flourishing Senior Center and the excellent
staff.
10. FY24 Budget: Receive the Library presentation and provide feedback to staff:
Ms. Murray reviewed staffing which includes 20 people for a total of 12.5 FTE.
Success of the past year include:
a. The summer reading program with participation from 61 teens, 70 adults and
432 children
b. ESL groups
c. Staff training in leadership management, equity, etc.
Anticipated revenues are $8,050 from new Library users, rental of Library space (to business
groups, school system training sessions, weddings and memorial services).
Anticipated expenses total $1,045,028. Though there are no major increases this year, the
same things will be costing more.
The Book Van in the CIP will not be purchased this year but is scheduled for purchase in FY25.
Emerging issues include:
a. Use of e-books and e-audio books
b. Inclusive use of new building
c. The “borrowing” of thing (training with difficult situations)
Ms. Murray spotlighted the following:
a. The hiring of adult librarians Mira Geffner and Kelly Kendall
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 9
b. Improved collections
c. “Banned Book Week”
d. Featuring of local artists
11. Public Hearing on the Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote on Article 1 regarding TIF
District financing Debt Authorization to fund the design and construction of the
following projects: Garden Street Phase II, Williston Road Streetscape, East West
Crossing and City Center Park Phase II:
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Ms. Blanchard reviewed the history of the TIF District. She noted the city is closing in on the
time when the city can borrow funds, and this will be the last scheduled ballot item at an
election. The city will continue to collect increment from new City Center development until
2037.
There are 4 projects left in the TIF District. $10,000,000 has been issued to date with an
additional $4,000,000 approved but not yet issued. The city has authorization to issue a total of
$29,000,000. The anticipation is that the city will have a $306,000,000 tax base by 2037.
Ms. Blanchard then reviewed the 4 remaining projects as follows:
a. Garden Street Phase II including bike/ped facilities. The cost is $8,300,000,
and the project is eligible for federal aid
b. Williston Road streetscape which will add a mixed use path to the south side
of the road
c. East-west crossing walk/bike bridge for which the city has grants and can
pursue federal funds
d. City Center Park Phase II including the boardwalk connection, lighted path,
access to the Middle and High Schools at a cost of $4,100,000. The project is
100% TIF eligible
The total amount of financing being sought is $15,086,430 though this is not necessarily what
the city will be asking for.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 10
Ms. Blanchard showed a map of the TIF district preliminary model (106 acres). She noted that
not every property will be developed. She also indicated what has already been developed.
UVM has partnered with Snyder-Braverman to develop 295 housing units, and the Medical
Center will be developing 181 units. By 2026, there will be 476 more housing units that will be
fully taxable. Ms. Blanchard showed a map indicating the location of those 2 projects, housing
already developed, and what is anticipated.
Ms. Blanchard then explained the Reserve Fund/cash cushion and noted the city is looking for
other ways to mitigate the debt. This includes talking with developers as to how their sites are
being used. The city will be looking for federal funds to bring down the debt and at other ways
to structure the debt.
Mr. Barritt said his only concern is that UVM might change from a full “for profit” arrangement
down the road. Ms. Blanchard said the amount they are investing is not purchasable. Ms.
Baker added that UVM has first right to the units but not sole right.
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Scanlon asked whether there is flexibility to make buildings more commercial. Mr. Conner
said the area along Market Street where these buildings are designates first floors as non-
residential (commercial). This can evolve over time. Above the first floor, they can be
residential or commercial. Along Garden Street, regulations are flexible, so buildings can be
residential or commercial.
As there was no further public comments, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
12. Public Hearing on amendments to the Land Development Regulations #LDR-22-07
to realign zoning districts along the Shelburne Road Corridor and LDR-22-08 to
allow Municipal Uses in the Commercial 2 District and allow the following
additional uses within Commercial 1 Auto District: Congregate Care, Assisted
Living, Continuum of Care, Educational Facility, Educational Support Facilities,
Hospice, Municipal Facility, Skilled Nursing, Social Services:
Mr. Cota recused himself from this hearing due to a potential conflict of interest.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 11
Mr. Barritt moved to open the public hearing. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Conner provided an overview of the amendments. Ms. Louisos then showed a map of the
zoning change areas with existing zoning and a map of the proposed zoning. She explained
what uses would be allowed in each district. She stressed that no auto dealership would
become non-conforming.
Ms. Louisos noted that the request for this change came to the Planning Commission.
Members felt this was an opportunity to use an existing building and would also shift auto use
away from where the city is looking for some mixed use development. She noted the shift does
not change the housing potential.
Sen. Chittenden said he received a call as to whether these amendments were “fast-tracked.”
He asked how long it took for them to get to the Council. Mr. Conner said staff was approached
about a year ago. In late spring, a letter was received regarding the request. Mr. Conner noted
that one goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to be “opportunity oriented.” He added that there
was the standard public process including a Planning Commission public hearing.
Ms. Emery asked if the CCRPC weighs in on this. Mr. Conner said it is not typically the CCRPC’s
practice to weigh in on zoning changes.
Public comment was then solicited.
Mr. Pennington said he strongly supports the change as it will be a benefit to have Tesla come
here. They are an American company and should be encouraged.
Ms. Riehle said she received “a ton” of emails, most of them supportive.
Mr. Hooper said now has to travel out of state for service to his car, and this move may bring
people to South Burlington for service. He said it can also help address climate goals.
As there was no further public comment, Mr. Barritt moved to close the public hearing. Ms.
Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 12
13. Possible action on changes to the Land Development Regulations #LDR-22-07 and
#LDR-22-08:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council approve amendments to the Land Development Regulations
#LDR-22-07 and LDR-22-08 as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0.
Mr. Cota rejoined the Council.
14. Public Hearing on a change to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the Public & Private
Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Ordinance regarding timing of
payment of fees for affordable housing projects:
Ms. Emery moved to open the public hearing. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Mr. Conner said the purpose of the amendment is to assist with financing of affordable housing
projects to which the city is a party. It allows the developer not to have to pay fees up front.
The fee would be due at the time of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Conner stressed that there
are fail-safe means to ensure the city will be paid.
Public comment was solicited. There was no public comment.
Ms. Emery moved to close the public hearing. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
15. Possible action on a change to the Impact Fee Ordinance and the Public & Private
Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Ordinance regarding timing of
payment of fees for affordable housing projects:
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the amendment to the Impact Fee Ordinance and Public &
Private Sanitary Sewerage and Stormwater Systems Ordinance regarding timing of payment of
fees for affordable housing projects as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
16. Receive the FY23 Policy Priorities and Strategies Report #1:
Ms. Riehle said the report shows the city is making progress on almost every area.
CITY COUNCIL
5 DECEMBER 2022
PAGE 13
17. Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following:
Delta Hotels by Marriott Burlington (new ownership) First Class and Third-Class
Restaurant/Bar License:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Commission. Sen. Chittenden
seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Baker advised that staff had no concerns with the request.
Sen. Chittenden moved to approve the First Class and Third-Class Restaurant/Bar License for
Delta Hotels by Marriott Burlington as presented. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
Sen. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed
unanimously.
18. Other Business:
No other business was presented.
19. Consider entering a possible executive session to consider review of personnel and
appointments to boards and committees:
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific finding that premature general public
knowledge of the Council’s discussion of personnel and appointments could clearly place the
city at a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council meeting in executive session to
discuss personnel and appointments to boards and committees, inviting into the session Ms.
Baker, Mr. McNeil and Mr. Conner. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The
Council entered executive session at 10:15 p.m.
Following the executive session, as there was no further business to come before the Council
Mr. Barritt moved to adjourn. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The
meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
___________________________, Clerk
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report ‐ GENERAL FUND
Current Year Period 5 November
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 5 Nov
GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP.
CITY COUNCIL 149,798.00$ 65,291.40$ 43.59% 84,506.60$ 92.40$
ADMINISTRATIVE INSURANCE 6,032,914.38$ 1,725,060.69$ 28.59% 4,307,853.69$ 380,581.74$
CITY MANAGER 472,491.78$ 165,778.53$ 35.09% 306,713.25$ 27,982.84$
LEGAL/ACCOUNTING ACTUARY 348,960.87$ 110,601.08$ 31.69% 238,359.79$ 22,076.82$
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 990,075.74$ 254,176.22$ 25.67% 735,899.52$ 39,963.69$
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 397,768.47$ 144,018.39$ 36.19% 253,811.73$ 33,706.53$
CITY CLERK 285,901.23$ 115,047.47$ 40.24% 170,853.76$ 27,457.63$
GENERAL LEDGER/PAYROLL 434,004.36$ 187,750.00$ 43.26% 246,254.36$ 37,054.29$
ASSESSING/TAX/FINANCE 403,043.52$ 142,680.21$ 35.40% 260,363.31$ 26,456.00$
PLANNING/DESIGN REVIEW 563,713.28$ 147,586.58$ 26.18% 416,126.70$ 36,478.32$
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT 808,200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 808,200.00$ ‐$
Total GENERAL GOVERNMENT EXP. 10,886,871.63$ 3,057,990.57$ 28.09% 7,828,942.71$ 631,850.26$
PUBLIC SAFETY
FIRE DEPARTMENT 3,698,663.25$ 1,621,745.76$ 43.85% 2,076,917.49$ 395,808.59$
AMBULANCE 522,650.00$ 40,716.91$ 7.79% 481,933.09$ 12,184.14$
POLICE DEPARTMENT 5,760,136.24$ 1,846,277.49$ 32.05% 3,913,858.75$ 371,678.86$
OPERATING TRANSFERS OUT ‐$ (0.52)$ 100.00% 0.52$ ‐$
Total PUBLIC SAFETY 9,981,449.49$ 3,508,739.64$ 35.15% 6,472,709.85$ 779,671.59$
STREETS & HIGHWAYS
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 3,346,938.68$ 1,155,659.61$ 34.53% 2,191,279.07$ 551,044.20$
Total STREETS & HIGHWAYS 3,346,938.68$ 1,155,659.61$ 34.53% 2,191,279.07$ 551,044.20$
CULTURE AND RECREATION
RECREATION ADMINISTRATION 359,516.74$ 124,789.28$ 34.71% 234,727.46$ 28,565.45$
PROGRAMS 50,000.00$ 31,319.00$ 62.64% 18,681.00$ 2,034.08$
RED ROCKS PARK 14,924.80$ 8,390.37$ 56.22% 6,534.43$ 38.90$
FACILITIES 139,150.00$ 21,151.89$ 15.20% 117,998.11$ 6,804.57$
SENIOR PROGRAMS 33,311.57$ 6,249.41$ 18.76% 27,062.16$ 2,586.91$
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 101,500.00$ 26,592.71$ 26.20% 74,907.29$ 3,360.26$
PUBLIC LIBRARY 866,629.70$ 272,604.25$ 31.46% 594,025.45$ 59,148.43$
CAPITAL/PARK MAINTENANCE 399,642.54$ 162,670.21$ 40.70% 236,972.33$ 24,970.99$
Total CULTURE AND RECREATION 1,964,675.35$ 650,921.24$ 33.13% 1,313,754.11$ 127,601.19$
OTHER ENTITIES
OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES 791,250.11$ 624,430.67$ 78.92% 166,819.44$ 179,487.33$
Total OTHER ENTITIES 791,250.11$ 624,430.67$ 78.92% 166,819.44$ 179,487.33$
CURRENT PRINCIPAL BONDS 1,211,203.30$ 625,021.00$ 51.60% 586,182.30$ ‐$
CURRENT INTEREST BONDS 279,090.00$ 141,442.10$ 50.68% 137,647.90$ ‐$
Total GENERAL FUND 28,461,478.56$ 9,764,204.83$ 34.31% 18,697,335.38$ 2,269,654.57$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.
Current Year Period 5 November
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 5 Nov
W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS.
Salaries‐Permanent 672,300.45$ 241,129.87$ 35.87% 431,170.58$ 53,924.24$
Payment to Highway‐wages 250,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 250,000.00$ ‐$
Leave Time Turn‐In 7,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 7,000.00$ ‐$
Salaries‐Overtime 50,000.00$ 26,385.34$ 52.77% 23,614.66$ 6,244.35$
Payment to Sick Bank Fund 6,677.02$ ‐$ 0.00% 6,677.02$ ‐$
Payroll Service 1,796.41$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,796.41$ ‐$
PAFO Certification 29,065.71$ 4,209.02$ 14.48% 24,856.69$ 876.88$
Sick Bank Payouts 10,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 10,000.00$ ‐$
Fringe Benefits 4,135.00$ 600.00$ 14.51% 3,535.00$ ‐$
FICA/Medicare 58,780.01$ 21,207.74$ 36.08% 37,572.27$ 4,757.51$
Payment to Highway‐FICA/M 33,420.18$ ‐$ 0.00% 33,420.18$ ‐$
Vision Plan 2,829.21$ 283.75$ 10.03% 2,545.46$ 56.75$
Disability Insurance 2,175.17$ 677.14$ 31.13% 1,498.03$ ‐$
Long Term Disability Insu 4,148.39$ ‐$ 0.00% 4,148.39$ ‐$
Group Health Insurance 196,366.10$ 29,396.66$ 14.97% 166,969.44$ 8,319.91$
Group Life Insurance 2,829.21$ 90.75$ 3.21% 2,738.46$ ‐$
Group Dental Insurance 7,893.29$ 2,586.73$ 32.77% 5,306.56$ 533.93$
Pension 85,733.42$ 20,363.54$ 23.75% 65,369.88$ ‐$
ICMA Match 29,065.71$ 8,708.45$ 29.96% 20,357.26$ 1,810.26$
Pension Note Payment 39,075.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 39,075.00$ ‐$
Office Supplies 2,000.00$ 564.38$ 28.22% 1,435.62$ 519.97$
Plant Supplies 120,000.00$ 49,878.97$ 41.57% 70,121.03$ 23,875.00$
Polymer 100,000.00$ 33,836.35$ 33.84% 66,163.65$ 31,934.35$
Sewer Line Maint/Supplies 25,000.00$ 3,226.60$ 12.91% 21,773.40$ 316.56$
Pumping Station Supplies 25,000.00$ 29,230.34$ 116.92% (4,230.34)$ 7,520.46$
Laboratory Supplies 13,000.00$ 4,223.76$ 32.49% 8,776.24$ 714.42$
Caustic Soda and Lime 120,000.00$ 61,615.82$ 51.35% 58,384.18$ 21,103.48$
Alum 180,000.00$ 100,287.38$ 55.72% 79,712.62$ 24,964.70$
Water‐Airport‐B/B‐Pump 1,600.00$ 543.94$ 34.00% 1,056.06$ ‐$
Generator Preventive Main 10,000.00$ 4,062.22$ 40.62% 5,937.78$ 1,411.15$
Clothing Supplies 4,250.00$ 2,334.75$ 54.94% 1,915.25$ 1,130.95$
Truck Parts 12,500.00$ 2,635.71$ 21.09% 9,864.29$ 265.49$
Gas ‐ Diesel Fuel ‐ Oil 12,000.00$ 9,460.78$ 78.84% 2,539.22$ 2,213.13$
Fuel ‐ Airport Parkway 60,000.00$ 17,158.70$ 28.60% 42,841.30$ ‐$
Fuel ‐ Bartlett Bay 6,000.00$ 216.75$ 3.61% 5,783.25$ ‐$
Telephone and Alarms 6,500.00$ 3,616.82$ 55.64% 2,883.18$ 1,990.87$
Memberships/Dues 20,000.00$ 954.25$ 4.77% 19,045.75$ ‐$
Discharge Permits 15,000.00$ 3,750.00$ 25.00% 11,250.00$ ‐$
Workers Comp Insurance 22,127.75$ 9,027.05$ 40.80% 13,100.70$ ‐$
Property Insurance 70,040.34$ 21,313.88$ 30.43% 48,726.46$ ‐$
Unemployment Insurance 902.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 902.00$ ‐$
Safety 5,000.00$ 7,503.44$ 150.07% (2,503.44)$ 1,256.79$
Billing Payment to CWD 69,342.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 69,342.00$ ‐$
Soil/Sludge Management 135,000.00$ 76,792.51$ 56.88% 58,207.49$ 18,926.84$
Landfill Fees 1,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,000.00$ ‐$
HVAC Maintenance 35,000.00$ 10,052.44$ 28.72% 24,947.56$ 4,963.06$
Auditing 4,246.55$ ‐$ 0.00% 4,246.55$ ‐$
Engineering/Consulting 15,000.00$ 5,742.75$ 38.29% 9,257.25$ 164.25$
Landfill Engineering 17,500.00$ 20,242.08$ 115.67% (2,742.08)$ 242.08$
Administrative Services 149,344.05$ ‐$ 0.00% 149,344.05$ ‐$
Burlington Sewer Lines 5,000.00$ 459.42$ 9.19% 4,540.58$ ‐$
Travel & Training 6,000.00$ 2,683.32$ 44.72% 3,316.68$ 2,493.32$
Utilities‐Pumping Station 105,000.00$ 29,188.84$ 27.80% 75,811.16$ 8,012.66$
Electric‐Airport Parkway 200,000.00$ 83,174.70$ 41.59% 116,825.30$ 19,127.38$
Electric‐Bartlett Bay 145,000.00$ 48,362.32$ 33.35% 96,637.68$ 12,000.85$
Replacement‐Vehicles 220,000.00$ 76,287.81$ 34.68% 143,712.19$ 76,287.81$
Building Improvements 2,500.00$ 874.10$ 34.96% 1,625.90$ ‐$
Pumps Replacements 50,000.00$ 14,027.54$ 28.06% 35,972.46$ 14,027.54$
Pump Repairs 40,000.00$ 21,170.30$ 52.93% 18,829.70$ 1,520.50$
PMT to SW for Hadley Loan 73,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 73,000.00$ ‐$
Airport Pkwy Upgrade/Expn ‐$ 66,108.09$ 100.00% (66,108.09)$ 66,108.09$
Bartlett Bay Upgrades 400,000.00$ 41,928.50$ 10.48% 358,071.50$ ‐$
Hadley Sewer Project 111,786.54$ ‐$ 0.00% 111,786.54$ ‐$
Loan for Airport Parkway 965,647.23$ ‐$ 0.00% 965,647.23$ ‐$
Capital Improvements‐CIP ‐$ 8,514.40$ 100.00% (8,514.40)$ 7,222.45$
Total W/POLLUTION CONTROL EXPS. 5,074,576.74$ 1,226,690.00$ 24.17% 3,847,886.74$ 426,837.98$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Expenditure Report ‐ STORM WATER UTILITIES
Current Year Period 5 November
% Budget Unencumbered FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Budget Expenditures Expended Balance Pd 5 Nov
S/WATER UTILITIES EXPS
Salaries‐Permanent 545,117.10$ 127,557.13$ 23.40% 417,559.97$ 22,973.88$
Payment to Highway‐Wages 78,215.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 78,215.00$ ‐$
Salaries‐Overtime 23,000.00$ 923.54$ 4.02% 22,076.46$ ‐$
Payment to Sick Bank Fund 5,392.16$ ‐$ 0.00% 5,392.16$ ‐$
Payroll Service 1,347.31$ ‐$ 0.00% 1,347.31$ ‐$
Fringe Benefits 7,238.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 7,238.00$ ‐$
FICA/Medicare 43,460.96$ 10,418.46$ 23.97% 33,042.50$ 1,894.39$
Vision Plan 582.94$ 156.15$ 26.79% 426.79$ 31.23$
Disability Income Insuran 4,878.93$ 595.23$ 12.20% 4,283.70$ ‐$
Group Health Insurance 153,953.83$ 81,614.61$ 53.01% 72,339.22$ 31,063.59$
Health Insurance FICA 2,080.03$ ‐$ 0.00% 2,080.03$ ‐$
Group Life Insurance 2,360.28$ 79.75$ 3.38% 2,280.53$ ‐$
Group Dental Insurance 5,930.59$ 1,642.46$ 27.69% 4,288.13$ 338.06$
Pension 93,238.50$ ‐$ 0.00% 93,238.50$ ‐$
ICMA Match 27,189.96$ 7,795.39$ 28.67% 19,394.57$ 1,934.21$
Pension Note Payment 26,910.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 26,910.00$ ‐$
Office Supplies 1,000.00$ 1,012.08$ 101.21% (12.08)$ ‐$
Small Equipment/Tools 2,000.00$ 641.76$ 32.09% 1,358.24$ ‐$
Uniforms/Supplies 6,500.00$ 2,733.01$ 42.05% 3,766.99$ 988.91$
Gasoline 2,250.00$ 1,532.98$ 68.13% 717.02$ 226.73$
Oil 250.00$ 63.75$ 25.50% 186.25$ ‐$
Diesel Fuel 4,500.00$ 5,814.94$ 129.22% (1,314.94)$ 1,210.38$
Permit Requirement‐Educat 7,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 85.71% 1,000.00$ 6,000.00$
Telephone 2,000.00$ 840.37$ 42.02% 1,159.63$ 157.35$
Membership/Dues 300.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 300.00$ ‐$
Discharge Permits Renewal 18,000.00$ 16,704.37$ 92.80% 1,295.63$ 14,776.00$
Workers Comp Insurance 19,554.75$ 5,838.58$ 29.86% 13,716.17$ ‐$
Property Insurance 16,197.44$ 4,929.04$ 30.43% 11,268.40$ ‐$
Unemployment Insurance 902.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 902.00$ ‐$
GIS‐Fees/Software 50,000.00$ 14,279.83$ 28.56% 35,720.17$ 3,274.68$
Sediment & Depris Disposa 200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 200.00$ ‐$
Water Quality Monitoring 15,000.00$ 5,356.20$ 35.71% 9,643.80$ 755.97$
Building/Grounds Maint 200.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 200.00$ ‐$
Vehicle Maintenance 5,000.00$ 5,539.16$ 110.78% (539.16)$ 628.78$
Storm System Maint Materi 55,000.00$ 80,606.59$ 146.56% (25,606.59)$ 58,096.08$
Printing 100.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 100.00$ ‐$
Legal Services 20,000.00$ 283.13$ 1.42% 19,716.87$ 100.00$
To GF‐Audit and Actuary 6,180.66$ ‐$ 0.00% 6,180.66$ ‐$
Engineering‐Watershed 40,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 40,000.00$ ‐$
Billing Payment CWD 69,342.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 69,342.00$ ‐$
Office Equipment Maintena 2,500.00$ 1,113.91$ 44.56% 1,386.09$ 638.96$
Equipment Rental 250.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 250.00$ ‐$
Administrative Services 102,103.95$ ‐$ 0.00% 102,103.95$ ‐$
Conference/Training Expen 8,000.00$ 308.57$ 3.86% 7,691.43$ 285.57$
S/W Bldg Utilities 3,250.00$ 325.50$ 10.02% 2,924.50$ ‐$
Stormwater Pumps Electric 300.00$ 86.23$ 28.74% 213.77$ 21.62$
Vehicles/Equipment 421,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 421,000.00$ ‐$
Stormwater Capital Projec 2,481,000.00$ 702,292.95$ 28.31% 1,778,707.05$ 514,351.39$
Office Furniture/Equipmen 1,000.00$ 1,327.19$ 132.72% (327.19)$ ‐$
Flow Restoration Plan Ana 5,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 5,000.00$ ‐$
Reim to Highway‐Benefit 33,420.18$ ‐$ 0.00% 33,420.18$ ‐$
Total STORM WATER UTILITIES 4,420,196.57$ 1,088,412.86$ 24.62% 3,331,783.71$ 659,747.78$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report ‐ GENERAL FUND
Current Year Period 5 November
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 5 Nov
TAX REVENUE
TAX REVENUE 18,202,812.57$ (13,139,320.05)$ 72.18% 5,063,492.52$ (5,180,062.08)$
LOCAL OPTION TAXES 4,033,388.90$ (1,756,746.45)$ 43.56% 2,276,642.45$ (1,261,868.34)$
Total TAX REVENUE 22,236,201.47$ (14,896,066.50)$ 66.99% 7,340,134.97$ (6,441,930.42)$
INTEREST/PENALTY ON TAX 379,000.00$ (174,875.59)$ 46.14% 204,124.41$ (75,910.71)$
Other Health Services 247,346.40$ (97,116.71)$ 39.26% 150,229.69$ (16,309.15)$
CITY MANAGER 1,463,078.08$ (316,150.28)$ 21.61% 1,146,927.80$ (94,506.83)$
CITY CLERK 383,100.00$ (106,760.57)$ 27.87% 276,339.43$ (19,516.90)$
PLANNING 383,100.00$ (224,482.74)$ 58.60% 158,617.26$ (75,276.60)$
FIRE DEPARTMENT 489,000.00$ (309,254.05)$ 63.24% 179,745.95$ (10,565.30)$
ELECTRICAL INSPECTION 65,000.00$ (116,837.74)$ 179.75% (51,837.74)$ (4,625.00)$
AMBULANCE 721,000.00$ (383,429.20)$ 53.18% 337,570.80$ (79,272.09)$
POLICE DEPARTMENT 517,997.24$ (85,513.01)$ 16.51% 432,484.23$ (17,436.03)$
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT 1,394,855.38$ (288,986.54)$ 20.72% 1,105,868.84$ (24,290.38)$
Senior Programs 26,500.00$ (6,570.00)$ 24.79% 19,930.00$ (1,154.00)$
SPECIAL ACTIVITIES 145,000.00$ (71,155.70)$ 49.07% 73,844.30$ (4,936.50)$
PUBLIC LIBRARY 10,300.00$ (5,257.36)$ 51.04% 5,042.64$ (748.64)$
Total GENERAL FUND 6,225,277.10$ (2,186,389.49)$ 35.12% 4,038,887.61$ (424,548.13)$
Total All Funds 28,461,478.57$ (17,082,455.99)$ 60.02% 11,379,022.58$ (6,866,478.55)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report ‐ ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C.
Current Year Period 5 November
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 5 Nov
CHARGES FOR SERVICES
W.P.C. User Fees 3,783,418.00$ (1,560,683.04)$ 41.25% 2,222,734.96$ (261,883.74)$
Sewer Septage Revenue 25,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 25,000.00$ ‐$
Connection Fees 500,000.00$ (612,691.39)$ 122.54% (112,691.39)$ (314,402.63)$
Enviromental Impact ‐$ (13,737.00)$ 100.00% (13,737.00)$ (1,999.00)$
Total CHARGES FOR SERVICES 4,308,418.00$ (2,187,111.43)$ 50.76% 2,121,306.57$ (578,285.37)$
BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS
Colchester A/P Pkwy Pm 742,310.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 742,310.00$ ‐$
GF Note Repay‐Solar 12,004.68$ ‐$ 0.00% 12,004.68$ ‐$
Total BOND AND LOAN PROCEEDS 754,314.68$ ‐$ 0.00% 754,314.68$ ‐$
MISCELLANEOUS
Miscellaneous Rev.‐W.P 10,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 10,000.00$ ‐$
Total MISCELLANEOUS 10,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 10,000.00$ ‐$
Total ENTERPRISE FUND/W.P.C. 5,072,732.68$ (2,187,111.43)$ 43.12% 2,885,621.25$ (578,285.37)$
City of South Burlington General Ledger
Revenue Report ‐ STORM WATER UTILITIES
Current Year Period 5 November
Estimated Received % Budget Uncollected FY‐22/23 MTD
Account Revenue To Date Received Balance Pd 5 Nov
S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE
Intergovernmental Revenue 826,506.98$ ‐$ 0.00% 826,506.98$ ‐$
S/W User Fees ‐ Water Bil 2,707,767.59$ (990,757.32)$ 36.59% 1,717,010.27$ (88,724.66)$
Pmts from other towns 40,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 40,000.00$ ‐$
Land Owner Payments 100,000.00$ (82,143.62)$ 82.14% 17,856.38$ (82,143.62)$
Stormwater Miscellaneous 30,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 30,000.00$ ‐$
Hadley Sewer Proj‐Sewer f 73,000.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 73,000.00$ ‐$
Reserve Transfer In 635,778.00$ ‐$ 0.00% 635,778.00$ ‐$
Total S/WATER UTILITIES REVENUE 4,413,052.57$ (1,072,900.94)$ 24.31% 3,340,151.63$ (170,868.28)$
2022 Errors and OmissionsAddress Reason Request Owner Name SPAN change from change to Difference 2 Pinnacle Dr Previous Assessor did not include Stephen's Rev Trust with the transfer from 2/14/2019Corrected error in Grand List Kelley & Stephen Gardner 600‐188‐153431650 Hinesburg Rd transfer from Land Trust not recorded (3.06 acres) corrected value to reflect less acreageAuclair, Heather 600‐188‐10236 $450,600 $ 397,100.00 $ (53,500.00)1800 Hinesburg Rd CU did not update land use value corrected value and correct tax amount dueVT Land Trust 600‐188‐18258 $ 629,700.00 $ 722,200.00 $ (92,500.00)18 Larch Rd transfer entered incorrectly corrected name Perkins, Melissa S 600‐188‐1227983 Medalist Dr correct transfer from attorney did not include all lots purchased with original PTTRcorrected ownership Rivers Edge Building Development LLC600‐188‐18357 $ ‐ $ 42,800.00 $ 42,800.00 57 Medalist Dr correct transfer from attorney did not include all lots purchased with original PTTRcorrected ownership Rivers Edge Building Development LLC600‐188‐18359 $ ‐ $ 42,800.00 $ 42,800.00 306 Midland Ave correct transfer from attorney did not include all lots purchased with original PTTRcorrected ownership Rivers Edge Building Development LLC600‐188‐18318 $ ‐ $ 64,000.00 $ 64,000.00 51 Stafford St correct transfer from attorney did not include all lots purchased with original PTTRcorrected ownership Rivers Edge Building Development LLC600‐188‐18324 $ ‐ $ 64,000.00 $ 64,000.00 61 Stafford St correct transfer from attorney did not include all lots purchased with original PTTRcorrected ownership Rivers Edge Building Development LLC600‐188‐18325 $ ‐ $ 64,000.00 $ 64,000.00 3 Woodside Dr remove Patrick's name from tax bill ‐ he passed in 2019 tenants rights of entiretyput property under Loreen's name onlyBenner, Loreen 600‐188‐104611302 Spear St permit add on demolished house .94 acres now part of 1340 Spear St remove house value from GL add land value to 1340 SpearFarrell, Gary 600‐188‐12666 $416,200 $ ‐ $ (416,200.00)1340 Spear St add .94 acres and value add land value Spear Meadows Inc 600‐188‐12067 $ 337,300.00 $ 346,900.00 $ 9,600.00 117 John Fay Rd inactive parcel building was rental apts now units being sold individually as condoscorrect to inactive parcel Floyd James LLC 600‐188‐17869 $ 833,000.00 $ ‐ $ (833,000.00)107 John Fay Rd inactive parcel building was rental apts now units being sold individually as condoscorrect to inactive parcel Floyd James LLC 600‐188‐17870 $ 1,395,700.00 $ ‐ $ (1,395,700.00)87 John Fay Rd inactive parcel building was rental apts now units being sold individually as condoscorrect to inactive parcel Floyd James LLC 600‐188‐17871 $ 1,395,700.00 $ ‐ $ (1,395,700.00)2026 Williston Rd PTTR incorrect transfer only of easement/row for cell tower not whole propertycorrect owner name Landing Complex LLC 600‐188‐162865 Vale Dr State error with homestead declaration waived State assessed penalty Nelson, Joshua & Diane 600‐188‐1355867 Hadley Rd Previous Assessor omitted second full bath when prop converted from duplex to single family in 2004updated information and assessed valueBrooks, Victoria 600‐188‐10797 $ 426,600.00 $ 434,300.00 $ 7,700.00 $ (3,891,700.00)
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Date: December 14, 2022
Re: Appointment of a Representative to the Communications Union District
On November 8th, five Chittenden County municipalities (Essex, Essex Junction, Shelburne, South
Burlington, and Williston) voted to enter into a Chittenden County Communications Union District
(CUD.) With this official vote, a public entity is now established. The first step is to convene a
governing board and set up a governance system. Per 30 V.S.A. § 3058, such a district governing board
“shall be composed of one representative from each member and one or more alternates to serve in
the absence of the designated representative.”
I respectfully request that I, Jessie Baker, be appointed the community’s representative to the CUD and
Colin McNeil be appointed the alternate. It is our intention that these appointments are only in place
until the governance structure, bylaws, and foundational documents are in place. With this additional
information and at that point, I’d recommend that the community advertises for community members
to serve in these roles.
For more inoramtion on the CUD please visit this site: https://www.ccrpcvt.org/wp‐
content/uploads/2022/09/Broadband‐Outreach‐2‐Pager_Final.pdf
Thank you for your consideration.
City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Deputy City Manager. Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Deputy City Manager as soon as possible. Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed
Erica Quallen, DPW Deputy Director of Capital Projects December 9, 2022__ Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date 1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: VTrans Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) due December 14, 2022
2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? The grant program’s purpose is to support surface transportation projects which are related to pedestrian
or bicycle infrastructure, improve ADA compliance of facilities, relate to Safe Routes to School programs, or other project types. The grant application being submitted is the scoping, design, and construction of 2,100-feet of shared use
path on the western end of Allen Road between the Farm Stand Apartments and Shelburne Road. This is somewhat of an extension of a recent Penny for Paths project which completed the path segment between Bayside Drive and Spear Street. Upon completion of the western segment of path, there will a 1-mile
continuous shared use path along the entirety of Allen Road. 3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? Related to this project application, TAP grants cover “Construction, planning, and design of on-road and off-road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized forms of transportation,
including sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals, traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety-related infrastructure, and transportation projects to achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990”.
4. Total Project Cost: $700,000 a. Amount of grant: $560,000
b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? $140,000 over FY24 - 26 c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching funds for this grant? No. 5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? The $160,000 match will come from Penny for Paths funding. 6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No, there are no anticipated costs to the City upon conclusion of the grant. Typical maintenance of the facility will require but it will not be an undue burden on DPW staff.
7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)? The grant is for a standalone item in the FY24-33 CIP, but it is directly tied into other ongoing projects on Allen Road. In the FY24 CIP, it is scheduled to be completed in FY29 and FY30, but it was seen as project
that was well-suited for this grant program and the funding is available based on Penny for Path projections, so the timeline has been expedited. The shared use path proposed in the grant application completes the path segment along the entire length of Allen Road (approximately 1-mile). There is
currently a path stretching from Spear Street to the Farm Stand Apartments. This project replaces the existing sidewalk from the Farm Stand Apartments to Harbor Village Senior Community and construct a new shared use path from Harbor Village to Shelburne Road (this segment currently has no bicycle or
pedestrian facilities). 8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)?
The grant is expected to run for 3 to 4 years, beginning in FY24.
9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? The grant application is being completed by Erica Quallen, the DPW Deputy Director of Capital Projects.
10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? The grant application is complete. 11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? South Burlington has been a recipient of funding through this grant program in the past, most recently in
2021 for the Spear Street Shared Use Path. It is very likely that funding will be received for this project as it has received support from VTrans District 5 representatives and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is
filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match?
The project manager for this grant, should it be successful, will be Erica Quallen. TAP Grants are required
to be incompliance with the Single Audit Act for the period during which the agreement is open. If the grant funding covers construction, bid invitations must be issued and the award is to be made based on the lowest
responsive and responsible bid. 13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow:
The grant payment process is through reimbursement. 14. Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? If yes, please update status: No. 15. In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it fits into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that mission:
This section of Allen Road has been identified in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 4
years as an area needing bicycle and pedestrian facility improvements. The proposed shared use path was also included in South Burlington’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan on their Official Map of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee have consistently advocated for the completion
of this project which has led to its inclusion in CIPs and the Comprehensive Plan. This also coincided with a survey of residents which identified this connection as a priority gap needing addressing.
In addition to the specific inclusion of this project in the Comprehensive Plan, the Plan more generally sets a vision of being “bicycle and pedestrian friendly with safe transportation infrastructure” and aims to
achieve this vision by “making changes to the City’s transportation system to emphasize bicycle/pedestrian travel”. Strategy 45 of the Comprehensive Plan places a priority on identifying and prioritizing gaps to link neighborhood and community focal points, which completing the shared use path on Allen Road will
certainly do. Allen Road serves as a primary connection between Shelburne Road, Spear Street, numerous neighborhoods, and recreation areas in the vicinity. Allen Road also connects to the South Village neighborhood which provides the opportunities for travelers to continue to Hinesburg Road, another major
north-south corridor in South Burlington. Given these factors, this project is rated at a priority level of 5.
Memo
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Marisa Rorabaugh, Stormwater Superintendent
CC: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Tom DiPietro, Director of Public Works
Dave Wheeler, Deputy Director of Water Resources
Date: December 13, 2022
Re: Grant Application for Replacement of Culvert at Bartlett Bay Road
The Bartlett Bay Road neighborhood experiences numerous issues related to stormwater runoff. The
neighborhood was the subject of a 2015 scoping study to investigate known flooding and erosion issues
related to the culvert conveying North Brook under Bartlett Bay Road. The information presented today
is the next step in the process to alleviate the frequent flooding that occurs during large storm events.
North Brook flows through the neighborhood and crosses beneath Bartlett Bay Road via an existing 36”
culvert before flowing into Lake Champlain. In the time since the culvert was designed, permitted and
installed design standards have changed resulting in the culvert being undersized relative to current
standards. Under existing City standards, new culverts must have sufficient capacity to pass flow during
a 25-year storm event. Through hydrologic modeling, we determined that the existing culvert does not
have capacity to pass the 1-year storm event before overtopping. Additionally, the undersized culvert
has contributed to channel erosion downstream of the culvert outfall and has inhibited aquatic organism
passage within North Brook. This is corroborated by the 2015 scoping study, observations made by
residents, and a subsequent analysis completed in 2020 at the request of the residents.
The City has solicited an updated design engineering and construction cost estimate for the purposes
of this grant application. We estimate the cost to complete design and construction for the culvert
replacement will be $638,000. In order for this work to happen we’d like to pursue grant funding through
the VTrans Transportation Alternative Program. This grant program can award up to $300,000 for
culvert replacement projects of this type. The remaining project funding would come from the
stormwater capital improvement project line item.
I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this work and the City’s grant application to the
VTrans Transportation Alternative program. I am requesting that council take a formal vote on this
matter and sign the attached letter for inclusion with our grant application.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658-7961x6111 or
mrorabaugh@southburlingtonvt.gov.
City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Assistant City Manager..
Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Assistant City Manager as soon as possible.
Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed Marisa Rorabaugh, Stormwater Superintendent December 14, 2022
Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date
1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: VTrans 2022 Transportation Alternatives Program Grant. Submission deadline of December 14, 2022.
2. What specifically is the grant’s purpose? The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) grant is for any environmental mitigation activity to address stormwater management, control, and water pollution prevention or abatement related to highway construction or due to highway runoff. The TA grant program also funds salt sheds and infrastructure-related projects and systems that provide safe routes for non-drivers.
3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? The grant will fund up to 80% of design and construction costs for replacement of undersized infrastructure, specifically culverts. 4. Total Project Cost: a. Amount of grant: $300,000 b. Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? Yes, $338,000 across FY24,
FY25 and FY26. c. Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are matching funds for this grant? No 5. From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? The match will be paid through the stormwater utility’s capital improvement line item. 6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No.
7. Is grant for stand alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some detail)? We are applying for funds to replace one culvert under Bartlett Bay Road. This culvert conveys North
Brook under the road and is undersized, causing issues during storm events. There is also a potential need to implement a relief culvert further west on Bartlett Bay Road to provide an additional overflow outlet to the lake. This project may be undertaken in future fiscal years, if needed.
8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? We plan to finish design of the replacement culvert in 2024 and complete construction in the fall of 2025.
9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? Marisa Rorabaugh, Stormwater Superintendent. 10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? 5 hours 11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? We have a good chance to receive this grant funding. 12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than who is
filling out this form)? What are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this take and how is that time available? Use of this funding requires compliance with Federal construction rules including the Davis Bacon Wage Act and Buy American provisions. We do not anticipate that this will take significant additional time to comply with this project. Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our administrative costs? No. Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match? Yes, the required match can be met by donated goods and services, subject to approval by VTRANS.
11) If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to guide the actual grant application.
12) Project manager will update Assistant City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal, approval, and implementation progress. 13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Assistant City Manager
and Deputy Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials –
upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Assistant City Manager based on actual grant conditions. 14) Deputy Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related
to financials.
15) Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.658.7961 fax 802.658.7976 www.sburl.com
Physical Address: 104 Landfill Road South Burlington
To Whom it May Concern,
The City of South Burlington Stormwater Utility has been working to improve
stormwater drainage and water quality in the Bartlett Bay neighborhood for a number of years.
A component of this work is to replace the undersized culvert that conveys North Brook
beneath Bartlett Bay Road. On ___________ ___, 20___ the South Burlington City Council
voted to support the Stormwater Utility’s plan to replace this existing culvert. In addition, City
Council supports the Stormwater Utility’s grant application to the VTrans Transportation
Alternative program. We authorize our Stormwater Superintendent, Marisa Rorabaugh, to act
as the City’s authorized representative when dealing with matters related to this project and
the associated applications. Marisa can be reached at (802) 658-7961x6111 or
mrorabaugh@southburlingtonvt.gov.
Sincerely,
South Burlington City Council
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 1
VTrans Fall 2022 Transportation Alternatives (TA) Grant Application
Thoroughly read the Vermont Transportation Alternatives Fall 2022 Application Guide
before you begin your application. It includes important program information and step-by-step
instructions. Pay particular attention to the application process requirements. Applications are due in
hand or by e-mail by December 14, 2022. Please e-mail the completed application to:
Scott.robertson@vermont.gov
Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Replacement
(Project Name/Title)
Marisa Rorabaugh
(Municipality contact person responsible
for the management of this project)
South Burlington
(Town)
05403
(Zip Code)
104 Landfill Rd
(Mailing Address)
802-658-7961 ext. 6111
(Phone)
mrorabaugh@southburlingtonvt.gov
(e-mail address)
$ 300,000
Amount of Federal Funds requested (no more
than 80% of the project cost estimate).
$ 338,000
Amount of Local Match. Example:
Federal Award = $300,000 (80% of total)
Local Match = $75,000 (20% of total)
Total Project Cost = $375,000 (100% of the total)
County: Chittenden
Town/Village/City: South Burlington
Specific location, street, or road: Bartlett Bay Road
Regional Planning Commission: Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission
If a linear project, what is the length in feet? N/A
Is the project on or intersecting to a State maintained highway? Yes ☐ No ☒
• Note: If yes, be sure to include documentation that you have notified the VTrans District
Transportation Administrator of the intent to apply for TA funding and have provided them
with a brief (one paragraph) description of the proposed project.
Project type being applied for: ☐ Scoping ☒ Design/Construction
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 2
The municipality understands that a typical construction project utilizing Transportation Alternatives
Program funds will take roughly three years (min.) in the Design and ROW phases prior to going to
construction (as pointed out in the TA Program Application Guide)? Yes ☒ No ☐
Does this project have a previously completed scoping or feasibility study? Yes ☒ No ☐
Note:
Attach a map(s) of the project area and clearly show the limits of the project as well as surrounding
benefits from the proposed improvement. If the project is within or adjacent to a designated
downtown, village or growth center, clearly indicate the relationship of the proposed project to the
boundary of the designated area. Color photos of the area are also recommended.
Fiscal Information:
Accounting System Automated ☐ Manual ☐ Combination☒
SAM Unique Identifier # QLSMM3HYJJP1
Fiscal Year End Month June
Property Ownership:
If the proposed project is on private property that will need to be acquired by the Municipality through
purchase, easement, or eminent domain (includes temporary construction rights) in accordance with
the “Uniform Act”, then the municipality is committed to exercising its right of eminent domain to
acquire the rights to construct the project if necessary. Yes ☒ No ☐
Funding:
Does this project already have existing funding? If so, please describe. Yes ☒ No ☐
The project has the funding necessary to supply the required match through the South Burlington
Stormwater Utility. The project does not have existing funding to pay for the entire project.
Will you accept an award less than you applied for? Yes ☒ No ☐
• If yes, please indicate whether local funds will be used to make up the shortfall, or if the project
scope will be reduced. If the project scope is to be reduced, describe what part of the project
(please be specific) you would accept partial funding for.
Funds from the City’s Stormwater Utility enterprise fund will be used to match the remaining
$338,000 of project costs. We will attempt to make up any shortfall if only partial funding is
awarded.
A support letter from the governing body of the applicant municipality or organization and an
acknowledgement and source of the local match and commitment to future maintenance responsibility
for construction projects is required (must be dated within 1 year of the application). Is a letter of
support attached?
Yes ☒ No ☐
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 3
Regional Planning Commission Letter of Support:
In order to apply, the project must have a letter of support from the regional planning commission. Is a
letter of support attached?
Yes ☒ No ☐
Application Scoring Criteria: 1. Please give a brief description of the project (be sure to indicate the primary facility type being
applied for and be concise). (10 points max.)
The Bartlett Bay Road neighborhood experiences numerous issues related to stormwater runoff. The
neighborhood was the subject of a 2015 scoping study to investigate known flooding and erosion issues
related to the culvert conveying North Brook under Bartlett Bay Road. Runoff from a 210-acre densely
developed drainage area runs into North Brook, which is conveyed under Bartlett Bay Road via an
existing 36” culvert before discharging to Lake Champlain. The existing culvert is undersized relative to
current City standards, with hydrologic modeling showing the culvert backing up and overtopping
Bartlett Bay Road at the 1-year storm event. Additionally, the undersized culvert has contributed to
channel erosion downstream of the culvert outfall. This is corroborated by observations made by
residents and reported to the City. Current standards dictate that new culverts must have sufficient
capacity to pass flow during a 25-year storm event. This project seeks to rectify flooding and downstream
erosion caused by the undersized culvert by replacing the culvert with an appropriately sized box culvert
to provide adequate passage of the 25-year storm. This project will include final design of the box culvert
and construction. Note that the scoping study attached includes construction of a relief culvert further
west on Bartlett Bay Road, as well as potential implementation of a detention pond upstream of the
project culvert. These components are not included for funding in this application and will be addressed
in future projects.
2. What is the feasibility of this project? Feasibility (or Scoping) study applications will not be scored
on this criterion. Also, please describe the extent of project development completed to date.
(10 points max.)
Culvert replacement projects are common, feasible projects. The new box culvert will replace the
existing undersized culvert within the proximity of its existing footprint. Relocation of existing utilities,
including a gas line, an underground communication duct and various overhead power lines will be
required as a part of this project. Whether these relocations will be temporary or permanent is yet to be
determined. This type of work is typical in association with a culvert replacement project. Additionally,
while temporary easements will likely be needed for construction, all permanent changes are located
within the City’s right-of-way, preventing the need to obtain permanent easements. An initial scoping
study was completed in 2015 which addresses project feasibility in more detail. The scoping study is
included in the attachments of this application.
3. Does this project address a need identified in a local or regional planning document? If so, please
describe. (5 points max.)
This project addresses local prioritized hazard mitigation actions. Annex 13 of the 2022 Chittenden
County All Hazards Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies prioritized mitigation actions to
be taken by the City of South Burlington. This project addresses three of those actions, including Action
2022-1: Retrofit of all new and existing critical infrastructure to withstand the impacts of identified
hazards (Flooding, Fluvial Erosion, Severe Rainstorm), Action 2022-2: Mitigate impacts of runoff such as
excessive flow, sediment load and excessive phosphorus discharge (Flooding, Fluvial Erosion, Severe
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 4
Rainstorm) and Action 2022-7: Retrofitting of hazard prone structures (Flooding, Fluvial Erosion, Severe
Rainstorm).
4. Does this project benefit a State Designated Center per the link below (i.e., downtowns, villages, or
neighborhood growth centers recognized by the Vermont Department of Economic, Housing and
Community Development? (10 Points Max.)
http://maps.vermont.gov/ACCD/PlanningAtlas/index.html?viewer=PlanningAtlas
N/A
5. Provide a project cost estimate below (project costs below include both federal dollars and local
dollars). Projects will be scored based on whether the cost appears realistic for the size and scope of
the project. For scoping studies, use PE and Local Project Management lines only.
Note: If you are applying for additional funds for an existing project, show the amount being requested
for this grant in the PE, ROW, Construction, Construction Engineering, and Municipal Project
Management rows below. Also, be clear regarding total project cost and other funding amounts and
sources in the additional funding comments box below. (10 points max.)
Preliminary Engineering (PE)
(Engineering, Surveying, Permitting) $ 80,0000
Right-of-way / Acquisition (ROW)
(appraisals, land acquisition and legal fees) $ 5,000
Construction
(construction costs with reasonable contingency) $ 450,000
Construction Engineering
(cost to provide inspection during construction) $ 45,000
Municipal Project Management Costs
(minimum of 10% of total PE, ROW and Construction
Phases). $ 58,000
Total Project Cost $ 638,000
Addition Funding Comments: (ex. Total and additional funding for existing projects)
N/A
6. Select the eligibility category below (A, B, C or D) that best fits your project and answer the
corresponding questions for that category (choose only one category). 10 bonus points will be
awarded to projects that are primarily Bicycle or Pedestrian facilities.
☐ A. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (includes Safe Routes for Non-Drivers and Conversion of
abandoned railroad corridors.
(i) Will the project contribute to a system of pedestrian and/or bicycle facilities?
(10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 5
(ii) Will the project provide access to likely generators of pedestrian and/or bicyclist
activity? (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
(iii) Will the project address a known, documented safety concern? (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
☐ B. Community Improvement Activities:
i. Explain how the project improves the economic wellbeing of the community and/or provide
a benefit to state tourism? (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
ii. Describe the anticipated impact to the public; degree of visibility, public exposure and/or
public use. (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
iii. Answer only one of the following based on the type of project:
a) Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas as related to scenic or historic sites.
To what extent will the project provide a view of a highly unique and scenic area? (10 points
max.)
Click here to enter text.
b) Preservation or rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities. Describe the historic
significance of the historic transportation facility and the importance of the facility to the
state. (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
c) Archeological planning and research related to impacts from a transportation project.
Describe the associated transportation project and benefit of the proposed activities.
(10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
d) Vegetation management in transportation rights of way to improve roadway safety, prevent
invasive species, and provide erosion control. Describe the extent of the current problem and
the impact on the site and surrounding area. (10 points max.)
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 6
Click here to enter text.
☒ C. Environmental Mitigation Activity Related to Stormwater and Highways
i. Please describe how this application provides environmental mitigation relating to
stormwater and highways. (10 points max.)
The existing culvert that conveys North Brook under Bartlett Bay Road is undersized,
causing flooding issues during heavy rainfall events. Additionally, the increase in velocity
due to the channel constriction caused by the culvert has led to notable erosion in the
vicinity and downstream of the culvert outfall. In order to prevent further issues, the scope
of the proposed project includes replacement of the existing 36” culvert with an
appropriately sized box culvert that can safely pass the 25-year storm. Replacing the
undersized culvert with a properly sized culvert will allow for proper conveyance of
stormwater and prevent overtopping of Bartlett Bay Road and additional scour downstream
of the outfall. It will also restore aquatic organism connectivity between the Lake and upper
portions of North Brook, as the existing culvert is the most downstream obstruction to
aquatic organism passage. The existing culvert is perched, creating a vertical barrier to fish
passage. The box culvert will be sized to allow re-naturalization of North Brook as it crosses
Bartlett Bay Road.
ii. What information or data is provided to substantiate the current stormwater problem and
associated environmental impacts? (10 points max.)
Under normal antecedent moisture conditions, the hydrologic modeling (see attached
scoping study) shows that the existing 36” culvert is unable to pass the 1-year storm
without backing up water upstream of the culvert and causing overtopping of the roadway.
This falls significantly short of the current City standards requiring safe passage of the 25-
year storm. This flooding has been corroborated by observations made by residents and
reported to the City. Additionally, erosion has been noted downstream of the culvert
outfall, with residents reporting continuing damage in 2019 (see attached letter from
residents). A comparative photo analysis shows changes in channel morphology between
the initial 2015 scoping study and a subsequent culvert assessment completed in 2020 in
response to residents’ concerns (see attached culvert assessment memo). Additionally,
brook trout were observed in the plunge pool at the outfall of the culvert in October 2019
but were not observed upstream of the culvert, indicating that the size and perched
location of the culvert have created a barrier to aquatic organism passage (see culvert
assessment memo).
iii. What substantiating data or information is provided to show that the proposed application
is an effective and maintainable solution to the problem? (10 points max.)
Initial sizing completed as a part of the 2015 scoping study shows that replacement of the
existing pipe culvert with a properly sized box culvert would adequately pass the 25-year
storm without overtopping the road or backing up water upstream of the culvert (see
attached scoping study). Utilization of properly sized box culverts is an effective and
manageable solution to the common problem of an undersized pipe culvert. In addition to
providing proper drainage and restoring safe access and egress to the neighborhood, the
box culvert will also act to improve aquatic organism passage in North Brook. It will be
Vermont Transportation Alternatives Grant Application Fall 2022 7
designed as a partially buried structure to meet ANR stream alteration permit requirements
to promote wildlife passage and maintain stream velocities.
☐ D. Environmental Mitigation Activity Related to Wildlife
i. Please describe how this application will reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality or will
restore and maintain connectivity among terrestrial or aquatic habitats. (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
ii. What information or data is provided to substantiate the current problem and associated
environmental impacts? (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
iii. What substantiating data or information is provided to show that the proposed application
is an effective and manageable solution to the problem? (10 points max.)
Click here to enter text.
$//(15'6%($&+5'6%($&+5'%/$&.%(55</1%$57/(77%$<5'6+(/%851(5'.$5(1'5&20672&.
&,5&/(67$1+23(5'+2/0(65'
%5,
*
+
$
0
5
'/$.(9,(:/17:,1
%522
.
&
7+2/0(65'(;7780%/(%522.'5
/(:,6
5'
1(67,'
5
,03(5,$/'5
,';'5
+$5%259,(:5'
*5((102817$,1'5
0D[DU0LFURVRIW
)HHW
Project Area
Area of Benefit
Lake Champlain
Flooding Relief and
Emergency Access
Stream Channel
Restoration
Aquatic Organism
Connectivity
December 13, 2022
Marisa Rorabaugh – Stormwater Superintendent, City of South Burlington VT.
Re: VAOT Transportation Assistance Program (TAP)
For Design and Construction of a box culvert on Bartlett Bay Road, South Burlington VT
Dear Ms. Rorabaugh,
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission is pleased to support your proposal for a SFY24
Vermont AOT Transportation Alternatives (TAP) Grant to address perpetual channel erosion issues due
to the undersized culvert on Bartlett Bay Road in South Burlington, VT. Installing a larger and correctly
sized culvert have been identified as the appropriate upgrades.
• The project is consistent with Strategy #3.2.3 of the County’s 2013 Regional Plan aka the ECOS
Plan, which calls for actions to “improve the safety, water quality, and habitat of our rivers,
streams, wetlands and lakes in each watershed.”
• Additionally, this project is consistent with the recently adopted 2022 South Burlington All-
Hazards Mitigation Plan, specifically Action 2022-2 Mitigate impacts of runoff such as excessive
flow, sediment load and excessive phosphorus and Action 2022-7 Retrofitting of hazard prone
structures
The City of South Burlington has been a leader in the region in systematically identifying and fixing water
quality concerns. This section of Bartlett Bay Road is also covered under the Municipal Roads General
Permit, and by installing more resilient stormwater infrastructure, the town will be in a better position
to meet standards in the future. This project, if brought to fruition, will add to this litany of the City’s
achievements and most importantly helps to improve water quality and prevent future damage to
public and private transportation infrastructure.
Please let me know if there is anything else we can do to support this project. Please feel free to contact
me should you have any questions.
Best regards,
Chris Dubin
Senior Transportation Planner
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202
Winooski, VT 05404 - 2109
802 - 846 - 4490
www.ccrpcvt.org
I! south December 9, 2022
Scott Robertson, P.E. -Municipal Assistance Section, Project Manager
Vermont Agency of Transportation
219 North Main Street, 4th Floor
Barre, VT 05641
RE: Vermont Transportation Alternatives Fall 2022 Application
Design and Construction of Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Replacement, City of South Burlington
Dear Mr. Robertson,
On behalf of the City Council of South Burlington, I am writing to state the Council's strong support for
and express the community's great interest in grant funding to support the design and construction of an
appropriately sized box culvert to replace the existing 36" culvert where North Brook flows under
Bartlett Bay Road. The existing culvert is undersized, causing runoff to back up during heavy rain and
flow over the road at a low point to the west of the culvert. This is a known issue that has been reported
multiple times by residents of Bartlett Bay. This project will address flow capacity limitations and restore
North Brook's connection to Lake Champlain, thus mitigating hazardous road conditions and restoring
residents' safe access to and egress from their homes during heavy rain events.
The City is prepared to provide the 20% matching funds required for project costs beginning in 2023 and
continuing through at least 2026. These funds will be allocated from the City of South Burlington
Stormwater Enterprise Fund. The City has experience in the scoping, design, construction, and oversight
of projects such as these. The City has close connections with the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission and numerous consultants in the area with whom the City would work to complete this
project.
Maintenance of the box culvert will become part of the City's regular maintenance program for public
facilities. We are proud of our commitment to maintaining quality public infrastructure and this will not
impose any substantial additional burden on our maintenance resources. Members of our community,
including residents of Bartlett Bay Road have long requested this project be completed and we are
extremely enthusiastic about completing it. We appreciate your time and attention in consideration of the
City's application for funding to build this important stormwater mitigation improvement.
Sincerely,
Jessie Baker, City Manager
Attachment A
2015 Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Scoping Study
South Burlington Multi-Site
Stormwater Infrastructure
Assessment Site No. 2 –
Bartlett Bay Road Culvert
Assessment of Culvert Capacity
and Recommendations for
Improvements
Prepared for:
Tom DiPietro
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of South Burlington, Vermont
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Ltd.
55 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, Vermont
Submitted as Final Report
December 15, 2015
Sign-off Sheet
This document entitled South Burlington Multi-Site Stormwater Infrastructure Assessment Site No. 2 –
Bartlett Bay Road Culvert was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (“Stantec”) for the
account of City of South Burlington, Vermont (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any
third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of
the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between
Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information
existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent
changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any
use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third
party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered
by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document.
Prepared by
(signature)
Chris Gendron, PE
Reviewed by
(signature)
Greg Goyette, PE
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Table of Contents
1.0 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................... 1.1
1.1.1 Site Description ............................................................................................... 1.1
1.1.2 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 1.2
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULVERT CAPACITY .......................................................................... 2.4
2.1.1 Design Criteria ................................................................................................ 2.4
2.1.2 Stormwater Modeling ................................................................................... 2.4
3.0 SOLUTIONS .................................................................................................................... 3.7
3.1.1 Increasing Culvert Capacity ........................................................................ 3.7
3.1.2 Decreasing Peak Flow to Culverts ............................................................ 3.16
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS ..................................................................... 4.19
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Peak flow and runoff volume at culvert inlet for 36” culvert ................................ 2.5
Table 2 - Peak flow and runoff volume at culvert inlet for Lakeview Lane culvert ........... 2.6
Table 3 - Results of culvert capacity calculations .................................................................. 3.8
Table 4 - Opinion of probable construction cost for new 13'x4' Concrete Box
Culvert ........................................................................................................................... 3.11
Table 5 – Opinion of probable construction cost for new 17'x4' Concrete Box
Culvert ........................................................................................................................... 3.11
Table 6 - Peak flow, runoff volume and elevation at at Lakeview Lane culvert
inlet with existing 36” pipe culvert under Bartlett Bay Road ................................ 3.14
Table 7 - Peak flow, runoff volume and elevation at Lakeview Lane culvert inlet
with new 13’x4’ box culvert under Bartlett Bay Road........................................... 3.14
Table 8 - Opinion of probable construction cost for relief culvert and
replacement of Lakeview Lane and driveway culverts ...................................... 3.16
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Overview of drainage area and discharge location ........................................... 1.1
Figure 2 - Diagram showing existing drainage pattern during large storm events ........... 1.2
Figure 3 – Hydrologic Soil Map ................................................................................................... 1.3
Figure 4 - Example Photo of a Box Culvert ............................................................................... 3.7
Figure 5 - Inlet and outlet of existing 36" concrete culvert .................................................... 3.9
Figure 6 - Downstream Condition .............................................................................................. 3.9
Figure 7 - Typical Installation of a Precast Box Culvert ......................................................... 3.12
Figure 8 - Recommended improvements for Lakeview Lane culvert ............................... 3.13
Figure 9 - Recommended improvements for driveway culverts ........................................ 3.16
Figure 10 - Potential pond location to detain part of drainage area .............................. 3.18
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1 - Pond Area vs. Culvert Size ........................................................................................ 3.17
LIST OF APPENDICES
DESIGN CRITERIA ........................................................................................ A.1 APPENDIX A
PROJECT BASE MAP .................................................................................... B.1 APPENDIX B
STORMWATER MODELING .......................................................................... C.1 APPENDIX C
CONCEPTUAL PLAN ................................................................................... D.1 APPENDIX D
AS-BUILTS ..................................................................................................... E.1 APPENDIX E
SOIL AND LAND TYPE HEAT MAP ................................................................ F.1 APPENDIX F
LAND RECORDS .......................................................................................... G.2 APPENDIX G
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Overview
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 1.1
1.0 OVERVIEW
The City of South Burlington was awarded funding by the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Commission to assess roadway and land-use impacts on water quality for four sites within the
City. These four sites are:
• The Orchards Neighborhood and Streets
• Pine Tree Terrace Neighborhood and Streets
• Spear Street Culvert near the intersection of Deerfield Avenue and Nowland Farms Road
• Bartlett Bay Culvert
Each of the above sites has been identified as having existing or emerging stormwater concerns,
directly affecting local and regional water quality and increasing potential for flood damage to
private and public properties. Relating to transportation, runoff from the transportation network
directly contributes to the stormwater concerns.
The City contracted with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) to complete these
assessments. The assessments include recommendations to improve water quality and/or
reduce the potential for flood damage for each of these sites. The recommendations consider
other local/regional activities or initiatives such as the mission of the South Burlington Stormwater
Utility and Regional Stormwater Education Program (RSEP) as well as the regional efforts to
improve water quality volume and meet TMDL standards.
This report focuses on assessment and recommended improvements for the Bartlett Bay Road
Culvert site. Runoff from a 210-acre densely developed drainage area runs into the North Brook.
The North Brook is conveyed under Bartlett Bay Road via an existing 36” culvert. The 36” culvert
is undersized and gets overwhelmed during large storm events. As a consequence, a drainage
swale that runs along Bartlett Bay Road becomes overwhelmed and then overtops the road
causing flooding and erosion issues across private properties. The goal of this assessment is to
recommend improvements that will reduce the potential of the roadway overtopping.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT BAY ROAD CULVERT Overview August 28, 2015 gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 1.1
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Overview
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 1.1
1.1.1 Site Description
A map showing the 210-acre drainage area and the North Brook is shown in Figure 1. Much of
the area located east of the railroad tracks is densely developed and includes US Route 7 and
surrounding commercial and residential development. Runoff from this area is conveyed to the
Bartlett Bay Road culvert primarily from stormwater pipes located within the transportation
network. Much of the runoff from nearby commercial and residential development discharges
into the transportation network piping. The area drains to an existing 48” pipe culvert under the
railroad tracks and into the North Brook. The brook is then conveyed under Bartlett Bay Road
through the existing 36” pipe culvert before discharging into Lake Champlain approximately
750’ southwest of the culvert outlet. The area west of the railroad tracks consists primarily of
privately owned forest and meadow, the South Burlington Wastewater Treatment Plant and a
cluster of private homes near the lake; and drains to the existing 36” pipe culvert through
roadside swales and culverts located along Bartlett Bay Road and Lakeview Lane.
Figure 1 - Overview of drainage area and discharge location
Residents reported that runoff draining to the 36” pipe culvert backs up during heavy rain and
causes a roadside swale, located west of the culvert and along Bartlett Bay Road, to overflow at
a low point in the road and drain toward Lake Champlain as shown in Figure 2. The roadway
overtopping causes occasional major flooding and damage to nearby properties. Video
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Overview
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 1.2
evidence of the swale overflow and localized flooding of properties on Bartlett Bay Road was
provided by residents. Residents have also observed stormwater inundating a nearby 24”
culvert under Lakeview Lane, also causing roadway overtopping at the same location.
Figure 2 - Diagram showing existing drainage pattern during large storm events
1.1.2 Data Collection
A topographic field survey was completed to gather locations, inverts and elevations of
pertinent drainage features including pipes, culverts, swales and drainage structures. Photos of
each drainage structure were provided with the field survey. A USGS soils map was used to
determine the soil types in the area along with their Hydrologic Rating and boundaries. A high
resolution aerial photo was used to determine locations of existing development and land type
(I.E. Wooded, pasture, paved, etc.). A land and soil type heat map showing the Hydrologic Soil
Rating and land type is shown in Figure 3 and contained in the appendix.
Three-dimensional surfaces were developed from Lidar received from VCGI which were used to
produce contours. The Lidar surface is also available to analyze any potential future grading.
GIS information provided by the City of South Burlington was used to display approximate parcel
boundaries, existing drainage infrastructure and utility information. A project base map showing
much of this information is contained in the appendix.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Overview
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 1.3
An 8” ductile iron water main runs down the North Side of Bartlett Bay Road and around the end
of the existing culvert approximately 6’ below the surface. Also running along the north side of
the road there is overhead Green Mountain Power utility lines that include power and
telecommunications. A sewer line crosses under Bartlett Bay Road but not under the existing
culvert. The sewer is the main outfall for the treatment plant and follows the North Brook stream
channel out to the lake. VT Gas Systems provided as-builts that show a 2” gas line on the south
side of Bartlett Bay road going over the culvert. An unknown underground duct is also shown on
these as-builts that goes along the south side of the road over the culvert. The depths, sizes and
exact locations of these utilities are unknown and are based on GIS information and as-builts.
As-builts from the VTrans US Route 7 roadway reconstruction project completed in 2006 and the
as-builts for the “IDX ponds” provided additional information on the existing stormwater
infrastructure. As-builts for the waste water treatment plant outlet pipe verify the sewer line does
not cross the existing 36” culvert under Bartlett Bay Road. As-builts can be found in the
appendix.
Figure 3 – Hydrologic Soil Map
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Assessment of Culvert Capacity
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 2.4
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF CULVERT CAPACITY
Existing conditions stormwater models were developed to determine the peak runoff rate
discharging to the 36” culvert and the roadside culvert passing under Lakeview Lane. The peak
rates were then compared to the existing capacity to determine if the culverts are undersized.
2.1.1 Design Criteria
Design criteria for the existing 36” culvert were gathered from a variety of sources and are
summarized in the appendix. The Vermont Agency of Transportation Hydraulics Manual, 1998
recommends culverts under local roads and streets to be able to pass the 25-year flood
frequency with a headwater to depth ratio of no greater than 1.5. The City of South Burlington
Land Development Regulations, Article 12.03 E.(2) specify that “All drainage structures shall be
designed, at a minimum, to safely pass the twenty-five year, twenty-four hour (4.0 inch) rain
event,” to accommodate upstream development. “Design criteria” for the roadway culvert is in
the appendix.
2.1.2 Stormwater Modeling
2.1.2.1 36” Culvert
Using the contours produced from the Lidar the entire drainage basin getting to the culvert was
delineated and then field verified. The total basin drainage area is approximately 210 acres.
That basin was then broken into sub-basins and analyzed individually to obtain peak flow and
total runoff volume. Peak runoff rates and total runoff volumes at the culvert inlet were
calculated for the 1, 10 and 25-year storm frequencies using NRCS TR55 methodology
(HydroCAD software). Antecedent Moisture Content (AMC) values of 2 and 3 were applied to
each storm event. An AMC value of 2 assumes the underlying soils in the drainage basin have
an average moisture content. Analysis using AMC 2 is the industry standard design condition for
New England. An AMC value of 3 assumes the underlying soils in the drainage basin are near
saturated more closely simulating back-to-back storm events. As-builts for some of the existing
stormwater infrastructure provided information to model a flow splitter on Bartlett Bay Road and
to model the IDX ponds in front of GE Healthcare. See the appendix for specific details on the
locations of the sub basins and how they were analyzed. Peak flows, peak elevations and total
runoff volume at the 36” culvert inlet for each analysis are summarized in Table 1.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Assessment of Culvert Capacity
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 2.5
AMC 2 AMC 3
Storm Frequency
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
36” Culvert
Capacity 60 - 113.96 60 - 113.96
1 Year 83 13.3 Overtops
road 168 23.4 Overtops
road
10 Year 193 27.1 Overtops
road 289 39.5 Overtops
road
25 Year 288 38.9 Overtops
road 391 52.7 Overtops
road
Table 1 - Peak flow and runoff volume at culvert inlet for 36” culvert
2.1.2.2 Lakeview Lane Culvert
Residents have also reported roadway overtopping during storm events due to water backing
up in the swale just west of the 24” culvert under Lakeview Lane. Residents have suggested that
this happens sometimes without water backing up from the 36” culvert under Bartlett Bay Road.
The drainage area, approximately 20 acres, to the Lakeview Lane culvert was modeled to
calculate peak runoff rates, total runoff volumes and peak elevations at the culvert inlet for the
1, 10 and 25-year storm frequencies. This information is summarized in Table 2.
The peak flow at which the roadway overwhelms the culvert and overtops the roadway was
calculated to be 7 cfs. Comparing this peak flow to the values shown in Table 2 indicates that
this culvert does not have the capacity to drain just over a 1-year storm event from the 20 acre
drainage area without roadway overtopping.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Assessment of Culvert Capacity
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 2.6
AMC 2 AMC 3
Storm Frequency
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Lakeview Lane
Culvert (24”)
Capacity
7 - 113.96 7 - 113.96
1 Year 5 0.8 Overtops
road 16 1.8 Overtops
road
10 Year 16 1.8 Overtops
road 30 3.3 Overtops
road
25 Year 26 2.9 Overtops
road 43 4.7 Overtops
road
Table 2 - Peak flow and runoff volume at culvert inlet for Lakeview Lane culvert
The information in Table 2 accounts for the 20-acre drainage area to the Lakeview Lane culvert
and stormwater from the larger 210-acre area that drains to the undersized 36” culvert and
backs up through the roadside swale and culverts along Bartlett Bay Road.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.7
3.0 SOLUTIONS
Two options were explored to decrease the likelihood of roadway overtopping on Bartlett Bay
Road. The options explored were increasing the capacity of the culvert or reducing the peak
flow to the culvert.
3.1.1 Increasing Culvert Capacity
3.1.1.1 36” Culvert
Increasing the size of the culvert will allow more flow to pass under the road and minimize the
potential for roadway overtopping. Using the FHWA Nomograph Software, a number of culverts
were sized to allow runoff to pass each storm without overtopping the road. The culvert rise was
limited to 4’ to allow for at least 3’ of cover over the culvert and allow room for the existing gas
line while maintaining the existing culvert inlet invert elevation (109.58). The results are
summarized in Table 3. The analysis suggests that a box culvert with a 13’x4’ hydraulic opening
will have adequate capacity to pass the 25-year, AMC 2 storm event and a box culvert with a
17’x4’ hydraulic opening will have adequate capacity to pass the 25-year, AMC 3 storm event.
See photo below for an example of a box culvert.
Figure 4 - Example Photo of a Box Culvert
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.8
Hydraulic Opening Capacity Max. Passable Storm
Frequencies (Peak Flow)
Existing 36” RCP 60 cfs -
48” RCP w/
headwall 83 cfs -
6’x3’ 133 cfs 1 year (85 cfs)
6’x4’ 148 cfs 1 year (85 cfs)
7’x3’ 155 cfs 1 year (85 cfs)
8’x4’ 198 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
9’x3’ 200 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
9’x4’ 223 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
10’x3’ 222 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
10’x4’ 247 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
11’x3’ 245 cfs 10 year (194 cfs)
12’x4’ 297 cfs 25 year (288 cfs)
13’x4’ 322 cfs 25 year (288 cfs)
14’x4’ 347 cfs 25 year (288 cfs)
15’x4’ 371 cfs 25 year (288 cfs)
16’x4’ 396 cfs 25 year – AMC 3 (390 cfs)
17’x4’ 421 cfs 25 year – AMC 3 (390 cfs)
18’x4’ 446 cfs 25 year – AMC 3 (390 cfs)
Table 3 - Results of culvert capacity calculations
The ANR stream alteration permit requires a minimum 1.5 feet of embedment in box culverts to
promote wild life passage and maintain stream velocities. ANR Stream Alteration Permit
requirements can be found on the ANR website at:
http://www.watershedmanagement.vt.gov/rivers/docs/2014_04_10_Stream_Alteration_GP.pdf
The actual physical opening required will be 1.5 feet plus the height of the hydraulic opening.
Downstream impacts to the existing channel were analyzed to be sure it can handle the
proposed increase in flow and change in velocity due to the increased culvert size. A
Manning’s analysis was completed to calculate stream capacity. The calculated stream
capacity is approximately 3,800 cfs. The analysis indicates that the stream has adequate
capacity to handle the increased flow without increasing the risk of downstream flooding or
property damage. The calculated velocity for the 25 year storm event passing through the
proposed 13’x4’ box culvert is approximately 5.5 ft/sec. Velocities were calculated using
Manning’s equation. The velocity under the proposed condition is not considered erosive. The
stream down to the lake is generally in good condition. The stream bed contains pebbles and
large boulders. The area directly following the culvert has formed a pool due to the elevated
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.9
outlet. There is also some evidence of bank undercutting. However, other than the required
culvert outlet protection, additional downstream alterations are not recommended.
Figure 5 - Inlet and outlet of existing 36" concrete culvert
Figure 6 - Downstream Condition
Replacing the existing culvert will require contacting permitting agencies, utility companies and
impacted property owners. The ANR River Management Engineer for South Burlington
determined the project will require an ANR Stream Alteration General Permit under the category
of “Reporting Activities Not Requiring an Application”. The Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
should be notified of the work being completed since the project is in the vicinity of mapped
Class II wetlands. The project is likely to qualify for Category 1 of the ACOE VT General Permit.
Vermont Gas Systems will need to be contacted to discuss the temporary or permanent
relocation of their gas line located above the culvert on the south side of Bartlett Bay Road.
Designer and contractor are to coordinate with Green Mountain Power along with the other
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.10
communication companies including Comcast and Fairpoint to decide the best course of
action to manage their overhead power lines during construction. Options include temporary or
permanent relocation, temporary de-energizing, or leaving in place. An As-built plan for the gas
line also shows an underground communication duct on the south side of Bartlett Bay road.
Utility companies have been contacted but are not able to verify the owner of the duct. If
active, this duct will need to be permanently or temporarily relocated. A waterline runs along
the north side of Bartlett Bay Road. As-builts provided by the Champlain Valley Water District
show that the waterline goes around the end of the existing culvert and may remain in-place
during construction. Contacts for utility companies are as follows:
Green Mountain Power: Joe Bobee, joe.bobee@greenmountainpower.com
Vermont Gas: Matt Anderson, 802-951-0327
Fairpoint: Melissa Rudnick, mrudnick@fiarpoint.com, 802-951-1561
Comcast: Jeremy Cota, Jeremy_cota@cable.comcast.com
Champlain Water District: John Tymecki, johnt@cwd-h2o.org, 802-864-7454
According to the as-builts, the existing culvert is located within the City-owned three-rod Right-
of-Way (ROW). Temporary easements will likely be needed to construct the culvert but no
permanent easements are anticipated at this point. An additional ROW investigation will need
to be done to determine the magnitude of easements required.
Estimated costs for new 13’x4’ and 17’x4’ concrete box culverts (with an additional 1.5’ for
embedment) are shown in Table 4 and Table 5. Costs are construction costs only and do not
include costs for Preliminary Engineering, Right-of-Way acquisition, maintenance or construction
engineering. Costs are determined for July 2015 and should be adjusted for inflation based on
anticipated construction year.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.11
Culvert Designed for 25 Year AMC 2
$/UNIT TOTAL UNIT Cost
Excavation/Backfill $ 650 50 LF $ 32,500
13'x5.5' Box $ 1,200 50 LF $ 60,000
Roadway $ 5,000 1 LS $ 5,000
Stream Bed Material
(1.5' Embedment) $ 100 40 CY $ 4,000
Stone Fill Type II $ 40 60 CY $ 2,400
Stream Diversion $ 20,000 1 LS $ 20,000
Traffic Control 5% LS $ 6,200
EPSC 3% LS $ 3,800
Mobilization/Demobilization 10% LS $ 12,400
Contingency 30% LS $ 43,900
Subtotal: $ 190,200
Rounding: $ 9,800
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $ 200,000
Table 4 - Opinion of probable construction cost for new 13'x4' Concrete Box Culvert
Culvert Designed for 25 Year AMC 3
$/UNIT TOTAL UNIT Cost
Excavation/Backfill $ 750 50 LF $ 37,500
17'x5.5' Box $ 2,000 50 LF $ 100,000
Roadway $ 6,000 1 LS $ 6,000
Stream Bed Material (1.5'
Embedment) $ 100 50 CY $ 5,000
Stone Fill Type II $ 40 100 CY $ 4,000
Stream Diversion $ 20,000 1 LS $ 20,000
Traffic Control 5% LS $ 8,700
EPSC 3% LS $ 5,200
Mobilization/Demobilization 10% LS $ 17,300
Contingency 30% LS $ 61,200
Subtotal: $ 264,900
Rounding: $ 10,100
Opinion of Probable Construction Cost: $ 280,000
Table 5 – Opinion of probable construction cost for new 17'x4' Concrete Box Culvert
Construction of the culvert will presumably be completed in two parts. Half of the roadway will
be excavated and a crane will drop parts of the precast structure in. The other half the
roadway will be open to one-way alternating traffic. Once the first half is complete it will be
opened to traffic and the second half of the precast structure will be constructed. The stream
will need to be temporarily diverted during construction of the culvert.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.12
Figure 7 - Typical Installation of a Precast Box Culvert
3.1.1.2 Lakeview Lane Culvert
Increasing the size of the Lakeview Lane culvert is not an option because the roadway cover is
approximately one foot. Damage to culverts can occur due to vehicle loading if roadway
cover is less than one foot. A secondary relief culvert that drains runoff directly to Lake
Champlain, as shown in Figure 8, would provide capacity to significantly reduce the likelihood of
roadway overtopping if the 36” culvert under Bartlett Bay Road is also replaced.
The relief culvert would consist of two 18” smooth pipe culverts under Bartlett Bay Road, two new
drainage manholes on the west side of the road, and a new run of 30” smooth pipe along the
north side of the 56 Bartlett Bay Road parcel outletting to Lake Champlain. Two 18” pipes are
recommended under Bartlett Bay Road due to the need for a minimum one foot of cover over
the pipes. Three potential locations for this outlet were explored. There is a small swale north of
56 Bartlett Bay Road that a previous homeowner constructed to redirect flood waters. This may
be a possible location for the new 30” outlet pipe if the City can obtain permission from the
landowner to get a 20’ wide easement to provide for future maintenance. An alternative
location for the relief culvert is down the private drive just south of 54 Bartlett Bay Road and thru
the driveway and lawn of 50 Bartlett Bay Rd. Currently this home is being redeveloped which
opens the opportunity to install an outlet pipe as a condition of their permit. Green Mountain
Power owns a 5’ wide easement along the northern property line of 54 Bartlett Bay Road. This
may be a possible location for the new 30” outlet pipe if the City can obtain permission from the
landowner and GMP to use and expand this easement. The land records for this easement are
contained in the appendix. The issue with this alternative is the added complication of the GMP
easement.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.13
Figure 8 - Recommended improvements for Lakeview Lane culvert
The proposed relief culvert was modeled with and without upgrades to the existing 36” culvert
under Bartlett Bay Road to calculate peak runoff rates, total runoff volumes and peak flow
elevations at the culvert inlet for the 1, 10 and 25-year storm frequencies. This information is
summarized in Table 6 and Table 7. If the 36” pipe culvert is not replaced (Table 6), roadway
overtopping is still expected to occur during the 1-year event as runoff backs up through the
roadside swales. If the 36” culvert is replaced with a 13’ x 4’ box culvert (Table 7), the
recommended improvements would increase capacity of the storm drain system to handle the
10-year AMC 2 storm event.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.14
AMC 2 AMC 3
Storm Frequency Peak Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Lakeview Lane
Culvert (24”) +
Relief Culvert
Capacity
42 - 113.96 42 - 113.96
1 Year 5 0.8 Overtops
road 16 1.8 Overtops
road
10 Year 16 1.8 Overtops
road 30 3.3 Overtops
road
25 Year 26 2.9 Overtops
road 43 4.7 Overtops
road
Table 6 - Peak flow, runoff volume and elevation at at Lakeview Lane culvert inlet with existing
36” pipe culvert under Bartlett Bay Road
AMC 2 AMC 3
Storm Frequency Peak Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Peak
Flow
(cfs)
Runoff
Volume
(Acre-ft)
Peak
Elevation
(ft)
Lakeview Lane
Culvert (24”) +
Relief Culvert
Capacity
42 - 113.96 42 - 113.96
1 Year 5 0.8 112.79 16 1.8 113.39
10 Year 16 1.8 113.39 30 3.3 Overtops
road
25 Year 26 2.9 Overtops
road 43 4.7 Overtops
road
Table 7 - Peak flow, runoff volume and elevation at Lakeview Lane culvert inlet with new 13’x4’
box culvert under Bartlett Bay Road
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.15
Downstream impacts are not a concern since the proposed improvements will discharge
directly to Lake Champlain. Adding the relief culvert may require a Vermont Lake
Encroachment Permit if the pipe encroaches upon the shoreline as defined by the mean water
level of Lake Champlain (95.5 feet).
Estimated costs for the improvements are shown in
Table 8. Costs are construction costs only and do not include costs for Preliminary Engineering,
Right-of-Way acquisition, maintenance or construction engineering. Costs are determined for
July 2015 and should be adjusted for inflation based on anticipated construction year.
There are two 18” diameter driveway culverts between Lakeview Lane and the existing 36” pipe
culvert under Bartlett Bay Road. Improvements to these culverts will also be necessary since
they restrict flow towards the culvert under Bartlett Bay Road. Increasing the size of these
culverts to 36” will provide additional capacity and allow more runoff to drain toward the culvert
under Bartlett Bay Road. These improvements are shown in Figure 9. Costs to replace these
culverts and to install a relief culvert are included in
Table 8.
Unit Price 1 Total Unit Extension Total Unit Extension
$20 150 CY $3,000 150 CY $3,000
$15 540 CY $8,100 715 CY $10,725
$6,000 1 LS $6,000 1 LS $9,000
$60 50 LF $3,000 180 LF $10,800
$300 2 EA $600 2 EA $600
$80 42 LF $3,360 42 LF $3,360
$600 2 EA $1,200 2 EA $1,200
$100 240 LF $24,000 285 LF $28,500
$750 3 EA $2,250 3 EA $2,250
$125 42 LF $5,250 42 LF $5,250
$900 2 EA $1,800 2 EA $1,800
$200 15 CY $3,000 0 EA $0
$5,000 2 EA $10,000 2 EA $10,000
Subtotal $71,560 $86,485
Mobilization/Demobilization (10%)$7,156 $8,649
Traffic Control (5%)$3,578 $4,324
EPSC (3%)$2,147 $2,595
Contingency (30%)$25,332 $30,616
Subtotal $109,773 $132,668
Rounded Cost $110,000 $140,000
1. The unit prices are based on VTrans Project Bid Tabs or the 5-yr Average Price List
ALT 1 - Thru 56 Bartlett Bay Road ALT 2 - Thru 50 Bartlett Bay Road
Reconstruct Gabian Wall at Outlet
Precast Reinforced Concrete Manhole
with Cast Iron Cover
Description
Roadway Excavation and Existing Pipe
Removal
Trench Excavation for Swale
Reconstruction and Outlet Pipe to Lake
Roadway Backfill and Surface Material
18" CPEP(SL)
24" CPEP(SL)
18" End Section
24" End Section
30" End Section
36" End Section
30" CPEP(SL)
36" CPEP(SL)
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.16
Table 8 - Opinion of probable construction cost for relief culvert and replacement of Lakeview
Lane and driveway culverts
Figure 9 - Recommended improvements for driveway culverts
3.1.2 Decreasing Peak Flow to Culverts
A detention basin or other form of storage upstream of the 36” culvert was explored to decrease
the peak flow to the culvert and minimize the potential for roadway overtopping. Construction
of a basin would have the added benefit of helping the City meet TMDL goals for Lake
Champlain.
Given the densely developed drainage area, detention basins would be ideally located
downstream of the developed areas to maximize flow reduction and water quality benefit. One
area to construct a detention pond would be north of the wastewater treatment plant as shown
in Figure 10. The area hatched in green represents the drainage area that could be routed to a
detention basin in this location. Analysis indicates that construction of a detention basin in this
area would not capture enough runoff to prevent runoff from overtopping the roadway during
a 25-year storm. In addition, a new culvert would need to be installed under the railroad
embankment to route the runoff to this area. The chart below shows dimensions of dry
detention basins required to reduce the flow to various box culvert sizes.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.17
Chart 1 - Pond Area vs. Culvert Size
The cost of excavating and landscaping a pond this size in this area could be upwards of
$500,000. There would also be a significant ROW acquisition cost for this property. Based on
assessed value as shown on South Burlington’s Grand List, acquisition costs could be close to
$320,000 per acre. In addition, there would be the cost to install a larger culvert designed for
the 50 year storm under the railroad which will include additional railroad fees. Cost to install
this could range from $300,000 to $500,000 if allowed by the railroad. On top of these costs, a
culvert would still need to be installed under Bartlett Bay Road since a basin could not be
installed to reduce flows to the existing capacity of the culvert. The cost could range from
$150,000 to $200,000. This alternative is very cost prohibitive.
673'x224'x4'
593'x198'x4'
523'x174'x4'
622'x207'x4'
544'x181'x4'
479'x160'x4'
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
6'x3' 7'x3' 8'x3' 6'x4' 7'x4' 8'x4'Pond Surface Area Required (SF)Box Culvert Size under Bartlett Bay Rd
Pond Area vs. Culvert Size
25 Year (AMC 2)
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Solutions
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 3.18
Figure 10 - Potential pond location to detain part of drainage area
Similar to the previous alternative, a smaller basin could be installed in this area to treat only the
water quality volume in effort to meet future Lake Champlain TMDL requirements. A much
smaller culvert could be used to redirect the water quality volume under the railroad and into
the basin, while larger events bypass the pipe and stormwater will flow as it does today.
Preliminary calculations show that an 18” culvert could be jack and bored under the railroad to
convey this flow, approximately 5.02 cfs. The pond would be much smaller and require much
less excavation at an approximate size of 130’x40’x4’ which is sized to detain and release the
water quality volume over 24 hours. A pond this size would cost close to $20,000 to $30,000. The
cost to jack and bore under the railroad will require specific permits, applications and lease fees
typically costing close to $10,000. Based on historical data, the construction cost will be
somewhere in the range of $80,000 to $100,000. The downside to this alternative is that the pond
will have little to no detention benefit for larger storms and to fix the flooding issue at Bartlett Bay
Road a new culvert, as described above, would still need to be installed.
A detention basin located between the wastewater plant and Bartlett Bay Road on City
property was also explored. While a larger drainage area could be directed to this location, the
grades and limited available land do not allow detention of the required volume of runoff to
prevent roadway overtopping. Also, since this part of the brook falls under the jurisdiction of
ANRs watershed management division, they won’t permit any in stream detention.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Recommendations and Next steps
August 28, 2015
gc v:\1953\active\195311016\transportation\report\bartlett bay\bartlett bay report final.docx 4.19
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS
Reducing the risk of roadway overtopping and flood and erosion damage can be achieved by
replacing the existing 36” culvert under Bartlett Bay Road and constructing a new relief culvert
where the roadway currently overtops near 56 Bartlett Bay Road. Given the cost of the two
improvements, replacing the 36” culvert could be considered a long-term improvement and
constructing the relief culvert could be a short-term improvement. Both improvements will need
to be constructed to provide sufficient capacity to eliminate roadway overtopping during the
10-year, AMC 2 storm event.
Short-term Recommendation
A relief culvert consisting of two 18” smooth pipe culverts under Bartlett Bay Road, two new
drainage manholes on the west side of the road, and a new run of 30” smooth pipe outletting to
Lake Champlain will have the capacity to drain a 10-year, AMC 2 storm event without roadway
overtopping once the long-term recommendation is implemented. In addition, replacement of
the existing 18” driveway culverts with 36” culverts will be necessary.
If the 36” pipe culvert under Bartlett Bay Road is not replaced, roadway overtopping is still
expected to occur during the 1-year storm event as runoff backs up through the roadside
swales, albeit the volume of runoff that overtops the road will be reduced.
Long-term Recommendation
Construction of a 13’ x 4’ box culvert to replace the existing 36” culvert under Bartlett Bay Road
is recommended to pass the 25-year, AMC 2 event. A culvert constructed of this size will be
consistent with State design standards and City Land Development Regulations. A 17’ x 4’ box
culvert will pass the 25-year, AMC 3 event and provide additional capacity with additional cost.
It is recommended that a 13’x4’ culvert be constructed at a minimum with a 17’ x 4’ culvert
preferred to reduce the risk of roadway overtopping and localized flood and erosion damage.
A conceptual plan for the 17’ x 4’ culvert has been included in the appendix.
Next Steps
The following outlines next steps recommended for the City to undertake if they choose to move
forward with the project:
• Determine optimal location for relief culvert considering underground utilities and
minimum cover.
• Secure funds for design and construction of the short and long-term improvements.
• Procure engineering and permitting services for culvert designs.
• Advertise bids, select contractor and construct project.
SOUTH BURLINGTON MULTI-SITE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT SITE NO. 2 – BARTLETT
BAY ROAD CULVERT
Appendix D Conceptual Plan
August 28, 2015
D.1
CONCEPTUAL PLANAppendix D
Attachment B
2020 Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Assessment Memo
Memo
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
To: Tom Dipietro From: Christopher Gendron, PE
Department of Public Works, South Burlington, VT Stantec Consulting Services
File: Bartlett Brook Rd Culvert Assessment Date: February 21, 2020
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
This memo is in response to concerns residents have shared with the City of South Burlington Department of Public Works regarding an existing 36” culvert and the downstream channel (North Brook) located beneath Bartlett Brook Road. As requested by the City, Stantec Consulting Engineers, performed a field assessment of the existing 36” Concrete Pipe and the downstream channel. The following summarizes the assessment and provides recommendations for short to medium term maintenance.
Figure 1 - Location Map
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 2 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Existing Culvert
There are no erosion control measures near the inlet of the culvert although it is heavily vegetated. The inlet
of the culvert is projecting with no wingwalls or headwalls. There are no signs of flow bypassing the culvert
and flowing along side it. The outlet side of the culvert is protected with stone wingwalls and a concrete cradle
headwall. Below the outlet is an unprotected plunge pool. Photos of the existing culvert inlet and outlet can be
seen on Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix A.
Existing Downstream Channel
The downstream channel had significant signs of erosion. Immediately at the outfall there is a deep plunge pool with significant erosion on both sides of the channel to the point where tree roots are being exposed and trees are leaning towards the brook. The plunge pool had a school of 3-4” brook trout at the time of inspection on October 3, 2019. Closer to the outlet there is 4-8” non-native angular stone for erosion control. The stone looked to be part of an erosion control effort and has since been transported downstream. At the next turn after the outlet, the outside bank has eroded and undercut the existing bank. The stream channel is filled with
rocks that range from cobble to boulder size. The channel width varies between 4’ – 15’. There is erosion
frequently along both sides of the brook to a point where tree roots are exposed (See Figure 8 in Appendix A), rip rap has been displaced and adjacent bank stability has been compromised.
Analysis
Culverts sized less than bank full width increase the velocity of a stream channel. This increase in stream
velocity causes an increase in bank incision both up and downstream of the culvert. The stream deepens
and increases in width to handle the increase in velocity which causes erosion along the stream banks. This
is the likely cause of the erosion along the stream banks of North Brook in this area.
Deep plunge pools occur when a culvert is either steeper than the natural stream channel or too flat and the outlet sits above the water level. The combination of increased velocity due to the culvert’s size and this pipe
being flatter than the natural stream channel is the likely cause the scour at the outlet.
In 2015, as part of study of this area, the stream channel was inspected on April, 29th 2015. Photos from that
inspection were compared with the photos taken from the recent inspection to determine if there have been
any major changes to the stream channel. Key take ways include a new beaver dam near the mouth of the
stream and an increase in erosion in a few locations. See Appendix C – North Brook Photo Comparison
for a more detailed look at this evaluation.
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 3 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Short-Term Recommendations
To reduce expansion of the plunge pool, a splash pad could be installed just below the outlet with stone sized
to adequately dissipate the energy from the stream. See Figure 2 for a sample detail of splash pad below.
Dissipating energy from the outlet of the culvert will benefit the downstream channel by reducing velocity and
therefore erosion. The Stone Bed Material would typically be Type III Stone Fill per VAOT specification
613.12 supplemented with material excavated from the channel and/or the tailings of a topsoil screening
operation meeting certain graduation and installation requirements. See permitting requirements below.
Figure 2 - Sample Culvert Plunge Pool Detail
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 4 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Medium-Term Recommendations
Natural stream channel protection techniques such as “Cross Vanes” and “J-Hooks” would be an appropriate
mid-term solution to reduce erosion issues encountered downstream of the culvert. These devices could be
installed upstream of areas where bank erosion has occurred. The concept behind these devices is to move
the higher velocity flows away from the bank and to dissipate the energy. These methods help prevent
erosion and provide valuable habitat. See Figure 3 for an example of a Cross Vane installed to prevent
erosion. “Toe Wood” is also another alternative to explore that involves installing a pit of branches along the
bank to not only provide stability but also to provide habitat. See Figure 4 for an example. Sample details
and additional photos of various natural stream channel protection techniques can be found in Appendix D. If
installation of these devices is the preferred alternative, they need to be carefully designed by a Professional
Engineer. Several factors should be considered such as plant selection, embedment depth and proper
positioning. See section below for anticipated permting requirements.
Figure 3 - Example of a Cross Vane at Stantec’s Upper Coldwater Fork Stream Restoration Project in Martin County, Kentucky
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 5 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 4 – “Toe Wood” Under Construction
Another method for stabilizing a stream is the use of rip rap. If done correctly, it can be an effective means of
stopping bank erosion. According to the VTrans Hydraulics Manual, to handle the critical velocity from the
brook Type III stone is recommended for stream channel protection. Section 5.3.2 Stream Channels states
that for velocities between 9-10 ft/s, a thickness of 3 ft of Type III stone (See Figure 5-1 from VTrans
Hydraulics Manual below). Areas where erosion is most prevalent could be armored with Rip-Rap.
Techniques such as “Soil Choking” and “Live Staking” should be employed to better hold the Rip-Rap in place
and provide the appearance of a more natural channel. “Soil choking” involves filling the voids between the
rip rap with soil to create an interlocked interface with opportunity for plant growth. Live staking is a technique
that uses live plants with deep root structure to hold the rip rap in place. As with natural stream channel
techniques, careful consideration should go into plant selection. Although this may be effective means for
stabilizing the channel, stream restoration practice is moving away from the large rock structures and towards
a more natural, non-obtrusive appearance
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 6 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 5 - Sample Detail from VTrans Hydraulics Manual for Stream Stabilization
Permitting
Below is a list of permits anticipated to begin the proposed improvements. The proposed installer of these
practices should meet with the ANR River Corridor Engineer, Chris Brunelle and ANR Wetlands Analyst, Tina
Heath to discuss the proposed improvements and determine final permitting requirements. Impacted property
owners should be informed of proposed improvements as well. Depending on the scope of work these
permits may be waived if work is isolated to just the outlet.
10 V.S.A. Chapter 41 Stream Alteration Permit (including aquatic organism passage considerations)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vermont General Permit
Vermont Individual Permit for Single Wetland
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
Christopher Gendron PE Project Manager
Phone: 802 497 6402
Christopher.Gendron@stantec.com
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 7 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
APPENDIX A:
Photos
Photo Location Map Note: image locations are approximate
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 8 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 6: Inlet of Culvert and Flow Direction (IMG_1382)
Figure 7: Outlet Condition (IMG_1383)
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 9 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 8: Outfall Erosion & Pool (IMG_1438)
Figure 9: Outfall Erosion & Pool (Cont.) (IMG_1437)
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 10 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 10: Downstream Bank Erosion (Unknown Location)
Figure 11: Wide and Meandering Channel (IMG_1419)
February 21, 2020
Tom Dipietro
Page 11 of 15
Reference: Bartlett Brook Rd. Culvert Assessment
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
Figure 12: Existing Erosion Controls (IMG_1428)
Figure 13: Existing Beaver Dam at Mouth (IMG_1430)
Memo
gc v:\1953\active\195311609\transportation\report\2.24.20 culvert memo_final.docx
APPENDIX C:
North Brook Photo Comparison
Comparing photos from April 29th, 2015 to October 3rd, 2019
North Brook Photo Comparison
Comparing photos from April 29th, 2015 to October 3rd, 2019
On April 29th, 2015 field staff from Stantec took pictures of the brook as part of an analysis of the
existing culvert underneath Bartlett Brook Road. On October 3rd, 2019, field staff from Stantec further
investigated the downstream channel. In the comparison, the photos will reference the photos below
where 16 sets of comparison pictures can be found. The locations listed below noticed the most
significant changes.
Location #4 ‐ Around the outlet side of the culvert you can see at this location, erosion has continued to
develop since 2015. More of the tree roots have been exposed and the embankment is now nearly
vertical.
Locations #5&6 ‐ Immediately downstream of the culvert, you can see more roots in 2019. You can also
see more uncovered rocks on the right side of the photo underneath the roots.
Location #8 ‐ The continued erosion is apparent when looking at the roots. The stream has widened, and
more roots have been exposed above and below since 2015.
Location #9 ‐ About halfway down the brook you can see continued erosion of the bank. In 2015 the
embankment was a gradual slope. Now in 2019 you can see that the gradual slope is gone and that the
existing vegetation is being undercut. The eroded pocket you can see to the left of the staircase has
gotten deeper as well.
Location #12 ‐ Just past the bridge you can see the tree that splits into two that is leaning more in 2019
than 2015. The erosion has also created about a 4‐foot vertical wall that is being held up by the root
system of existing vegetation.
Location #14 ‐ If you look on the left side of the photos, more rocks have been exposed from the erosion
of the stream bank.
Location #15 ‐ If you look on the left side of the 2019 photo (right side of 2015 photo), you’ll notice the
stone along the bank that may have been artificially placed based on the positioning of the stone.
Location #16 ‐ You’ll notice that from 2015 to 2019 beavers have created a Dam at the Mouth of the
Brook.
Photo Location Map Note: image locations are approximate
Location #1 – (2015)
Location #1 – (2019) (#1382)
Location #2 – (2015)
Location #2 – (2019)(#1437)
Location #3 – (2015)
Location #3 – (2019) (#1438)
Location #4 – (2015)
Location #4 – (2019)(#1385)
Location #5 – (2015)
Location #5 – (2019)(#1391)
Location #6 – (2015)
Location #6 – (2019)(#1387)
Location #7 – (2015)
Location #7 – (2019)(#1404)
Location #8 – (2015)
Location #8 – (2019)(#1405)
Location #9 – (2015)
Location #9 – (2019)(#1414)
Location #10 – (2015)
Location #10 – (2019)(#1415)
Location #11 – (2015)
Location #11 – (2019)(#1416)
Location #12 – (2015)
Location #12 – (2019)(#1388)
Location #13 – (2015)
Location #13 – (2019)(#1426)
Location #14 – (2015)
Location #14 – (2019)(#1429)
Location #15 – (2015) Same location, downstream
Location #15 – (2019) Same location, upstream (#1431)
Location #16 – (2015)
Location #16 – (2019)(#1432)
Attachment C
2019 Letter from Residents of the Bartlett Bay Neighborhood
180 Market Street, South Burlington, Vermont 05403 | 802-846-4107 | www.southburlingtonvt.gov
To: South Burlington City Council
From: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Date: December 14, 2022
Re: Appointment of Assistant Treasurer
Appointments of specific positions are to be made by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 13, Section
301 (2) of the City’s Charter. With the resignation of Deputy City Manager and Treasurer, Andrew
Bolduc, and the appointment of Martha Machar to the role of Treasurer, I respectfully request that the
Council appoint Donna Kinville, City Clerk, to serve in the role of Assistant Treasurer for the City of
South Burlington effective upon your approval.
Thank you for your consideration. And we appreciate the City Clerk’s willingness to serve in this role.
FY24 Proposed Budget:
Department of Public Works
Tom DiPietro, Director of Public Works
City Council
December 19, 2022
South Burlington Department of Public Works
Organizational Chart
Stormwater
Foreman
Equipment
Operator
Highway
Foreman
Equipment
Operator
Heavy
Mechanic
Parks
Foreman
Director of
Public Works
Deputy Director
of Water Resources
Deputy Director
Of Operations
Public Service
Specialist
Stormwater
Project Manager
Deputy Director
Of Capital
Projects
City Council
City Manager
Equipment
Operator
Small
Equipment
Operator
Water Quality
Superintendent
Chief
Operator
Lead
Mechanic
Plant
Operator
Plant
Operator
Lab
Tech
Plant
Operator
Engineering
Technician Stormwater
Superintendent
Public Works
Project
Manager
Water
Superintendent
SB Water
Dept (8)
CWD Staff
Horticulture
Specialist
Mechanic
Signal
Technician Arborist
Truck
Driver
Chief
Operator
Small
Equipment
Operator
Truck
Driver
Truck
Driver
Truck
Driver
Truck
Driver
Truck
Driver
Truck
Driver
Indicates a
Currently Staffed
Position
Indicates a
Currently Vacant
Position
Infrastructure
Overview
3
Public Works Employees:39
Residents in South Burlington: 20,292
City Maintained Water Valves: 2,033
Miles of City Maintained Water Pipes: 120.5
City Owned Wastewater Pump Stations:32
Miles of City Owned Wastewater Force Main: 18.0
Miles of City Owned Wastewater Gravity Pipe: 75.2
Miles of City Owned Stormwater Piping: 78.6
Miles of City Maintained Road:86.2
Miles of Sidewalk:50.3
Miles of Shared Use Path:21.2
Miles of On-road Bike Facilities:12.5
Acres of Parks & Open Space: 367
Presentation Overview
Review the following for each DPW Division (Highway & Parks, Stormwater,
Wastewater, Drinking Water) & funds (Penny For Paths and Open Space)
Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
FY24 Budget Proposal
Capital Improvement Plan
FY24 Resources Requested
Emerging Issues
Spotlight!
4
Highway & Parks
5
Highway & Parks
Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
6
In FY22 paving occurred on: Barber Terrace,
Peterson Terrace, Lynn Avenue, Airport Parkway,
Queen City Park Road, Spear Street, Green
Mountain Drive, Swift Street Extension, IDX Drive,
Arbor Road, Larch Road, Newton Avenue,
Whatley Road, West Twin Oaks Terrace, Lyons
Avenue, Gregory Drive, Whiteface Street,
Mountain View Boulevard, and Victory Drive.
In FY23 paving of Dorset Street from Garden
Street to Aspen Drive.
Repaired section of shared use path near
Stonehedge.
New Pavement on
Dorset St
Repaired Section of Shared
Use Path in Szymanski Park
Near Stonehedge
Highway & Parks
FY24 Budget Proposal - Revenue
7
Highway Revenue
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$1,219,131 $1,436,855 $1,014,896
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Decrease from FY23 to FY24 is due to reduction in anticipated grant revenue included in FY23.
Highway & Parks
FY24 Budget Proposal Expenditures
8
Highway Expenditures
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
Highway $2,866,579 $3,346,939 $4,575,586
Park Maintenance $341,675 $399,643 $726,435
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Highway
In FY24, benefits (health insurance, pension, etc) were shifted from Admin line items to division budgets (~$660,000).
Proposed increase of $15,000 in Consulting Services line item to help pay for public requests related to traffic counts,
vehicle speed, intersection analysis, etc
Software fees paid by Highway, but shared between divisions (Highway will receive reimbursement from other
divisions)
Proposed increase in bike / ped maintenance line item (new in FY23) from $30,000 to $40,000
Parks Maintenance
In FY24, benefits were shifted from Admin line items to division budgets (~$206,000).
Highway & Parks - Capital Improvement Plan
9
Public Works Facility Design and Expansion
Additional storage space, Electric Vehicle charging station, stormwater
treatmentFleet PurchasesProposed replacement of a sidewalk plow, a truck (H5), and a mower.Previously scheduled replacement of a second sidewalk plow, and two trucks (H19 & H21) moved to a future budget year.PavingContinue current paving program and potential set aside of funds for Dorset Street section 4 of 4 (Aspen to Kennedy) in FY25.Ash Trees Replacement ProgramSignal Replacements on Dorset StreetCouncil discussion on October 3, 2022
Planning is Underway to Expand Garage Space
and Add Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at
the Department of Public Works
Highway & Parks - FY24 Resources Requested
10
Proposing the Addition
of a Parks Maintenance
Staff Person in FY24
Requesting Additional
Funds for Traffic Studies
($15,000)
Requesting Additional
Funds for Bike / Ped
Maintenance ($10,000)
Highway & Parks - Emerging Issues
11
Paving Needs
Kennedy Drive section 4 will be expensive (>$1M) and is planned for FY25
DPW is working to update our citywide pavement condition assessment
Staffing
Proposing to add a highway employee in FY25 to address needs in that
division
Ash Tree Management Plan
Emerald Ash Borer will impact our street tree inventory
Increased and consistent funding over multiple years is necessary to address
this issue
Highway & Parks - Spotlight!
12
the Main Plow
Stormwater
13
Stormwater - Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
14
Muddy Brook Culvert ProjectReplaced the failed culvert and added a shared use path connection to WillistonSpear Street Gravel WetlandSuccessful public-private partnership with the Burlington Country ClubProject received $375,000 in grant funding -Received $815,970 in grant funding through the CWSRF for the design of stormwater treatment systems that will bring 12 sites into compliance with the recent 3-9050 permit (aka the 3-Acre Rule)Climate Resiliency
Spear Street Gravel
Wetland Under
Construction
New Muddy
Brook Culvert
Stormwater
FY24 Budget Proposal - Revenue
15
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
No major differences. Reduction related to anticipated income from grant revenue.
Stormwater Revenue
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$5,115,370 $4,413,053 $4,195,947
Stormwater
FY24 Budget Proposal Expenditures
16
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
No major changes. Any difference due to capital project spending
Stormwater Expenditures
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$5,273,663 $4,420,197 $4,195,947
Stormwater - Capital Improvement Plan
17
Design of Stormwater Treatment Practices (STPs)Engineering design of many projects is still necessary to meet requirements of Flow Restoration Plans (FRPs) in storm-water impaired watershedsSTP ConstructionKennedy Drive Pond 2Kennedy Drive Pond 7Expansion of the Bartlett Bay Stormwater Treatment System (BBSTS)Bartlett Bay Road CulvertEngineering and design workStormwater Outfall RepairFleet PurchasesVacuum truck Cost split with wastewaterStreet sweeper1-Ton truck
Construction of the BBSTS
was the Stormwater
Bartlett Bay Road
Culvert
Stormwater - FY24 Resources Requested
18
Stormwater is proposing a 1.64% rate increase
Proposed rate would be $7.44 / ERU
Would result in a $1.44 annual increase for a typical home-owner
Stormwater - Emerging Issues
19
The following streams in South Burlington were
recently classified as impaired due to Chloride:
EnglesbyBrook
Potash Brook
Centennial Brook
Soil Test Pitting Work is
Necessary for Stormwater
Treatment System Design
Tributary 3 of Potash Brook Contains
Elevated Levels of Chloride
-
Permit (3-9050)
Many private properties will need
to comply with the State of
-
provisions in the 3-9050 permit.
Deadlines are approaching.
Stormwater - Spotlight!
20
$12,668,857.00
$0.00
$2,000,000.00
$4,000,000.00
$6,000,000.00
$8,000,000.00
$10,000,000.00
$12,000,000.00
$14,000,000.00
2005 2010 2015 2020
CUMULATIVE GRANT FUNDING AWARDED TO THE
SOUTH BURLINGTON STORMWATER UTILITY
Wastewater
21
Wastewater - Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
22
Pump Station Improvements
Oak Creek Village
New pumps & larger diameter pipe to improve flow
Valley Ridge
Completely rebuilt
Spear Street
Rebuilt with a new panel and controls.
Headworks Repair at APWWTF
Repaired failed band screen
Replaced failed diversion gates
Grit chamber repairs on-going
See council discussion on 4/4/22
Repaired Band Screen in
Airport Parkway Headworks
New Control Panel at
Valley Ridge Pump Station
Wastewater
FY24 Budget Proposal - Revenue
23
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Expected increase in wastewater revenue is anticipated due to increased wastewater flow from development
Expected increase in wastewater allocations purchased for development
Reserve fund transfer in FY24 to offset cost of engineering work related to Bartlett Bay WWTF Refurbishment
Wastewater Revenue
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$5,382,374 $5,072,733 $5,974,085
Wastewater
FY24 Budget Proposal Expenditures
24
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Proposed increase in caustic soda and lime line item. These chemicals recently experienced a significant price increase
Proposed increase in alum line item. Significant price increase associated with this chemical. We add alum to our
wastewater treatment process at Airport Parkway to bind and remove phosphorus from wastewater (see upcoming
Wastewater Expenditures
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$5,278,981 $5,074,577 $5,974,085
Wastewater - Capital Improvement Plan
25
Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade
Engineering and Design for:The Treatment Plant UpgradeFour Nearby Pump StationsSolids Management & HandlingPump Station UpgradeAge related upgrades to the Twin Oaks Pump StationDebt Payment
Airport Parkway WWTFHadley Road Pump StationFleet purchaseVacuum truck Cost split with stormwater
Aerial View of the
Bartlett Bay Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Aerial View of the
Airport Parkway Wastewater
Treatment Facility
Wastewater - FY24 Resources Requested
26
Wastewater is proposing an 8.34% rate increase
The proposed rate would be $48.20/ 1,000 cubic feet
Would result in a $29.75 annual increase for a typical home-owner
Wastewater Regional Rate Comparison
27
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family HomeCommunity
Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family Home
Wastewater - Emerging Issues
28
Chemical CostsCost to purchase certain chemicals increased 50% or more in FY23. Future increases? PAC? Biosolids RegulationThe Class A (a.k.a. Exceptional Quality or EQ) biosolids we produce may see additional regulations related to PFAS / microplasticsBartlett Bay WWTF Upgrade
Bond vote on Town Meeting Day 2023Wastewater Rate Study UnderwayPump Station Upgrades
South Burlington owns and maintains more pump stations (32) than any other Vermont municipality. More on the way!
Wastewater - Spotlight!
29
Drinking Water
30
Drinking Water - Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
31
Radio Read Units
Continued installation of radio read units connected
to water meters
Reduces time required to manually read meters,
avoids misread meter reporting, and provides real
time readings
Required Maintenance
Operated over 1,500 main line water gate valves
Flushed all fire hydrants in the City
Capital Project Preliminary Engineering
Addition of water storage infrastructure in the high
service area
Interconnection with the CWD main behind the
University Mall
Pipe extension from behind the University Mall to
Garden Street and City Center
The South Burlington East Tank Located on
Dorset Street Supplies Drinking Water for the
Drinking Water
FY24 Budget Proposal - Revenue
32
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Water revenue assumes a 1% increase in volume of water sold
Assumes a grant for lead service line survey work
Proposes a reserve transfer in to help pay for engineering work associated with capital projects
Water Revenue
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$2,956,871 $3,056,039 $3,726,516
Drinking Water
FY24 Budget Proposal Expenditures
33
ADDITIONAL DETAIL:
Anticipates a significant increase in the cost of water purchased from the Champlain Water District
Proposes an increase in spending associated with capital projects
Water Expenditures
FY22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Proposed
$2,884,178 $3,056,039 $3,726,516
Drinking Water - Capital Improvement Plan
34
Water Storage Capacity
Design and construction of additional water storage in
the high service area
Project update planned for council in late winter 2023
Bond vote planned for Town Meeting Day 2024
Interconnection with CWD Main Behind the
University Mall
Project update planned for council in late winter 2023
Bond vote planned for Town Meeting Day 2024
Water Meter Replacement Program
Lead Service Line Survey
water storage and distribution system
Drinking Water - FY24 Resources Requested
35
Drinking Water is proposing an 8.51% rate increase
The proposed rate would be $36.21/ 1,000 cubic feet
Would result in a $22.78 annual increase for a typical home-owner
Drinking Water Regional Rate Comparison
36
$0.00
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
$600.00
$700.00
$800.00
$900.00
$1,000.00
Annual Water Fee for Single Family HomeCommunity
Annual FY22 Water Fee for Single Family Home
Drinking Water - Emerging Issues
37
Lead Service Line Survey
New regulation requires an extensive survey to
determine if any lead service lines are present in
the City
Aging Infrastructure
and replace this critical infrastructure
Anticipating a Bond Vote for Capital Projects
on Town Meeting Day 2024
Drinking Water - Spotlight!
38
The South Burlington Water Department
is using technology to improve
operations!
Staff are using valve actuators to improve
our asset management program while
also reducing the physical demands of
operating valves by hand.
Actuator turns the valve at a preset
torque and gives an accurate count of
rotation
Improves efficiency and reduces the
potential for shoulder and back injuries
Penny for Paths
39
Penny For Paths - Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
40
FY22
3 new crosswalks on Hinesburg Road
30 RRFB Upgrades
Crosswalk with RRFB complete on Kennedy Drive at W Twin Oaks Terrace
FY23
Kicked off Transportation and Land Use Climate Action Implementation Plan
Working actively towards the creation of a Walk/Bike Master Plan
Bike/Ped Committee has been engaged in many projects and continue to host
public meetings for these efforts
Beginning condition inventory of all shared use paths
Penny For Paths - Fund Balance and Projections
41
FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
Penny for Paths Revenue $343,474.85 $405,960 $412,677 $416,803.77
Penny for Paths Expenditures -$723,483.12 -$205,000 -$125,000 $250,000
Penny for Paths Balance $400,624.84 $20,616.57 $221,576.57 $509,253.57 $676,057.34
Note: FY24 revenue based on assumed Grand List growth
FY25 revenue based on 1% Grand List growth from FY24
Penny For Paths - Capital Improvement Plan
42
FY24 CIP Projects
Dorset Street Shared Use Path
Final Design and Construction ($510k)
$500k is grant funded, $10k from Penny for Paths
Spear Street Shared Use Path
Design and ROW ($100k)
Penny for Path funded in FY24
Grants, Penny for Paths, and Highway Impact Fees for FY25 and FY26
Mary Street Sidewalk
Design and Construction ($90k)
Highway Impact Fee funded
Swift Street Shared Use Path Connection (From Spear Meadows)
Design ($20k)
Penny for Paths funded
Crosswalks (Dorset/Songbird, Spear/Pheasant, Hinesburg/Dubois)
Design ($15k)
Penny for Paths funded
Penny For Paths - Capital Improvement Plan
43
Dorset Street Shared Use Path (Old Cross Road to Sadie Lane)
Design and Construction Ongoing and in Current CIP
Penny For Paths - FY24 Resources Requested
44
Good news! No additional requests!
Penny for Paths revenue has been
increasing as grand list continues to
grow
Increase bike/ped maintenance line
added in FY23 to $40,000 (Highway
line item)
Penny for Paths does not pay for
maintenance
A shared use path repair near
Szymanski Park was completed in
collaboration with a planned
stormwater project
Penny For Paths - Emerging Issues
45
Penny for Path 1 cent revenue will end in
FY32, so we continue to prepare for that
as new projects arise.
Material costs, particularly asphalt, are
rapidly rising.
We need data! Good data on our path
network and its condition will help us
plan more strategically for where to
invest.The Penny for Paths stencil on the
Upper Allen Road shared use path.
Penny For Paths - Spotlight!
46
5,710 of 6,602 (86.4%) residential buildings are within 0.1 miles of a
shared use path!
3.2 miles of shared use path under design or planned for design
within 5 years
Dorset Street (Old Cross Road to Sadie Lane)
Spear Street (Swift Street to UVM Forestry Building)
Queen City Park Road (Shelburne Road to Central Ave)
Allen Road (Shelburne Road to Brand Farm Apartments)
Open Space
47
Open Space - Key FY22 and FY23 Successes
48
FY22
Wayfinding completed in Wheeler Park
Accessible path to Wheeler Treehouse complete
FY23
Design for Hubbard RNA path, parking lot, and viewing area is in full swing
Red Rocks Management Plan Update completed
Red Rocks trail improvements permitting to be complete and ready for
construction
Open Space - Fund Balance and Projections
49
FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25
Open Space Revenue $153,266.50 $155,435 $202,980 $206,338.50 $208,401.89
Open Space Expenditures -$67,064.21 -$117,680.91 -$450,000 -$390,000 -$190,000
Open Space Note Repayment -$124,407.62 -$125,023.56 -$125,000 -$125,000 -$125,000
Open Space Fund Interest $59,394.34
Open Space Fund Balance $1,005,278.50 $1,026,467.51 $939,198.04 $567,178.04 $258,516.54 $151,918.43
Note: FY24 revenue based on assumed Grand List growth
FY25 revenue based on 1% Grand List growth from FY24
Open Space - Capital Improvement Plan
50
FY24 CIP Projects
Hubbard Recreation and Natural Area
Final Design and Construction of path, parking area, viewing area, and stormwater
infrastructure ($240k)
Grant ($100k), Recreation Impact Fee ($70k), and Penny for Paths ($70k)
Red Rocks
Design and Construction for parking area, erosion repairs, and trail improvements ($70k)
Open Space Debt funded
Wheeler Homestead and Natural Area
Construction of elements in Management Plan and OSNAP Priority List ($80k)
Open Space Debt funded
Open Space - FY24 Resources Requested
51
More good news! No additional requests!
Open Space Fund revenue has been increasing as grand list continues to grow and note repayment concludes in FY27.
Recent trail reconstruction in Wheeler
Recreation and Natural Area
Open Space Emerging Issues
52
Permitting
Coordination with State wetland department is always top of mind in many
Open Space projects.
Act 250 permitting is often required.
Multi-faceted projects (recreation paths, stormwater, parking areas,
wetlands) can lead to large teams with high levels of technical
coordination.
Open Space - Spotlight!
53
4,492 of 6,602 (68%) residential buildings within 0.25 miles of an open space area and/or park!
A new Project Manager will be starting in FY23 who will take on Open Space Projects to see them through completion.
Red Rocks - Permitting for trail and drainage work in Red Rocks is moving forward.
Necessity Hearing:
Bartlett Bay Wastewater
Treatment Facility Bond Vote
City of South Burlington
1
What is a Necessity Hearing?
•In order to have a bond vote related to the Wastewater Treatment
Facility upgrade, council must pass a resolution indicating that:
•The public interest or necessity demands improvements;
•The cost of the improvements will be too great to be paid out of the ordinary
annual income and revenue; and
•Order the submission of the proposition to incur bonded debt to pay for the
public improvements to the voters on Town Meeting Day.
•Statutory requirement under 24 VSA §1755
Overview of the Bartlett Bay
Wastewater Treatment
Facility Project
More information can be found in a presentation given to the South Burlington
City Council on October 3, 2022. Link to video
Bartlett Bay WWTF
DESIGN CAPACITY
1.25 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
HISTORY
1970 Primary facility
constructed
1999
Upgraded to Kruger A/O
(Anaerobic/Oxic) Extended
Air System with UV
disinfection and 10 micron
filtration.
1987 Sludge holding tank
added
UPGRADE
Infrastructure: Expected Useful Life
Typical lifespan of WWTFs is 50
years. Upgrades need to
happen every 20-30 years.
Replace
mechanical/electrical/process
equipment (M/E/P) every 20-
25* years.
*Currently, majority of Bartlett Bay
MEP is 23-years-old.
Incorporate advances in
technology & upgrades for
regulatory requirements.
Bartlett Bay WWTF –Age Related Needs
1) Wear on interior of secondary clarifier, 2) Leaking ceiling in Pump Building, 3) Sludge storage blowers installed 1987, 4)Hole above ladder in sludge storage tank
Critical Age-Related Needs
•Headworks –Grit
removal is original
(1973) and obsolete.
Screening (1999) is
ineffective leading to
issues downstream.
•UV disinfection
system (1999) is no
longer supported by
the manufacturer.
•Sludge Storage Tank
–Leaking and can
only be filled below
holes
8
Sludge Storage
Secondary Clarifiers
Biological Process Tankage
Headworks
UV Disinfection &
Filtration
Operations Building
Abandoned Former
Clarifiers
Former Operations
Building (Abandoned)
Abandoned GreenhouseExisting Site
Plan
9
New Headworks Building
New Operations Building and
Maintenance Garage
Aeration Tank, Blowers &
Intermediate Pump
Refurbishment
Clarifier, RAS, WAS
Refurbishment
New Culvert & Security Fence
New Filter Building Addition,
Filter Refurbishment & New
UV System
New Outfall
New Sludge Handling Tanks,
Solids Handling & Chemical
Storage Facilities
Proposed
Site Plan
Bartlett Bay WWTF Solids
Handling at Airport Parkway
WWTF
Airport Parkway WWTF History
2011 $28 million upgrade
UPGRADE
1987 Secondary treatment
added
1967 Primary facility
constructed
1994 Chemical feed
upgrade
UPGRADE
DESIGN CAPACITY
3.25 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Airport Parkway Solids Handling Overview
•Bartlett Bay WWTF solids trucked to Airport Parkway WWTF
•Airport Parkway processes solids from both facilities to Class A Biosolids
using a 2 Phase Anaerobic Digestion (2PAD) process
•2PAD hydraulic capacity is 64% utilized and the solids loading capacity is
49% utilized
•2PAD system currently limited by volatile solids reduction (VSR)
•VTDEC requiring the City to document plan for how APWWTF can consistently
achieve required VSR
•System needs balance of volatile solids from primary sludge blended with waste
activated sludge (WAS)
Airport Parkway Solids Handling
Improvements –Primary Clarifier
•History -4th primary clarifier was value
engineered out of 2009 upgrade
•Why needed?
•Cannot take primary clarifier down for
cleaning/maintenance or in emergency
•No operational flexibility/buffer
•Improve capture of primary solids =
increase volatile solids to 2PAD
Airport Parkway Improvements –Sludge
Storage
•BBWWTF WAS Storage Tank taken out of service due to solids
accumulation/solids impairment of downstream processes due to
inadequate screening at BBWWTF
•BBWWTF WAS storage tank needs cleaning and minor repairs to put back
in service
•Need this sludge storage capacity for operational flexibility
•Allows a more balanced blend of WAS and Primary Sludge to the 2PAD system
•Experience hauling to Burlington while addressing replacement of required
digester instrumentation
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump
Stations in the Bartlett Bay WWTF
Sewershed
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
32
City owned
sewage pump
stations &
forcemains 23
convey
sewage to
Airport
Parkway
WWTF
9
convey
sewage to
Bartlett Bay
WWTF
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
Four Pump Stations & Buried Force Mains Replacement:
•Queen City No. 1 Pump Station & Force Main
•Queen City No. 2 Pump Station & Force Main
•Queen City No. 3 Pump Station & Force Main
•Bartlett Bay Pump Station & Force Main
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
Bartlett
Bay Pump
Station
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
•The four pump stations and buried force mains are
proposed for replacement
•In service for over 50 years (pump station typical service life –
25 years).
•Pump station and force main failures and repair costs have
been increasing in recent years.
•All four pump stations are located within 40’ to 250’ of Lake
Champlain.
•Replacement is needed to prevent a raw wastewater spill into
Shelburne Bay the location of the Champlain Water District
raw water intake.
•This project is needed to protect public health and the
environment.
25
YEARS
Typical
service life of
a pump
station
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations in the
Bartlett Bay WWTF Sewershed
•Existing Conditions
•4 Pump Stations and Force Mains have exceeded their reliable service life
•Queen City No. 2 Pump Station Force Main –2 Failures Winter 2022
•Queen City No. 1 Pump Station Force Main –Failure May 2022
•Pump station force main failures resulted in releasing raw sewage onto public and private property
•Existing buried steel pump vaults have exceeded reliable service life
•Existing pump, control and communication equipment have exceeded reliable service life
•High risk for a significant release of untreated sewage to surface waters of the
state (Lake Champlain).
•High risk for NPDES permit violation
Summary of Total Project
Costs
Notes on Cost Estimates
•Build American Buy America (BABA) requirements on VTDEC CWSRF
funded projects
•Using current costs/recent bid information
•Contingency applied to prepare for unknowns in supply/demand,
inflation, contractor mark-ups
•Cost escalated with an estimated inflation rate to March 2024 bid period
•Engineering costs are estimates based on VTDEC engineering services fee
curve
Total Project Cost
BBWWTF Construction $22,151,000
BBWWTF Solids Handling at APWWTF Construction $1,823,000
Refurbishment of Wastewater Pump Stations Construction $4,456,000
Preliminary/Final Design/Construction Engineering Services $5,271,000
Legal/Administration/Permitting (0.5%)$132,000
Total $33,833,000
Estimated Impact on Rates
•Historical annual rate increases of ~2.2% since FY13.
•Currently working on a rate study that will include these project costs.
The study will also incorporate other wastewater projects and program
needs.
•The proposed bond payment for the Bartlett Bay WWTF would increase
annual sewer expenditures by ~40%.
•This would result in an annual rate increase of ~6.75% in FY23, FY24,
FY25, and FY26.
•This results in ~$71.00 increase in annual cost to homeowner vs. a steady
2.2% increase (~19% higher annual cost to homeowner vs steady
increase).
Comparison of Local Sewer Fees
$0.00
$200.00
$400.00
$600.00
$800.00
$1,000.00
$1,200.00
Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family HomeCommunity
Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family Home
Schedule
BBWWTF Upgrade Schedule
2022 Prepare bond documents
2023 Bond vote
2024Bidding
2024Construction
2023 Public information meetings 2023
Final design to prepare
contract documents (plans
and specs for bidding)
APRIL 2023 –APRIL 2024
JUNE 2024 –JULY 2026
NOV. 2022 –JAN. 2023
FEBRUARY 2023
MARCH 2023
MAY –JUNE 2024
First debt payment
JULY 2027
2027
Why now?
•Anticipated need to upgrade
•Established and documented critical needs and identified recommended
plan
•Currently observing operational issues anticipated with age
•Bond authorization indicates support from the community and makes
the City more competitive in pursuing additional grants
Note, bond authorization doesn’t obligate the City to spend the full amount.
Resolution Language
•Included in Council’s packet:
•Resolution of Necessity For Capital Improvement Project
•Declaration of Intent
•Ballot Language
•Action: Staff recommends council adopt the Necessity Resolution and
Declaration of Intent.To do so, we recommend the following motions:
1.Move to adopt the “Resolution of Necessity for Capital Improvement Project”
2.Move to adopt the “Declaration of Official Intent of City of South Burlington to
Reimburse Certain Expenditures from Proceeds of Indebtedness”
1
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, at a Meeting of the City Council of the City of South Burlington
(“Council”) duly warned and held on October 3, 2022, the City’s Department of
Public Works Director (“Director”) and Hoyle Tanner & Associates, Inc., the
consulting engineering firm engaged by the City, reported that capital equipment
installed at the City of South Burlington’s (“City”) Bartlett Bay Wastewater
Treatment Facility (“Facility”) was nearing the end of its expected useful life, that
the Facility’s physical condition was degraded and required significant capital
investment to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, and that related
wastewater infrastructure refurbishments and improvements including wastewater
pump station upgrades and the addition of a clarifier at the Airport Parkway
wastewater treatment facility (“APWWF”) are all necessary to properly treat
projected volumes of wastewater and avoid inadvertent discharge of untreated
wastewater indirectly into Lake Champlain; and
WHEREAS the capital equipment upgrades to the City’s wastewater
treatment system, including the refurbishment or replacement of four (4)
wastewater pump stations, the installation of a clarifier at the APWWF, and the
capital improvements to the Facility are estimated to cost Thirty-Three Million
Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000); and
WHEREAS the Director and Hoyle Tanner recommended to the Council that
the capital equipment upgrades, the installation of a clarifier at the APWWF, and
capital construction and refurbishment of the Facility are necessary, appropriate,
and warranted; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council finds that the public
interest and necessity demand that the City design, engineer, plan, and install
capital equipment and make capital improvements to the Facility, install a clarifier
at the APWWF, and refurbish or replace four (4) related wastewater pump stations
(the “Project”) at an aggregate estimated cost of Thirty-Three Million Eight
Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs of the Project after the
application of available state and federal construction grants-in-aid, appropriations,
reserves, and other funds (including ARPA funds) available to the City, if any, are
too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a proposal for undertaking the Project
and to issue general obligation bonds or notes of the City in the aggregate principal
amount not to exceed Thirty-Three Million Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand
and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000) to pay for the Project and related costs of issuance
2
and expenses should be submitted to the legal voters of the City at the annual City
Meeting to be duly warned and held on March 7, 2023; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a public information meeting will be held
to discuss the Project and the issuance of bonds on Monday, March 6, 2023,
commencing at six-thirty o’clock (6:30) in the afternoon (p.m.) to be held in-person
at the City Offices and also electronically on an online platform, the specific details
and dial-in numbers for the on line platform will be as specified in the Warning for
the Meeting and the warning for the public information meeting; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all acts relating to the proposition of
incurring bonded indebtedness and the issuance of general obligation bonds or notes
of the City for the purpose of financing the Project be in accordance with the
provisions of Chapters 53 and 120 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached Warning and form of Ballot
is specifically adopted for use in connection with consideration of the above-stated
proposition of making public improvements and incurring bonded indebtedness
therefor.
Dated: December __, 2022
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ______________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
_____________________________ ______________________________
Tim Barritt Tom Chittenden
______________________________
Matt Cota
Received for record this ___ day of December 2022.
____________________________________
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
SON22-001 NecRes WWaterSysImps 22-12-14 FINALBONDS .docx
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON OFFICAL BALLOT ANNUAL CITY MEETING MARCH 7, 2023 ARTICLE XX Shall the City of South Burlington make capital improvements to the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility, install a clarifier at the Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility and refurbish or replace four wastewater pump stations and issue general obligation bonds or notes in an amount not to exceed Thirty-Three Million Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000.00), after application of other funds and resources available for these purposes, to finance these capital improvements and to pay expenses related to the issuance of the bonds?
To vote Yes, make a cross (X) in this square .
To vote No, make a cross (X) in this square .
SON22-002 Ballot WWaterSysImps 22-12-14 FINAL BONDS.docx
DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL INTENT
OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the “Issuer”) intends to
improve the City’s wastewater collection and treatment system by making capital
improvements to its Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Plant, replacing four
wastewater pump stations and installing a clarifier at its Airport Parkway
Wastewater Treatment plant (the “Project”) at a cost not to exceed Thirty-Three
Million Eight Hundred Thirty-Three Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000);
and
WHEREAS the Issuer expects to pay certain capital expenditures (the
“Reimbursement Expenditures”) in connection with the Project prior to the issuance
of indebtedness for the purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a
long-term basis;
WHEREAS the Issuer reasonably expects that for that part of the Project
consisting of Project management and construction costs, debt obligations in an
amount not expected to exceed Thirty-Three Million Eight Hundred Thirty-Three
Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($33,833,000) will be issued, and that certain of the
proceeds of such debt obligations will be used to reimburse the Reimbursement
Expenditures; and
WHEREAS the Issuer declares its reasonable official intent to reimburse
prior expenditures for the above-described part of the Project with proceeds of a
subsequent borrowing:
NOW THEREFORE, the Issuer declares:
Section 1. The Issuer finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are
true and correct, and that all of the capital expenditures covered by this Resolution
were or will be made no earlier than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution.
Section 2. This declaration is made solely for the purposes of establishing
compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations.
This declaration does not bind the Issuer to make any expenditure, incur any
indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.
Section 3. The Issuer hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of
indebtedness to reimburse itself for Reimbursement Expenditures within 18 months
of either the date of the first expenditure of funds by Issuer for such Project or the
date that such Project is placed in service, whichever is later (but in no event more
than three years after the date of the original expenditure of Issuer funds for such
Project), and to allocate an amount not to exceed $1,000,000.00 of the proceeds
thereof to reimburse itself for its expenditures in connection with the Project.
Section 4. The Issuer’s debt obligations for the aforementioned purpose will
not be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Section 141 of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986.
Section 5. All prior actions of the officials and agents of Issuer that are in
conformity with the purpose and intent of this Resolution and in furtherance of the
Project shall be and the same hereby are in all respects ratified, approved and
confirmed.
Section 6. All other resolutions of the legislative body of the Issuer, or parts
of resolutions, inconsistent with this Resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of
such inconsistency.
Section 7. It is hereby found that all discussions and deliberations of the
legislative body of the Issuer leading to the adoption of this Resolution occurred at
one or more meetings of the legislative body conducted pursuant to public notice
and open to public attendance.
Section 8. This declaration shall take effect upon its adoption.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ______________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
_____________________________ ______________________________
Tim Barritt Tom Chittenden
______________________________
Matt Cota
The undersigned, Clerk of the Issuer, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a full,
true and correct copy of the declaration of the legislative body of said Issuer duly
made at a meeting thereof held on the date, specified below, and that said
declaration was not amended, modified or revoked.
____________________________________ DATE: ___________________
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
SON22-004 NoticeDeclareIntent 2022 22-12-11 BONDS.docx
tel fax
TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager
FROM: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: TIF District Financing for TIF Projects: Adopt a Necessity
Resolution approving ballot language and a Declaration of Intent.
DATE: December 16, 2022
BACKGROUND:
Recently the Council held a public hearing on whether to place a
TIF District Financing question on the ballot to finance the
remaining four projects in the City Center TIF District.
The attached documents have been considered for the Council
adoption in order to place the question (as drafted) on the ballot.
The City has until March 31, 2024 to issue TIF district financed
debt for the remaining approved TIF district projects. Five City
Center TIF District projects remain to be built, and four still
require voter authorization to issue debt:
• Garden Street Phase II (Williston Road intersections)
• Williston Road Streetscape (Dorset to Midas, south side)
• East-West Crossing – Walk Bike Bridge over I-89
• City Center Park Phase II – Boardwalk Connection
March 8, 2023 is the last regularly scheduled election during
which South Burlington residents may vote on authorizing debt
prior to March 31, 2024 in time for debt issuance to occur.
Voter debt authorization does not obligate the City to issue the
full amount of debt.
Proposed for Town Meeting Day Ballot
Each of these projects has had extensive public outreach to
develop a design concept. Funding sources vary between projects
as follows. Estimates are for all capital costs: design, right-of-
way, construction and inspection.
Background, Continued, Page 2
The Garden Street Project, referred to as “Street A” in the TIF
District Plan, has been in design since 2014. Phase II includes the
White Street/Midas Drive to Hinesburg Road/Patchen Road
portion of Williston Road. The plans are at the 60% level and
includes plans to realign the White St/Midas Dr intersection,
address pedestrian and bicycle improvements at Hinesburg
Road/Patchen Road, and in between the two intersections
partially rebuild Williston Road. This project provides
substantial vehicular traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation
and safety improvements.
The Garden Street project is 100% eligible for TIF District
financing. The estimate for Phase II is $8.27 million dollars and
this is the amount for which TIF District financing is sought.
This project is at 60% design and slated for construction in 2024.
The Williston Road Streetscape Project will construct a streetscape
between Dorset Street and Midas Drive on the south side of
Williston Road. This includes a shared-use path for bicycles and
pedestrians in lieu of the existing sidewalk. Where available
(most of the corridor) adequate room will be added between the
existing roadway curb and new path for snow storage,
landscaping (trees) and pathway-oriented lighting.
This project is at 60% design and slated for construction in 2024.
The estimate for this project is $2,596,776. It is 50% eligible for
TIF District Financing and thus the amount sought for TIF debt
authorization for this work is $1,298,388. The City has a federal-
aid grant for $800,000 of the required TIF match, and has
programmed in the Capital Improvement Project Plan (CIP) to
use Reserve funds to finance, either directly or through debt, the
remainder of the match.
The East-West Crossing Project will build a walk bike bridge over
I-89 with connecting shared-use paths on the south side of the
Exit 14 interchange. It is designed as a 24-7, 365 days a year
facility that will be comfortable for users and contribute to the
appeal of South Burlington and City Center
This project has a preferred alignment and has a recommended
design concept. It is slated for construction in 2025.
The budgeted cost for this project is $14,555,970. The City has
secured a federal-aid grant for $9,768,834 (67% of the project).
Background, Continued, Page 3
This project is 30% TIF District financing eligible. An additional
3% of the project cost will need to be secured that is not TIF
District financing, and the City is exploring a variety of funding
sources to make up this difference, including an additional
federal-aid grant.
The City Center Park Phase II Project – Boardwalk Connection
will create a paved shared-use path between Barrett Street,
Garden Street and Market Street with a boardwalk over the
wetland. This project will also include amenities such as park
signage, benches, bicycle racks and lighting. As a result of this
project, the Market Street stormwater pond recreation area will
become a main entrance to City Center Park.
This project is at 50% design and is slated for construction 2023-
2024.
The estimate for this phase of the project is $1,148,082. While the
project is 95% TIF District financing eligible, 100% of this cost
estimate will be funded with TIF District financing as the 5% of
the total cost of the City Center Park non-TIF revenues were
expended during an earlier phase of the project.
The draft total TIF district financing authorization sought is
estimated to be as follows:
Garden Street (Williston Road intersections) $8,272,560
Williston Road Streetscape $1,298,388
East West Crossing $4,367,400
City Center Park Phase II $1,148,082
Total: $15,086,430
Once a debt authorization is approved, the Council still must vote
to authorize all, if any, debt issued.
Voters will also be advised that should the City issue debt, and
the development that occurs is insufficient to generate the
revenue required to service the debt over the life of the TIF
District, the City will still need to provide the funds to service the
debt. While the City models that there will be sufficient
increment to service the debt, any bonds or loans will be general
obligation debt (backed by the full faith and credit of the City).
Additional information concerning these projects, the TIF
District, and this proposed debt authorization were provided on
Background, Continued, Page 4
December 5 at the City Council public hearing, and in the public
hearing agenda item memo.
Debt Authorization
The draft ballot question (see Article I, attached) authorizes
general obligation debt against the full faith and credit of the City
for TIF District financing in the amount of $15,086,430.
Any debt secured under this authorization is not projected to
raise the tax rate. TIF district financing increment is the primary
source that would service this debt authorization.
The Council will most likely be asked to make a decision
regarding issuing debt during the summer 2023 or winter 2023-24
bond pool. Debt would most likely be one bond issuance or loan
serviced by City Center TIF district financing. Bond
anticipation notes may be used if they are fiscally advantageous.
The requested authorization number is a ceiling of total debt but
could be issued as a direct payment (not a bond) from the TIF
District Increment Fund should the fund balance allow
(unlikely).
ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution of Necessity for City Center TIF District
Capital Improvement Projects
- Article XX – Form of the Ballot Question
• Declaration of Official Intent of City of South
Burlington to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from
Proceeds of Indebtedness
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Move to adopt the “Resolution of Necessity for City
Center TIF District Capital Improvement Projects”
2) Move to adopt the “Declaration of Official Intent of City
of South Burlington to Reimburse Certain Expenditures
from Proceeds of Indebtedness”
1
RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY FOR
CITY CENTER TIF DISTRICT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, at a meeting of the City Council of the City of South Burlington
(“Council”) duly warned and held on November 7, 2022, the City’s Community
Development Director (“Director”) detailed for the Council the necessity of seeking
voter approval in 2023 to issue additional bonds, notes or other financing secured by
the full faith and credit of the City to fund capital projects in or having a nexus to
the City of South Burlington’s (“City”) City Center TIF District (“District”), the
status of various public capital improvement projects in or having a nexus to the
District now under consideration and planned for development, the debt
authorizations previously obtained from the voters and the amount of bonds issued
to date pursuant to voter authority; and
WHEREAS the District-specific public capital projects under consideration
and planned for development include: Garden Street (Williston Road intersection
realignment and improvements) having a cost of approximately $8.27 Million which
is 100% eligible for TIF funding; Williston Road Streetscape (shared use path
between Dorset Steet and Midas Drive) having a cost of approximately $2.57
Million which is 50% TIF funding eligible; East-West Crossing (walk bike bridge
over I-89) having a cost of approximately $14.56 Million which is 30% TIF funding
eligible; and City Center Park Phase II (elevated boardwalk and new paved
pathways) having a cost of approximately $1.15 Million which is 95% TIF funding
eligible (the “Projects”), which collectively, after taking into account the limits on
TIF debt permitted to fund these projects and accounting for grants and other funds
currently available to the City, represent estimated TIF funding not to exceed
Fifteen Million Eighty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and 00/100 Dollars
($15,086,430.00); and
WHEREAS the Projects are reflected in the City’s amended TIF District Plan
as approved by the Vermont Economic Progress Council on December 17, 2021; and
WHEREAS the Council noticed, warned, and conducted a public hearing on
December 5, 2022, at which the Director reviewed the forgoing information
including the status of the Projects and the amount of District debt funding
authority under consideration, and at which the public was invited to ask questions
about and to comment on the Projects or the debt funding; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council finds that the public
interest and necessity demand that the City continue to design, engineer, plan, and
construct the Projects at an aggregate estimated cost of Twenty-Six Million Five
Hundred Seventy-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy-Six and 00/100 Dollars
($25,576,776.00); and
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the costs of the Projects after adjustment
for the percentage that can properly be funded with District related debt and the
application of available state and federal grants-in-aid, appropriations, reserves,
and other funds (including ARPA funds) presently available to the City, if any, are
too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a proposal for undertaking the Projects
and to pledge the credit of the City to secure indebtedness, to issue general
obligation bonds or notes of the City, or to make direct payments of TIF increment
in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed Fifteen Million Eighty-Six
Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and 00/100 Dollars ($15,086,430.00) for the purpose
of funding the capital cost of the Projects and related costs of issuance and expenses
should be submitted to the legal voters of the City at the Annual City Meeting to be
duly warned and held on March 7, 2023; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a public information meeting will be held
to discuss the Project and the issuance of bonds on Monday, March 6, 2023,
commencing at six-thirty o’clock (6:30) in the afternoon (p.m.) to be held in-person
at the South Burlington City Hall and also electronically on an online platform, the
specific details and dial-in numbers for the online platform will be as specified in
the Warning for the Meeting and the warning for the public information meeting;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all acts relating to the proposition of
incurring bonded indebtedness and the issuance of general obligation bonds or notes
of the City for the purpose of financing the Projects be in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 53 of Title 24 of the Vermont Statutes Annotated; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the attached form of the Ballot question
related to the Projects is specifically adopted for use in connection with
consideration of the above-stated proposition of making public improvements and
incurring bonded indebtedness therefor.
END OF TEXT – SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS
3
Dated: December __, 2022
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ______________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
_____________________________ ______________________________
Tim Barritt Tom Chittenden
______________________________
Matt Cota
Received for record this ___ day of December 2022.
____________________________________
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
SON22-001 NecRes TIF 22-12-16 FINAL BONDS .docx
ARTICLE XX
Shall general obligation bonds or notes of the City of South Burlington be issued, the full
faith and credit of the City pledged, direct payments of TIF increment be made, or any
combination thereof, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed, after taking into
account state or federal grants-in-aid and other funds currently available to the City,
Fifteen Million Eighty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty and 00/100 Dollars ($15,086,430)
to fund public infrastructure or capital improvements and related costs of projects in or
having a nexus to the City Center Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District, specifically:
(a) City Center Park (boardwalk connection): being the construction of new paved
pathways and an elevated boardwalk between Barret Street, Market Street and
Garden Street and related amenities;
(b) Garden Street Phase II (Williston Road intersection realignment and
intersection improvements): being realignment of the Williston Road-White
Street-Midas Drive intersection and improvements to the Hinesburg Road-Patchen
Road-Williston Road intersection, and related transportation and utility upgrades;
(c) Williston Road Streetscape: being the installation of a shared-use path on the
south side of Williston Road between Dorset Street and Midas Drive and related
utility and transportation upgrades; and
(d) East-West Crossing: being a walk-bike bridge over I-89 at Exit 14,
recognizing that tax increment revenue from taxable properties within the TIF District
shall be pledged to and appropriated for payment of TIF District debt? To date, City voters
have approved TIF District debt totaling $29,402,000, of which $14,430,062 has been or is
eligible to be repaid in whole or in part using TIF District incremental revenue.
YES
NO
SON22-002 Ballot TIF 22-12-16 FINAL BONDS.docx
DECLARATION OF OFFICIAL INTENT
OF CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES
FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington, Vermont (the “Issuer”) Intends to
make capital improvements to public infrastructure within the City’s City Center
Tax Increment Financing District (“TIF District”) including: Garden Street Phase II
(Williston Road intersection realignment and upgrades) having a cost of
approximately $8.27 Million which is 100% eligible for TIF funding; Williston Road
Streetscape (shared use path between Dorset Steet and Midas Drive) having a cost
of approximately $2.57 Million which is 50% TIF funding eligible; East-West
Crossing (walk bike bridge over I-89) having a cost of approximately $14.56 Million
which is 30% TIF funding eligible; and City Center Park Phase II (elevated
boardwalk and paved pathways) having a cost of approximately $1.15 Million which
is 95% TIF funding eligible (the “Projects”), which collectively, after taking into
account the limits on TIF debt permitted to fund these projects and accounting for
grants and other funds currently available to the City, represent estimated TIF
funding not to exceed Fifteen Million Eighty-Six Thousand Four Hundred Thirty
and 00/100 Dollars ($15,086,430); and
WHEREAS the Issuer expects to pay certain capital expenditures (the
“Reimbursement Expenditures”) in connection with the Project prior to the issuance
of indebtedness for the purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a
long-term basis;
WHEREAS the Issuer reasonably expects that for that part of the Project
consisting of Project management and construction costs, debt obligations in an
amount not expected to exceed Fifteen Million Eighty-Six Thousand Four Hundred
Thirty and 00/100 Dollars ($15,086,430) will be issued, and that certain of the
proceeds of such debt obligations will be used to reimburse the Reimbursement
Expenditures; and
WHEREAS the Issuer declares its reasonable official intent to reimburse
prior expenditures for the above-described part of the Project with proceeds of a
subsequent borrowing:
NOW THEREFORE, the Issuer declares:
Section 1. The Issuer finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are
true and correct, and that all of the capital expenditures covered by this Resolution
were or will be made no earlier than 60 days prior to the date of this Resolution.
Section 2. This declaration is made solely for the purposes of establishing
compliance with the requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations.
This declaration does not bind the Issuer to make any expenditure, incur any
indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.
Section 3. The Issuer hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of
indebtedness to reimburse itself for Reimbursement Expenditures within 18 months
of either the date of the first expenditure of funds by Issuer for such Project or the
date that such Project is placed in service, whichever is later (but in no event more
than three years after the date of the original expenditure of Issuer funds for such
Project), and to allocate an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00 of the proceeds
thereof to reimburse itself for its expenditures in connection with the Project.
Section 4. The Issuer’s debt obligations for the aforementioned
purpose will not be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of Section 141
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
Section 5. All prior actions of the officials and agents of Issuer that are
in conformity with the purpose and intent of this Resolution and in
furtherance of the Project shall be and the same hereby are in all respects
ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 6. All other resolutions of the legislative body of the Issuer, or
parts of resolutions, inconsistent with this Resolution are hereby repealed to
the extent of such inconsistency.
Section 7. It is hereby found that all discussions and deliberations of
the legislative body of the Issuer leading to the adoption of this Resolution
occurred at one or more meetings of the legislative body conducted pursuant
to public notice and open to public attendance.
Section 8. This declaration shall take effect upon its adoption.
CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ______________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
_____________________________ ______________________________
Tim Barritt Tom Chittenden
______________________________
Matt Cota
The undersigned, Clerk of the Issuer, hereby certifies that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the declaration of the legislative body of said
Issuer duly made at a meeting thereof held on the date, specified below, and
that said declaration was not amended, modified or revoked.
____________________________________ DATE: ___________________
Donna Kinville, City Clerk
SON22-003 NoticeDeclareIntent TIF 2022 22-12-14 FINAL BONDS.docx
Memorandum
To: South Burlington City Council
Cc: Jessie Baker, City Manager
Erica Quallen, Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee Staff Liaison
From: South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Date: December 13, 2022
Re: Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Updates
Dear Council Members,
I’m writing to update you on four key items from the South Burlington Bike and Pedestrian
Committee (SBBPC):
1) Committee Charge Change. Our Committee charge document was originally written in
2005, with an update due to a name change in 2015. The current version was adopted
by the SBBPC in August of 2022, and I submit it for council approval. The final draft can
be found as an attachment to this memo. Key changes include dropping the references
throughout that the Committee was a “Recreation & Parks Committee” and that its
focus was exclusively the “Recreation Path System.”
2) Safety Updates. The SBBPC notes many completed projects over the past year including
construction of new crosswalks at key locations, shared path improvements at Nowland
Farm road and near Szymanski Park, and replacement of most of the city’s outdated
RRFB’s (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons) at crosswalks. The committee applauds the
work of the DPW, Paul Connor, and Erica Quallen for their work over the past
construction season in implementing these updates. Please see the Committee’s
additional Policy and Safety Recommendations attached.
3) Queen City Park Road (QCPR) Scoping Study. The SBBPC has had multiple
presentations from the CCRPC regarding the scoping study for proposed updates to
QCPR/Austin Drive. The purpose of these updates is to provide a regional bike
connection between existing shared use paths (Burlington Waterfront Greenway,
Champlain Parkway, and the South Burlington path network), and key destinations-
Oakledge Park and Red Rocks Park, along with a number of businesses located on QCPR
and Austin Drive.
We agree with this plan, most of which will be in Burlington, with a smaller portion to be
built in South Burlington. There were two construction alternatives presented, SBBPC
specifically endorses construction of a shared use path for the entirety of the corridor.
This gives users the most consistent experience within South Burlington, and when
crossing cities. It is most appealing for those who will only use a lower stress path. (i.e.,
one with some separation from traffic, specifically path users with less experience,
children, etc). The other alternative was separated bicycle lanes, which many path users
would not be willing or able to use, and accordingly this alternative is not endorsed by
BPC. The final report from the scoping study can be found as an Appendix to this memo.
Of note, the one lane bridge in this area is not part of these improvements and remains
challenging for both vehicles (including city busses) and pedestrians to use. There is a
separate walkway, but the surface is an open grate and is not user friendly. As this is a
common route to the popular Red Rocks Park it is concerning. We encourage and
support the City of Burlington in their efforts to replace or update this bridge as soon as
they can secure funding.
4) Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan. Our committee has discussed the development of a
Bike/Ped Master plan. Many of the surrounding municipalities have bike/ped master
plans, currently we do not. The master plan will help prioritize growth of our shared use
path, bike lane sidewalk and crosswalk infrastructure and aid in obtaining grant funding
for projects. It was also recommended by the Climate Action Plan Task Force as part of
their recommendations. We would like to move forward with this planning and will
continue to work with Erica Quallen to achieve this goal.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, we are excited for ongoing growth in the coming
years and appreciate the support of City Council to make South Burlington an inviting and
pleasant experience our pedestrians and cyclists.
Recommended Action: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee recommends that the City Council
approve the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Charge as presented in an Appendix to this
memo.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the BPC,
Havaleh Gagne
Chair, Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee
Attachments:
1. 2005 Committee Charge
2. 2022 Committee Charge
3. Safety and Policy Recommendations
4. Queen City Park Road Scoping Study Report
SOUTH BURLINGTON RECREATION PATH COMMITTEE MISSION AND DUTIES
1. The South Burlington Recreation Path Committee shall consist of seven to nine members, duly appointed by the City Council for three year renewable terms, with the appointments staggered so that not more than three appointed terms expire in
any one year.
2. The Mission of the Recreation Path Committee is to oversee the general operation of the City’s many recreational paths, including field trails and sidewalks, and to advise the City Council of operational needs and future development plans for the path network.
3. The City’s Recreation Department shall be the coordinating office for the Recreation Path Committee.
4. The Recreation Path Committee shall annually elect a Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and Clerk. 5. Meetings shall be held at the discretion of the Committee. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule, and when a deviation from the regular schedule is required, shall post public notice of the meeting in accordance with
general City procedures. 6. Meetings shall be held in a public facility. Meetings shall have a proposed agenda published in advance of each meeting. Minutes of each meeting shall be recorded
and maintained. A representative of the Recreation Department shall attend each
meeting of the Committee; other City staff shall attend as requested by the Committee. 7. Duties of the Recreation Path Committee are:
a. Develop and recommend to the City Council rules and regulations for the operation of all of the City’s Recreation Path system in accordance with existing ordinances and policies. The Committee shall develop and propose new and/or revised ordinances and regulations as needed.
b. Keep the City Council informed on the operation of the Recreation Path
system through published minutes and attendance at appropriate meetings. c. Make recommendations to the Public Works Department of the City for Recreation Path system maintenance needs, and meet quarterly with the Director of Public Works. d. Make recommendations to the Police Department of the City for
Recreation Path system security needs, and meet annually with Police Youth Services. e. Prepare and submit to the Recreation Department an annual operations budget for the Recreation Path system.
f. Prepare and submit to the Recreation Department an annual operations report suitable for inclusion in the Annual City Report.
g. Recommend to the City Council future development of the Recreation Path system, including routes, approximate costs, and time frame for development. h. Review all proposed developments and zoning changes which come
before the Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission
for the impact upon the Recreation Path system; meeting with developers and City staff as is appropriate. Ensure that opportunities for the gaining of additional Recreation Path system resources, including completed facilities and the attainment of easements and rights of way are considered. Review proposed changes for impact upon and the protection
of existing easements and rights of way. The conclusions reached by the recreation Path Committee in its review of proposed development and change shall be (i) formally adopted by vote of the Committee, (ii) reflected in the minutes of the meeting of the Committee, and (iii)
appropriately communicated, in writing, to the City Council, the
Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission, and the impacted developer. Adopted January 18, 2005 by City Council
SOUTH BURLINGTON BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE MISSION AND DUTIES 1. The South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall consist of seven to
nine members, duly appointed by the City Council for three-year renewable
terms, with the appointments staggered so that not more than three appointed terms expire in any one year. 2. The Mission of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee is to advocate for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including new and existing shared-use paths,
sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks and trails and advise the City Council of bicycle and pedestrian policy and safety issues, operational needs and future development plans for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
3. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall annually elect a Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and Clerk. 4. Meetings shall be held at the discretion of the Committee. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule, and when a deviation from the regular schedule is required, shall post public notice of the meeting in accordance with
general City procedures. 5. Meetings are subject to the Open Meeting Law. Meetings shall have a proposed agenda published in advance of each meeting. Minutes of each meeting shall be
recorded and maintained. A designated staff liaison shall be assigned to support
the Committee’s work and to organize and run its regular meetings to ensure compliance with Vermont’s Open Meeting Law. The liaison shall be the sole point of contact to the City’s professional staff resources and may communicate with and utilize additional professional staff expertise as reasonably available to support the Committee’s work.
6. Duties of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee are: a. Develop and recommend to the City Council rules and regulations for the
operation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in accordance
with existing ordinances and policies. The Committee shall develop and
propose new and/or revised ordinances and regulations as needed.
b. Keep the City Council informed on the operation of the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through published minutes and attendance at appropriate meetings.
c. Make recommendations to the Public Works Department of the City for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure maintenance needs and meet quarterly with the Director of Public Works or their designee.
d. Make recommendations to the Police Department of the City for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure security and safety needs.
e. Make recommendations concerning the annual Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
f. Prepare and submit to the City an annual operations report suitable for inclusion in the Annual City Report.
g. Provide support for studies related to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
as requested.
h. Review all proposed developments and zoning changes which come before the Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission for the impact upon the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Meet with developers and City staff and make recommendations as is
appropriate in accordance with City Council, Development Review Board
and Planning Commission policy.
Approved this 19th day of December, 2022.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
__________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota
Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee’s Prioritized List of Policy and Safety
Recommendations to the City Council and City Staff Updated as of November 16, 2022
1. All pedestrian crosswalks, double yellow lines, and bike lanes/fog (white) lines should be
painted at least once per year, preferably in the spring, unless the markings from the
prior painting are still clearly visible to oncoming vehicles. Some crosswalks located on
roads with heavy vehicle traffic may need to be painted in the spring and fall for safety.
The cost was estimated by the former DPW Director at approximately $60-80K per year
versus the present budget of $40K starting in FY2023.
2. Perform a Speed Limit review of South Burlington streets to aid in the safety of both
vehicle drivers and unprotected users (pedestrians and bicyclists). Initial focus should
be on roads with speed limits of 35mph and higher.
3. Flashing “School Zone” signs should be installed on Dorset Street and Kennedy Road
near the High and Middle Schools and near each of the elementary schools.
4. Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at Market Street crosswalks, 4-way
stop signs on Market Street at the entrance to City Hall and the Marcotte Central
School, flashing “School Zone” sign near the Market Street intersection with Marcotte
Central School and temporary or permanent traffic calming measures such as bump-
outs and speed bumps/tables to help slow traffic on Market Street.
5. Complete the upgrade of the remaining 8 RRFB crosswalk locations so that each pole
has lights facing both directions like how it is done in Burlington and all other
surrounding towns. Please note that 27 of 35 such locations have been upgraded to
date. With only one light facing each direction, drivers are not seeing the flashing light
on the single pole clearly when making turns, or otherwise, as evidenced by them not
regularly stopping to allow bicyclists or pedestrians to cross at non-upgraded locations.
6. Install additional flashing radar speed-reading signs to remind vehicle drivers of the
speed limit. Consideration of placement of these signs should include Williston Road,
Hinesburg Road, Dorset Street, Market Street and Spear Street. Although there is a
required capital investment, it pales in comparison to the cost required for police traffic
enforcement.
7. Install solid barriers of some type to prevent northbound vehicles on Dorset Street from
using the recreation path between just south of Songbird Road (across from Faith
United) and 1 Kennedy Drive. Vehicles are using the recreation path as an additional
travel lane to get around cars stopped to make a left turn onto Songbird Road or to
make right turns onto Grandview and Kennedy Drives. (Note – the Committee has
continually observed vehicle tracks on this section of the recreation path during snow
events. For example, on 12/8/21, 3 sets of vehicle tire tracks were visible on the rec
path during the snowfall). This project was approved by the City Council in 2019 and first
included in the FY19 CIP to be constructed in FY21 using Penny for Paths funding and
still needs to be constructed.
8. A “No Right on Red” sign needs to be installed southbound on Dorset Street at the
intersection of Swift Street that illuminates only when the pedestrian controlled,
pedestrian crossing light is activated in “white” to indicate to pedestrians that it is safe
to cross. Vehicles are too often in a hurry or do not even fully stop to take a right turn
on red and do not realize the walk light is on.
9. Funding for the maintenance of the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian infrastructure needs to
be included in the annual budget at a sufficient level to maintain the integrity of this
precious resource. Due to the age of many of the sections of the Shared-use path
network, many areas need repaving and/or crack filling and are becoming unsafe.
10. Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the 3 new Hinesburg Road
crosswalks at Ruth Street, Prouty Parkway and the Awasiwi Trail as the current
crosswalk design is dangerous for bicyclists, pedestrians and school and GMT bus riders.
The RRFBs were included in the FY22 CIP project description and would be funded 100%
using Penny for Path funding. Please note that the Prouty Parkway crosswalk is a crucial
link in the Committee’s Safe Routes to School circuit.
11. Improve shared-use path and sidewalk lighting throughout City including on Dorset
Street and Kennedy Drive. The Committee has noted that vehicle lanes appear
illuminated but the shared-use paths along Dorset and Kennedy are dark. City should
evaluate the existing system in terms of documenting whether fixtures illuminate the
bike and pedestrian infrastructure (angle of illumination) at the same time minimizing
light pollution as much as possible.
12. The next time the Kimball Avenue fog lines are painted, the vehicle lanes should be
reduced to 11’ from 12’ so that the bike lanes can be widened from 4’ to 5’. The speed
limit should also be reduced to 35mph.
13. A raised crosswalk be used at the Nowland Farm Road entrance to Hubbard Park and
speed bumps be added upon approach from east and west before reaching the
crosswalk. Other traffic calming enhancement should be added along the full length of
Nowland Farm Road.
14. The City deploy each year a minimum of 8 vertical, in-road "It’s the law, Yield to
Pedestrian" signs at some of the City's most dangerous crosswalks and at the first
crosswalks that non-residents encounter as they enter the City. This should include the
crosswalks at the northernmost Spear Street crossing at the western end of the new
UVM sidewalk, Spear Street at Nowland Farm Rd/Deerfield Rd, Dorset Street and
Midland Avenue, and on Patchen Road and Airport Parkway.
TOOLE DESIGN |
QUEEN CITY PARK – AUSTIN
DRIVE BICYCLE
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS
SCOPING STUDY
Prepared for the CCRPC, City of Burlington and City of South Burlington
24 June 2022 | FINAL
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | i
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Regional Connections 1
Purpose and Need statement 1
Project Context 2
Relevant Projects and Studies 3
Study Process 4
Engagement and Outreach 4
Existing Conditions 7
TranSportation 7
Project Area Environment 10
Alternatives 14
Pedestrian Alternatives 14
Bicycle Alternatives 14
Segment A 15
Segment B 17
Segment C 19
Segment D 21
Segment E 25
Alternative Cost Estimates Error! Bookmark not defined.
Preferred Alternative 27
Implementation Strategy 27
Short Term Recommendations 29
Attachments 30
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 1
INTRODUCTION
The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), in
association with the Cities of Burlington and South Burlington, initiated a
Scoping Study for a bicycle and pedestrian connection between the
Lindenwood Drive intersection on US Route 7 in South Burlington, along Queen
City Park Road and Austin Drive, to the Burlington Waterfront Greenway
(commonly called the Burlington bike path). Toole Design was retained to
conduct the study, which includes the required elements of a VTrans scoping
study. This will allow the City of Burlington or City of South Burlington to pursue
funding through the VTrans Bicycle and Pedestrian Program or other similar
funding sources.
This study evaluates connections between the South Burlington Recreation
Path network at Lindenwood Drive, the Hannaford Plaza, Red Rocks Park,
Oakledge Park, Green Mountain Transit (GMT) transit stops, the existing
shared use path along the Champlain Parkway corridor, and many other
destinations.
The UVM Consulting Archaeology Program was also retained to conduct an
evaluation of the cultural resources in the study area, which is required for a
VTrans scoping study.
REGIONAL CONNECTIONS
One intent of this project is to address several gaps in the regional bicycle
network that can be seen in Figure 1. The project has regional implications for
bike tourism and transportation, enhancing access to Lake Champlain and the
Champlain Islands as well as strengthening the local network of on and off-
street bike facilities.
Figure 1: Regional Bike Network
PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
This study explores options, costs and feasibility for two primary purposes:
• Provide a regional bike connection between several existing shared
use paths (the Burlington Waterfront Greenway, the Champlain
Parkway Shared Use Path, and the South Burlington path network),
and key destinations in the study area: Oakledge Park and Red Rocks
Park.
• Provide a safe and comfortable movement for people to travel by all
modes of transportation throughout the study area.
The need for these connections is due to gaps in the network for both walking
and biking, and transit stops that are not served by sidewalks. These are
described in detail in the following sections.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 2
PROJECT CONTEXT
The study area, shown in Figure 2, has diverse land uses in and adjacent that
include industrial facilities, major waterfront parks, residential neighborhoods,
smaller commercial properties, the Champlain Water District, electrical utility
installations, and other uses, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Land Uses in the Study Area
Study Area
TOOLE DESIGN | 3
R ELEVANT PROJECTS AND S TUDIES
This project is one of several transportation-related initiatives in the area:
2020 Queen City Park Road Pedestrian Facility Assessment
This study was conducted by the City of Burlington and Clough Harbor
Associates, and provides an assessment of alternatives for either a new
sidewalk or shared use path on Queen City Park Road in Burlington, between
Central Ave and Home Ave. The intent was to investigate both drainage
considerations and sidewalk feasibility in advance of a resurfacing and drainage
project. The resurfacing project was completed in 2021, altering the drainage
patterns on the road that will facilitate the construction of a sidewalk or shared
use path on the east side of the road.
2008 Queen City Park Road Bridge Initial Project Definition
Report
This study evaluated the condition and operations of the one-lane bridge over
the Vermont Railroad. Key findings include the following:
• The bridge is generally structurally sound, but is deteriorating due to
age, and there is a failing retaining wall adjacent to the bridge
abutment.
• There is not sufficient vertical clearance for double stack rail cars.
Accommodating them would require increasing the vertical clearance
by about 2 feet.
• The one-lane width causes delay for people driving or biking across
the bridge.
• The open grating sidewalk is not desirable to walk on, especially for
those walking with dogs, and people often walk across in the vehicle
lane.
• Public comments also noted that eastbound vehicles tend to pull onto
the right side to make room for oncoming traffic across the bridge,
blocking the pedestrian access to the sidewalk.
The report recommended replacing the bridge with a bridge wide enough to
carry two lanes of traffic (one in each direction).
At this time the project is not funded for design and construction.
Champlain Parkway Project
This project has been decades in the planning, and is expected to break
ground in 2022. Figure 3 shows elements of this project that impact the study
area.
Figure 3: Champlain Parkway Project Features
The closure of Pine Street will significantly affect circulation in the study area,
and will create a barrier for walking and biking between Burlington’s south end
and Queen City Park Road.
Champlain Parkway
ramp intersects with
Queen City Park Rd
Shared Use Path
extended north to
Kilburn St
Traffic signal
at Home Ave
Pine Street Closed at
Queen City Park Road
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 4
STUDY PROCESS
The study was guided by a project management committee including the
following people.
Member Representing
Christine Forde CCRPC
Nicole Losch City of Burlington Department of Public Works
Marla Keene City of South Burlington Planning and Zoning
Lucy Gibson Toole Design Group
Julie Shapiro Toole Design Group
This study also coordinated with a Project Advisory Committee, with members
appointed by the City of Burlington and the City of South Burlington. This
committee met four times during the study.
Member Representing
Peter Keating Burlington Walk Bike Council
Gillian Bell Burlington Neighborhood Planning Assembly
Chip Mason Burlington City Council
Doug Goodman South Burlington Neighborhood Representative
Bob Britt South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee
Amanda Holland South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian
Committee
Tim Barrett South Burlington City Council
Chris Damiani Green Mountain Transit
The committee met the following dates:
• September 23, 2021
• November 18, 2021
• February 22, 2022
Meeting notes are attached to this report as Appendix 1.
ENGAGEMENT AND O UTREACH
This project had three opportunities for the public to weigh in on the project,
early as the issues and concerns were identified, mid-way through the project
when alternatives were developed, and at the project conclusion to review the
final report and recommendations.
Survey
An online survey was open for responses between September 17 and October
18, 2021 to obtain information from the public on issues, concerns, and needs
in the study area. It was advertised on the Front Porch Forum, City and CCPRC
websites, and via lawn signs that were placed at numerous locations in the
study area and in surrounding neighborhoods. The survey yielded over 250
individual responses and 896 comments on issues and concerns. The survey
respondents were generally representative of Burlington and South Burlington
demographics in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity. In terms of barriers to
walking, the following chart summarizes the survey responses.
The charts presented here summarize some data on why people travel to the
study area, and what they find to be barriers to walking and biking. Additional
questions and data are provided in Appendix 2.
Figure 4: Purpose of trips in study area
Live, 244, 29%
Work, 62, 7%Commerce, 116, 14%
Other Destinations, 234, 28%
Recreation, 185, 22%
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 5
Figure 5: Barriers to Walking
Figure 6: Barriers to Biking
The most useful information came in the form of location-specific comments for
issues related to travel by all modes throughout the study area. These
comments are summarized in Figure 7.
Alternatives Presentation
A public meeting was held on Wednesday, March 9, 2022, hosted by the South
Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee Meeting, to share project
alternatives and gather feedback. This virtual event was well attended, allowing
participants to hear a presentation on the project progress and alternatives,
and provide feedback. Concerns expressed by attendees included parking in
the vicinity of Red Rocks Park, the one lane bridge safety, and speeding traffic.
There was general support for the alternatives that were reviewed. Meeting
notes are attached to this report in Appendix 3.
Missing Sidewalks29%
Sidewalk Condition17%Driver Speed17%
Seasonal Maintenance11%
Unsafe Crossings18%
Seating2%
Lighting6%
Lack of Bike Infrastructure39%
road-condition23%
seasonal-maintenance12%
drivers26%
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 6
Figure 7: Public Comments for Transportation-related Issues and Concerns
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 7
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The study area spans from the Burlington Waterfront Greenway terminus on
Austin Drive, and the intersection of Shelburne Road/US Route 7 and
Lindenwood Drive. The following sections review all relevant aspects of the
study area, including all applicable modes of transportation, safety, and
environmental resources.
T RAN S PORTATION
The following sections provide an overview of conditions for each mode of
transportation. More detailed descriptions are provided in later sections of the
report.
Walking
There are sidewalks and shared use paths serving some portions of the study
area streets, as show in Figure 10. The notable lack of sidewalks is along
Queen City Park Road, generally between Arthur Court and Home
Avenue/Austin Drive. In addition, while the bridge over the railroad has a
sidewalk, its metal grate material is undesirable, and many walkers avoid using
the sidewalk.
Bicycling
As shown in Figure 10, there are a variety of bicycle facility types in the study
area, including shared use paths, bicycle lanes, shared lanes and advisory
lanes. The bicycle level of traffic stress is a method to measure how
comfortable a bicycle facility is for people, with a low stress environment (1 or 2
on a scale of 4) being completely separated from traffic, or shared with traffic
on a low volume, low speed street. Stress levels are associated with user types,
illustrated in Figure 8, with stress level 1 being most suitable for less
experienced riders or mixed ability groups, and stress level 4 representative of
riding on a busy road with no separation from traffic. As the goal of this project
is to provide a bicycle connection through the study area for all ages and
abilities of riders, a level of stress target of 1 is appropriate. As shown in Figure
9, the existing bicycle level of stress ranges from 1 on the shared use paths in
the study area to 4 along Shelburne Road, due to the high volumes of traffic
and lack of bicycle facilities. Queen City Park Road and Austin Drive have level
of stress 2 where bike lanes exist, and 3 elsewhere.
Figure 8: Bicycle User Profiles and Traffic Stress Tolerance
Figure 9: Existing Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
TOOLE DESIGN | 8
Figure 10: Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities in the Project study Area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 9
Transit
Several routes are operated by Green Mountain Transit within or adjacent to
the study area:
Route #5 runs on Pine Street, terminating in a loop at the end of Pine Street via
Queen City Park. This route runs on 60 minute headways, and serves the
Howard Center on Pine Street.
Route #6 runs on Shelburne Road on 20 to 30 minute headways, with a
southbound stop at the Queen City Park Road intersection, and northbound at
Lindenwood Drive.
Bus stop locations are shown in Figure 11. In addition to these fixed routes, the
Green Mountain Transit service center is within the study area on Queen City
Park Road, where all GMTA buses are serviced. This facility generates nearly
200 bus trips per day on Queen City Park Road.
Figure 11: Bus Stop locations for GMTA Routes 5 and 6
Driving
Study area traffic volumes are shown on Figure 12. The highest traffic is on
Shelburne Road, followed by Queen City Park Road between Pine Street and
Shelburne Road. The lowest volumes are on Queen City Park Road north of
Central Avenue. It is expected that, after construction of the Champlain
Parkway, traffic on Queen City Park Road east of Pine Street will be considerably
lower than today.
Figure 12: Average Annual Daily Traffic (VTrans)
Crash Summary
Between January 2016 and April 2021, fifteen (15) crashes occurred in the
study area (Figure 13):
• Eight (8) at the intersection of Queen City Park Road and Pine Street.
• Two (2) at the intersection of Austin Drive and Ledgewood Circle.
• One (1) at the intersection of Queen City Park Road and Central Avenue
• One (1) at the intersection of Shelburne Road and Lindenwood Drive.
• One (1) occurred along Queen City Park Road near the one-lane bridge
over the railroad.
Three (3) of the fifteen were injury crashes. None were fatal. All crashes were
vehicular, and no pedestrians or people on bikes were involved. Sight distance
5,900 (2011)
1,135 (2020)
860 (2020)
22,000 (2016)
2,500 (2016) GMTA
Service
Facility
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 10
from Pine Street appears to be a factor for the number of crashes at this
intersection.
Figure 13: Crash Locations (Source: VTrans, 2016-2021)
PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENT
The study area was evaluated for environmental resources that may affect the
design, location, or feasibility of alternatives.
Natural Resources
Several natural resources in the study area will be considered in the planning
and design of transportation projects:
• The project area drains either into Potash Brook or Lake Champlain,
both of which are considered water quality impaired. This status
emphasizes the need to reduce the amount of additional pavement
resulting from the project. Incorporation of green stormwater
infrastructure may be helpful to reduce any impacts to these waters.
• Wetlands are in the vicinity of the study area. Figure 14 shows that
there are both Class 2 and possible Class 3 wetlands associated with
Potash Brook, and additional areas in Red Rocks Park. None of these
are within 50 feet of the project corridor streets. There are additional
wet areas in the project vicinity, including in drainage swales along
Queen City Park Road. Some of these have recently been determined
in the Burton Snowboards permitting process to not be wetlands
under state jurisdiction.
• There are some rare species in the vicinity of the study area, primarily
in Red Rocks and Oakledge Parks (Figure 15). There are also several
sites on the south side of Queen City Park Road with rare plants,
which may require documentation for any work outside of the
roadway.
Hazardous Material Sites
The Vermont Agency of Natural Resources hazardous material site inventory
indicates that there are eight sites in the vicinity of the project area where
hazardous materials have been discharged or spilled (Figure 16). All of these
currently have a status of “SMAC - Site Management Activities Completed” or
“NFAP - No Further Action Planned” with the exception of the Hoechner/Gulf
site at 793 Shelburne Road, which has a status of “MED - Site with sensitive
receptors that are threatened by contamination.” Contamination from this site
was found during site investigations after a property sale, and was found to
have spread to the Limoge apartment complex, adjacent to the site. Monitoring
and the development of a corrective action plan (CAP) is currently underway.
As any project work occurs in this area, it will need to be done in coordination
with the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. A summary table of all
hazardous material sites is included in the report Appendix 4.
Historic and Archaeologic
The UVM Consulting Archaeology Program conducted an assessment of
cultural resources in the project area, including both architectural history and
archaeological resources. While there is a rich agricultural and archaeological
history in the project area, their report concludes that there are no intact
resources in the project area that might be affected by the project. This is due
to the proposed path being located on land that has already been disturbed,
and any historic buildings in the area have been so significantly altered that
they are no longer contributing to the area’s historic landscape.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 11
Figure 14: Vermont Wetlands Mapping for Project Area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 12
Figure 15: Rare, threatened and endangered species in the vicinity of the study area
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 13
Figure 16: Hazardous Waste Sites in or adjacent to project area (Source: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources)
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 14
ALTERNATIVES
The project area has broken up into segments (Figure 17) in order to evaluate
the existing conditions and alternatives for each segment.
Figure 17: Project Area Segments
Alternatives for the project are specific to each segment, as conditions vary
considerably. In general, pedestrian accommodations include sidewalks or
shared use paths, and bicycle accommodations include shared use paths or
separated bicycle lanes in order to achieve the low stress/all ages and abilities
bicycle network.
PEDESTRIAN ALTERNATIVES
To provide for safe and comfortable pedestrian travel on the study area streets,
dedicated pedestrian infrastructure – either a sidewalk or shared use path – is
considered for all streets in the project area, and marked/signed crosswalks
where needed. While the advisory walk-bike lanes provide an indication to
drivers to keep to the center of the road, and reserve the edges for walking and
biking, input from people who currently walk in this area supports providing
separated facilities. In the bend of Queen City Park Road just west of Central
Avenue, the tracking of larger trucks and buses while turning puts people
walking or biking at risk, especially in winter when snowbanks are present.
BICYCLE ALTERNATIVES
Several different types of bicycle infrastructure were considered for each
segment, as described and illustrated below.
Shared Used Paths
Similar to the Champlain Parkway Path, these are 10 feet wide and typically
surfaced with asphalt
pavement. Pedestrians and
bicycles share the space,
so they are not well suited
to corridors with high
volumes of either people
walking or biking. They can
provide an enjoyable
recreational experience as
they allow for side-by-side
riding.
Separated Bicycle Lanes
These allow bicycles to be separated from moving traffic by curbing, flex-posts,
planters, or other materials. They can be constructed as one-way facilities on
each side of a street, or two-way facilities on one side. These provide a
comfortable riding experience for a range of abilities. Two-way facilities offer
some advantages including greater ease of passing, side-by-side riding, and
the ability of a small plow
to perform snow removal.
The disadvantage is that
bicycles are sometimes
traveling in a direction not
expected by motorists,
which can result in
greater risk of conflicts at
intersections and
driveways.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 15
SEGMENT 1
This segment connects Lindenwood Drive with Queen City Park Road (Figure
18). An ongoing VTrans signal project will provide a crosswalk over the south
side of the intersection of US 7/Shelburne Road and Queen City Park Road,
which will significantly improve access from Shelburne Road to the existing
segment of path, addressing many concerns about this location that were
expressed early in this study process.
Figure 18: Segment A – Shelburne Road to Existing Shared Use Path
Conditions along the corridor include a sidewalk that many bicyclists will use to
travel this segment of Shelburne Road, and the existing shared use path
segment that is narrow at about 8 feet wide, with pavement and drainage that
is in poor condition, and with a grade of approximately 7.5%.
With the high traffic volumes along Shelburne Road, and the current strong
desire line to cross at the Queen City Park intersection to access the project
area, the recommended improvements include widening the sidewalk on the
east side to a 10 or 12 feet wide shared use path, and widening the curb ramp
on the west side to provide convenient access to the existing shared use path
entrance. In addition, a bollard-style push button unit should be provided in a
location that is convenient for people riding a bike to activate. See Figure 19 for
an illustration of these recommendations.
Site Photos
Shared Use Path connecting Shelburne Road with Queen City Park Road
Bicycle rider waiting to cross at Shelburne Road
Dattilios
Hoechner
Gulf Limoge
Apartments
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 16
Figure 19: Proposed Recommendations for Segment A
N
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 17
SEGMENT B
This segment extends from the Hannaford Plaza entrance at Queen City Park
Road to the intersection of the Champlain Parkway Shared Use Path, just west
of the intersection with Pine Street. This segment has a continuous sidewalk on
the south side of Queen City Park Road and no dedicated bicycle facilities.
There is no crosswalk, nor accessible curb ramp connecting the sidewalk to the
Champlain Parkway Path.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 1,120 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 5,900 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 ft +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Shoulders of approximately 4 feet
Public input for this segment expressed significant concerns at the intersection
of Pine Street and Queen City Park Road due to sight distance and grades.
The City of South Burlington noted that the drainage infrastructure along the
sides of this segment are in poor condition, and may need to be replaced if any
proposed work involves relocation of catch basins.
Existing Width and Configuration
While the width varies somewhat along the length of this segment, the typical
width of Queen City Park Road is 30 feet from curb to curb, and a 5 foot
sidewalk with a 6 inch granite curb. This is shown below.
Alternative: Shared Use Path
A shared use path can be constructed along the south side of Queen City Park
Road such that the roadway width is narrowed by about 6 feet, and the
sidewalk is essentially widened to the width of a shared use path, which has a
minimum width of 10 feet.
This alternative would not result in any additional paved area, but would require
relocating catch basins, and possibly associated reconstruction of the
stormwater collection system on the south side of this street.
Alternative: Separated Bicycle Lanes
In this alternative, Queen City Park Road would be widened to a total width of
36 feet to provide room for 2-way separated bicycle lanes on the north side of
the street. This will also potentially require reconstruction of stormwater
infrastructure, and examination of possible wetland impacts along the north
side of the street.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 18
Site Photos
Looking east from south side of street at Kindness Court
Looking east from south side of street
Possible wet area alongside of Queen City Park Road
Pine Street intersection
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 19
SEGMENT C
This segment leads from the Champlain Parkway Path crossing to the
intersection of Central Avenue. A sidewalk extends along Queen City Park
Road for the frontage of the Champlain Water District, and there is a sidewalk
on the bridge over the railroad. West of the bridge over the railroad, there is a
gravel path or shoulder on the south side that leads to Red Rocks Park.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 1,300 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 2,500 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 feet +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Intermittent sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Shared lane (unmarked) or shoulder
Public concerns noted in this section included a lack of a continuous sidewalk,
and inadequate parking at Red Rocks Park. Among the intent of the project is
to provide better access to Red Rocks Park for people biking and walking,
which could potentially help to alleviate the parking situation.
The one-lane bridge over the Vermont Railway corridor has also been the
subject of study and concern. Its current condition requires motorists to yield to
oncoming traffic due to the narrow width. There is a sidewalk on the bridge, but
its metal grate surface makes it unusable for anyone walking a pet. While there
is a sidewalk on the bridge, the lack of curbed sidewalks approaching the
bridge allows waiting vehicles to pull along side of the road, waiting for
oncoming traffic to pass, which hinders safe pedestrian access. A study was
conducted in 2008 that evaluated alternatives for rehabilitation or replacement,
and identified a preferred alternative for the bridge replacement to have two
lanes for traffic, plus a sidewalk. At this time, no funding for the bridge
replacement has been identified. When the bridge eventually is funded for
design and construction it can be designed to accommodate the facilities
identified as the preferred alternative for this corridor segment.
TOOLE DESIGN | 20
Site Photos
Wide buffer and utility poles between sidewalk and street
Approach to bridge from west
Bus stop near Pine Street
Path leading to Red Rocks Park
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 21
Project Alternatives
Two options were explored for this alternative: a shared use path on the south
side, or widening the road by approximately 8 feet to provide for separated
bicycle lanes. As the timeline for the bridge replacement is uncertain at this
time, it is expected that the bridge project could be designed and constructed
to accommodate the preferred alternative as identified in this report.
Shared Use Path Alternative
The shared use path would be established by widening the sidewalk to a width
of 10 feet where it exists, and constructing a new path where there is no
sidewalk. This is illustrated on an aerial photograph above, right. In general, the
shared use path could avoid conflicting with utilities that are present along the
south side of the street.
Shared Use Path on south side
Separated Bicycle Lanes
This option involves widening the road to the north side by about 8 feet, and
providing two-way separated bicycle lanes. This would allow riders to access
the Champlain Parkway Path without crossing the road. There would be
relatively few utility impacts, and all widening would be within the city right-of-
way.
Separated Bicycle Lanes on north side
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 22
SEGMENT D
This segment runs between the intersection of Central Avenue and Home
Avenue/Austin Drive, through an industrial zone with commercial,
manufacturing, and transportation uses. This section currently has advisory
lanes for walking and biking, which were installed after a recent resurfacing
project.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 2,000 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 1,200 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 49.5 feet +/-
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Advisory lanes
BICYCLE FACILITIES Advisory lanes
While overall traffic volumes for this segment are relatively low, the land uses in
this area generate significant heavy vehicle traffic. Rhino Foods and Edlund
have deliveries in and out with tractor trailers, and Green Mountain Transit
buses move in and out of their site for maintenance throughout the day.
The level topography and the high water table in this area create a challenge
for stormwater drainage. There are currently large swales on each side of
Queen City Park Road to manage stormwater from both private land and the
street right-of-way. Burton Snowboards is in the process of design and
permitting of a site renovation that will include new stormwater infrastructure so
that all of their stormwater is handled on-site. The drainage pattern for Queen
City Park Road was altered during the recent resurfacing such that for its
frontage with the Burton Snowboards site, it now drains to the east. This was
done in part to facilitate the construction of a sidewalk or shared use path on
the east side of Queen City Park Road. This alteration in drainage patterns, in
conjunction with the proposed alterations at Burton Snowboards, obviates the
need for the swale on the eastern side of Queen City Park Road in this segment
The proposed layout of the Burton Snowboards site is shown on Figure 20, with
the potential alignment of a sidewalk or shared use path shown in red.
Figure 20: Burton Snowboards Site Plan
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 23
Site Photos
Approach to Central Avenue from the east
Advisory Lanes signage
Drainage swale and utilities in front of Burton Snowboards site
Drainage swale and utilities near Rhino Foods
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 24
Other planned changes to this area include changes at the Queen City
Park/Home Avenue/Austin Drive intersection, associated with the Champlain
Parkway (Figure 21). These include a new shared use path connection from the
intersection to the existing Champlain Parkway Path, as well as its northern
extension up to Pine Street. The intersection of the Champlain Parkway will be
signalized, which will affect traffic circulation in this area. In addition, traffic
circulation may be affected by planned AMTRAK service along the Vermont
Railway corridor.
Figure 21: Plan Excerpt for Champlain Parkway project
Proposed Alternatives
Queen City Park Road has a width of 28 to 30 feet, and is marked with Advisory
lanes for walking or biking. Two alternatives are considered: one with a new
shared use path constructed on the east side of Queen City Park Road, and
one with a new sidewalk constructed, plus separated bicycle lanes. The option
of constructing a new sidewalk and maintaining the advisory lanes for bicycles
was considered, but as the costs were higher and impacts were similar to
construction of a shared use path, so this alternative was less favorable.
Existing Cross Section
Shared Use Path on east side of Queen City Park Road
Sidewalk and separated bicycle lanes
Shared Use
Path Extension
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 25
SEGMENT E
Austin Drive between the Home Avenue/Queen City Park intersection and the
crossing to the Burlington Waterfront Greenway makes up this segment, which
includes bike lanes on the eastern portion and shared lanes with parallel
parking on the western section. Land uses are all residential, and the parking
usage is primarily for people accessing Oakledge Park, which charges a fee for
parking in its dedicated lot on Flynn Avenue.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
SEGMENT LENGTH 2,600 feet
TRAFFIC VOLUME 1,100 ADT
POSTED SPEED 25 mph
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH 60 feet
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES Sidewalk on south side
BICYCLE FACILITIES Bicycle lanes, shared lanes (marked)
The right-of-way of 60 feet is wider than other streets in the study area, and the
existing sidewalk has a generous tree lawn, with tree plantings and utilities
present.
Alternatives
Two alternatives were developed for this section to address the project goal to
provide low stress bicycling along Austin Drive:
Widen sidewalk to a 10 feet shared use path. This will be possible to do within
the public right-of-way, and can avoid utility impacts by aligning the path
around trees and existing electric and telecom utilities. This will not affect
stormwater drainage patterns on Austin Drive, but it will increase the paved
area surface by approximately 10,000 square feet, which is less than a quarter
acre. This option will preserve the on-street parking along Austin Drive that
provides free access to Oakledge Park.
Widen Austin Drive to provide separated bicycle lanes. In this alternative, the
existing street width would be widened by approximately 5 feet to provide
space for separated bicycle facilities. This will require some utility relocation,
including electric, telecom, and stormwater infrastructure. It will require either
prohibition of on-street parking, or additional street widening of about 8 feet to
accommodate a parking lane. This option will also result in about 10,000
square feet of additional paved area.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 26
Site Photos
Looking east toward Home/Queen City Park intersection
Intersection of Red Rocks Condominium Entrance
Shared lanes and sidewalk on Austin Drive
Crosswalk to Burlington Waterfront Greenway
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 27
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
After consideration of the advantages and constraints of each alternative,
project costs, and public input, the Shared Use Path alternative is
recommended for implementation. The following factors were important in this
recommendation:
• The project costs are lower for the shared use path in segments 3 and
4, and only slightly more costly for segments 2 and 5. (Bicycle lanes
were not considered an alternative for segment 1).
• The project impacts to utilities and environmental resources are nearly
identical for each alternative, and therefore not a significant factor in
the recommendation.
• Providing a continuous shared use path connecting the entire study
area will provide continuity in the rider experience, and will be easier
to navigate for less experienced riders. It would be possible to select
different alternatives for each segment, but the consistent type of
facility is desirable to make this connection.
COST ESTIMATE
A planning level cost estimate has been prepared for each alternative,
incorporating the following assumptions:
• The most recent available VTrans unit costs were used for major items
such as excavation, pavement, curbing, catch basins, pavement markings
and plantings.
• A contingency of 25% has been included to cover costs of items that have
not specifically been quantified due to the planning level of this analysis.
• Allowances were also included for items including mobilization, erosion
control, traffic control, design engineering, and construction engineering.
The following table summarizes the cost for each project segment for the
alternatives of a shared use path or separated bicycle lanes.
Segment cost estimates are provided in Appendix 5.
Table 1: Project Cost Estimates by Segment
SEGMENT 1 2 3 4 5
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST ITEMS $ 145,000 $ 326,000 $ 245,000 $ 563,000 $ 565,000
25% CONTINGENCY $ 36,000 $ 82,000 $ 61,000 $ 141,000 $ 141,000
PROJECT MANAGEMENT (10%) $ 18,000 $ 41,000 $ 31,000 $ 70,000 $ 71,000
DESIGN ENGINEERING (22%) $ 40,000 $ 90,000 $ 67,000 $ 155,000 $ 155,000
CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (15%) $ 27,000 $ 61,000 $ 46,000 $ 106,000 $ 106,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $ 266,000 $ 600,000 $ 450,000 $ 1,035,000 $ 1,038,000
LENGTH (FEET) 540 1400 1200 2100 2700
COST PER FOOT $ 492.59 $ 428.57 $ 375.00 $ 492.86 $ 384.44
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 28
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
The project will require the coordination of the cities of Burlington and South
Burlington to implement this regional project. While it is likely to be completed in
phases due to funding constraints, the following are considerations for
implementation.
Funding Sources
There are many possible funding sources for this project. Several of the most
commonly-used funding sources include the following:
• VTrans Bicycle-Pedestrian Program. This program uses up to 80%
federal funds and 10% state funds for projects to improve bicycle and
pedestrian transportation. There is a 10% local match, and no project
funding limit, though it is rare for a project exceeding a total cost of $1
million to be funded in a single year/grant cycle.
• VTrans Transportation Alternatives Program. This program provides
80% federal funds and requires at least a 10% local match. The
projects are capped at $500,000 total cost ($375,000 grant award),
and are sometimes used to provide additional funding for large
bicycle/pedestrian projects.
• RAISE grants. This is a new federal funding source that may be a
source for funding the entire project, as typical grants exceed $2
million.
There may be options to augment funding with urban forestry or stormwater
project funding for project elements such as tree planting or green stormwater
infrastructure.
Bridge Project
While the timing of a potential replacement project for the bridge carrying
Queen City Park Road over the Vermont Railway is uncertain, the bridge design
should be done to match the preferred alternative, which is for two lanes of
traffic at approximately 11 feet each, and a shared use path of 10 feet in width,
to provide consistency in the corridor.
Prioritization and Phasing
Each segment has a different role in this network, and the prioritization among
segments should consider the relative needs. Some considerations for
prioritization include the following:
• Segments 1 and 2 should be considered for implementation at the
same time and with the same priority, as they are both essential to
make the connection from South Burlington’s Recreation Path
network to the Champlain Parkway path, which will eventually
continue towards downtown Burlington when the Champlain Parkway
is completed. Segment 1 will require coordination with the State of
Vermont both because part of this is within the right-of-way of US
Route 7, and because of potential hazardous materials issues
adjacent to the Hoechner Gulf/Limoge Apartments hazardous
materials site.
• Segment 3 addresses connectivity for all modes to Red Rocks Park.
With the current issues related to inadequate parking, providing safe
and comfortable walking and biking access to the park will be
beneficial.
• Segment 4 addresses needs for access to significant employment
opportunities, and currently has pedestrian and bicycle
accommodations that do not provide any separation from traffic that
includes heavy trucks and buses.
• Segment 5 may be relatively lower priority due to the presence of
bicycle lanes for part of this route, and the lower volumes on Austin
Drive. There may be greater opportunity to reduce traffic speeds
through installation of traffic calming measures, making the street
more suitable to shared use by people biking and driving. As any
sidewalk repairs or utility work are done in this segment, consideration
should be made for the eventual widening of the sidewalk to a 10 feet
wide shared use path.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 29
SHORT TERM RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are proposed as near-term projects for consideration, to address
issues raised in the public engagement, and result in some benefits to safety
and accessibility.
Queen City Park/Hannaford Intersection. This location had numerous
complaints for confusing circulation. One factor is that the street network is
confusing, and overly wide paved area doesn’t define travel ways. In observed
field conditions, the pavement markings indicating that this is an all-way stop
intersection are barely visible, likely due to the heavy traffic in this area. Figure
22 shows potential rapid implementation changes using paint, flex-posts, and
other low cost materials to clarify circulation and reduce vehicle speeds.
Figure 22: Short Term Recommendations for Queen City Park Road at the
Hannaford entrance
Queen City Park Road between Hannaford and Pine Street. Narrow travel lanes
to 10 feet, and provide 5 ft bicycle lanes. This provides some additional space
and may have the effect of reducing traffic speeds.
Pine Street/Queen City Park. Initial analysis using available data suggests that
all-way stop would be appropriate for the traffic volumes at this intersection.
Pine Street carries a similar amount of traffic as Queen City Park Road, making
an all way stop advantageous. This change could be beneficial for speed
reduction and improved safety.
Queen City Park Road Bridge over the Railroad. Re-deck sidewalk with a
material that can be more easily cleared of snow, and that will be comfortable
for pets to walk on in all seasons. At bridge approaches, provide some
protection for pedestrians approaching sidewalk on the western side of bridge
with quick build materials, as vehicles pull into the shoulder waiting for
oncoming vehicles, not leaving any space for people crossing bridge on foot.
Queen City Park Road/Central. Consider all-way stop to reduce confusion, as
only two approaches stop currently. Traffic count would be useful to confirm
traffic operations.
Queen City Park Road/Home/Austin. Consider all way stop as an interim
measure before the Champlain Parkway is constructed. Traffic count would be
useful to confirm traffic operations
Austin Drive/Redstone Condo Drive - Reinforce the painted curb extensions
with quick build materials, such as planters, flex posts, or reflective elements,
and solid colored paint.
Austin Drive Traffic Calming – Consider traffic calming measures such as speed
lumps, chicanes or choke points to reduce speeds along this street and make it
more suitable for shared use for bicycling.
QUEEN CITY PARK -AUSTIN DRIVE BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS SCOPING STUDY | FINAL REPORT
TOOLE DESIGN | 30
ATTACHMENTS
1. Advisory Committee Meeting Notes
2. Survey Results
3. Public Meeting Notes and Presentation
4. Hazardous Materials Table
5. Cost Estimates by Segment
SOUTH BURLINGTON BICYCLE & PEDESTRIAN COMMITTEE MISSION AND DUTIES 1. The South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall consist of seven to
nine members, duly appointed by the City Council for three-year renewable
terms, with the appointments staggered so that not more than three appointed terms expire in any one year. 2. The Mission of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee is to advocate for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure including new and existing shared-use paths,
sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks and trails and advise the City Council of bicycle and pedestrian policy and safety issues, operational needs and future development plans for the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
3. The Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee shall annually elect a Chairperson, Vice
Chairperson, and Clerk. 4. Meetings shall be held at the discretion of the Committee. The Committee shall establish a regular meeting schedule, and when a deviation from the regular schedule is required, shall post public notice of the meeting in accordance with
general City procedures. 5. Meetings are subject to the Open Meeting Law. Meetings shall have a proposed agenda published in advance of each meeting. Minutes of each meeting shall be
recorded and maintained. A designated staff liaison shall be assigned to support
the Committee’s work and to organize and run its regular meetings to ensure compliance with Vermont’s Open Meeting Law. The liaison shall be the sole point of contact to the City’s professional staff resources and may communicate with and utilize additional professional staff expertise as reasonably available to support the Committee’s work.
6. Duties of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee are: a. Develop and recommend to the City Council rules and regulations for the
operation of the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in accordance
with existing ordinances and policies. The Committee shall develop and
propose new and/or revised ordinances and regulations as needed.
b. Keep the City Council informed on the operation of the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure through published minutes and attendance at appropriate meetings.
c. Make recommendations to the Public Works Department of the City for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure maintenance needs and meet quarterly with the Director of Public Works or their designee.
d. Make recommendations to the Police Department of the City for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure security and safety needs.
e. Make recommendations concerning the annual Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
f. Prepare and submit to the City an annual operations report suitable for inclusion in the Annual City Report.
g. Provide support for studies related to bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure
as requested.
h. Review all proposed developments and zoning changes which come before the Development Review Board and/or the Planning Commission for the impact upon the City’s bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Meet with developers and City staff and make recommendations as is
appropriate in accordance with City Council, Development Review Board
and Planning Commission policy.
Approved this 19th day of December, 2022.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
__________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
FROM: City Attorney’s Office
DATE: December 17, 2022
RE: City Encampment Policy
At your request, we have put together a draft policy for your consideration titled: “Enforcement
and Removal Policies and Procedures Relating to Unauthorized Campsites on City Properties.”
Your first review of this draft policy occurred at your meeting on November 21, 2022. At that
time, in addition to some minor editorial corrections, you requested that the City’s obligation to
store personal property following the removal of a campsite be increased from one week to thirty
days. These changes have been made in the current draft.
Also, since your first review, we solicited input from Community Outreach and consulted with
the Department of Public Works. Both have advised that the policy is workable and could be
implemented. Community Outreach requested some edits be made and those suggestions are
included in the current draft.
Included in your packet are two copies of this draft policy. The first includes the changes made
since the last draft you reviewed in track change form and the second is a final adoptable version.
Chief of Police Shawn Burke and I will be available at your meeting to answer any questions you
may have.
Should you choose to adopt this policy, the recommended motion is as follows:
“Move to approve and adopt the Enforcement and Removal Policies and Procedures Relating to
Unauthorized Campsites on City Properties.”
Enforcement and Removal Policies and Procedures Relating to Unauthorized Campsites on
City Properties
Section 1 – Background:
The City of South Burlington is committed to supporting and maintaining a safe public
environment for all residents and visitors of South Burlington. Like other communities
throughout Vermont and the United States, the City of South Burlington is experiencing an
increase in the levels of individuals experiencing homelessness, including a growing number of
unauthorized campsites on public property. Such campsites pose safety and health concerns for
people living in them and around them, as they create challenges related to human waste,
garbage, exposure to communicable diseases, exposure to violence and other human health
concerns. At the same time, the City is mindful that any enforcement activity must be rooted in
respect for the people we serve, and that the delivery of social services is an essential part of this
policy’s effectiveness.
Section 2 – Purpose:
The City of South Burlington seeks to provide a standardized procedure governing the
enforcement of State and local laws prohibiting camping on public property. It also seeks to
establish a clear and standardized procedure for the cleanup of public property being used
unlawfully for the purpose of shelter and/or temporary residence and for the disposition of
property discovered within those camps.
In establishing this policy, the City also recognizes that enforcement activity is most effective
when social services and resources are offered in conjunction with that activity, and reflect
fundamental principles for addressing encampments, as identified by the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness (USICH). These principles include establishing a multi-sector
response, conducting comprehensive and coordinated outreach, and addressing basic needs and
providing storage.
Section 3 – Policy Statement:
When area shelters are at capacity, City staff shall take a general non-involvement approach to
any found unauthorized campsites, viewing those campsites through the lens of not criminalizing
people creating shelter due to lack of housing.
When, however, area shelter space is available or when campsites or other activity constitute
“obstructions” (as defined herein), present immediate hazards, or are found in “emphasis areas”
that meet specific criteria as outlined in this Policy, unauthorized campsites and obstructions will
be removed.
Where applicable, personal property removed from unauthorized campsites will be temporarily
stored in a manner that is in harmony with other local, state and federal laws;
Whenever practical, City staff will collaborate with community partners to ensure that
enforcement is accompanied by direct service delivery and engagement.
Section 4 – Goals:
The goals of this policy are to:
Provide consistent processes and procedures for removing campsites from City of South
Burlington Property;
Where applicable, temporarily store personal property in a manner that is in harmony
with other local, state and federal laws;
Whenever practical, collaborate with community partners to ensure that enforcement
activity is accompanied by direct service delivery and engagement.
Section 5 – Definitions:
5.1 "City" means the City of South Burlington, including its officers, employees,
agents, or any contractors and sub-contractors.
5.2 "Emphasis Area" means an area or location where homeless campsites have
become a repeated or consistent problem. When designating an Emphasis Area,
the City shall make a determination based on the totality of the circumstances of
a particular location. The City shall follow the guidelines outlined in Section 15.
5.3 "Campsite" means one or more tent, lean-to, structure, tarpaulin, pallet, or
makeshift structure used for purposes of habitation located in an identifiable area
within the City of South Burlington. Habitation is evidenced by the presence of
bedding materials, campfires, cooking materials, storage of clothing and other
personal belongings or items, gathered together in a manner where it appears to
a reasonable person that the site is being used for habitation purposes. Campsites
do not include sites a reasonable person would conclude are no longer in use,
because any remaining materials are garbage, debris, or waste.
5.4 "Immediate hazard" means a campsite where people camping outdoors are at
risk of serious injury or death beyond that caused by increased exposure to the
elements, or their presence creates a risk of serious injury or death to others, or
the campsite presence is causing imminent compromise to the structural
integrity of the surrounding location. Immediate hazard campsites include but
are not limited to areas exposed to moving vehicles, areas that can only be
accessed by crossing driving lanes outside of a legal crosswalk, or other critical
areas, where the lack of sanitation facilities results in human solid or liquid
waste being discharged therein.
5.5 "Obstruction" means people, tents, personal property, garbage, debris or other
objects related to a campsite that: are on a public sidewalk; interfere with the
pedestrian or purposes of public rights-of-way; or interfere with areas that are
necessary for or essential to the intended use of a public property or facility.
5.6 "Personal Property" means an item that: is reasonably recognizable as
belonging to a person; has apparent utility in its present condition and
circumstances; and is not hazardous.
5.7 Examples of personal property include but are not limited to identification
documents, personal papers and/or legal documents, tents or tarps, collapsible
chairs, bicycles, strollers, radios and other electronic equipment, eyeglasses,
prescription medications, photographs, jewelry, and medical devices such as
crutches or wheelchairs.
5.8 Personal property does not include building materials such as wood products,
shopping carts, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic, nor does it include other large
and/or bulky items such as furniture (sofas, dressers, etc.). The relevant staff
member will determine whether an item is personal property, and in cases when
the status of an item cannot reasonably be determined in the staff member's
good faith and best judgment based on the totality of the circumstances, the
staff member will treat the item as personal property under this rule.
Section 6 – Removing Obstructions and Immediate Hazard Campsites:
6.1 Those circumstances arising to obstructions and immediate hazard campsites
may be cause for immediate removal according to applicable laws and rules. The
provisions of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this policy do not apply to removing
obstructions and immediate hazard campsites. While the provisions of this
Section 6 apply to obstructions and immediate hazard campsites, for purposes
of simplicity, the provisions outlined herein in Section 6 shall refer to these
collectively as “obstructions.”
6.2 If an obstruction is observed and is to be immediately removed by City
personnel observing the obstruction, a notice is not required to be affixed to the
obstruction before its removal.
6.3 If the obstruction is determined to be under control of an individual present
where the obstruction is observed, oral notice to immediately remove the
obstruction shall, if reasonably possible, be given to the individual.
6.4 Physical obstructions that are personal property shall be removed and stored by
the City as provided for in Section 13 and may be recovered as provided for in
Section 14.
6.5 Garbage, debris, litter and waste may be immediately removed and disposed of.
6.6 Upon removing an obstructing campsite, the City shall post a notice as provided
for in Section 12.
Section 7 – Campsite Removal Prioritization:
7.1 The removal of campsites may be prioritized after an inspection of campsite
locations by City personnel. The inspection shall be documented in a format
acceptable by the City. The prioritization may be revised at any time as a result of
new campsites being identified, additional campsites being inspected, or as new
information about a campsite's condition becomes available.
7.2 The following criteria, which have no relative priority, shall be considered when
prioritizing campsites for removal: (1) objective hazards such as moving vehicles
and steep slopes; (2) criminal activity; (3) quantities of garbage, debris, or waste;
(4) other active health hazards to occupants or the surrounding neighborhood; (5)
difficulty in extending emergency services to the site; (6) imminent work
scheduled at the site for which the campsite will pose an obstruction; (7) damage
to the natural environment or environmentally critical areas, and (8) the proximity
of individuals experiencing homelessness to uses of special concern including
schools, playgrounds, or facilities for the elderly.
7.2.1 In the event that area emergency shelters are at capacity, City personnel
will not notice campsites for removal. City personnel will consult with
social service providers as to the availability of housing during the
exercise of Section 7 of this policy.
7.2.2
Section 8 – Campsite Removal and Notice Requirements
8.1 For campsites other than “Immediate Hazard Campsites” or Obstructions, notices
shall be prominently posted at the campsite no fewer than 24 hours before a
campsite removal.
8.2 The notice shall contain the following: (1) the date and time the notice was
posted; (2) a warning that garbage, debris, waste, litter and abandoned property
will be disposed of immediately; (34) the location where any personal property
remaining may be stored by the City if removed; (45) information on how
personal property may be claimed by its owner; (56) a warning that failure to
claim within one (1) week may result in the destruction of said property, and (67)
contact information for emergency shelter resources.
8.3 Removal notices shall be posted at the campsite in a manner reasonably calculated
to be seen, preferably in multiple locations.
8.4 Notices shall also be posted on, or as close as reasonably practicable, to each tent
or structure which is subject to removal. Notices so posted on or near each tent or
structure shall contain the same information as outlined in Section 8.2.
8.5 If individuals are present at the campsite, oral notice shall, if reasonably possible,
be given to the individuals that the campsite is subject to removal as provided for
in the posted notice.
8.6 Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City from posting notice that the removal
of a large campsite will occur over a period of several days, until completion, so
long as removal operations commence within the time frame identified in the
notice.
8.7 City personnel overseeing a campsite removal should document the notices posted
at a campsite site. Photographic documentation is recommended.
Section 9 – Identifying or Providing Alternative Shelter Options Before Removal of a
Non-Obstructing or Immediate Hazard campsite:
9.1 Prior to removing a campsite, City personnel shall identifyoffer alternative shelter
locations for individuals in the campsite. The alternatives identified must be
available to the campsite occupant starting on the date a campsite removal notice
is posted and continue to be available, subject to the rules of the alternative
shelter, until the campsite removal is completed.
Section 10 – Outreach for Campsite Removals:
10.1 The City of South Burlington will coordinate with community partners to ensure
that City personnel are accompanied by outreach staff during the removal of
inhabited campsites whenever practical. Outreach staff can request police support
for safety reasons as needed.
Section 11 – Campsite Cleanup:
11.1 All designated City personnel, vendors, and other personnel necessary for a
campsite removal and cleanup shall be present at the start of a campsite removal.
11.2 Whenever practical, City personnel should be accompanied by outreach staff at
the removal of any inhabited campsite.
11.3 If there are any individuals remaining on site, a final warning and reasonable
opportunity to leave shall be given prior to further enforcement.
11.4 The City shall take reasonable steps to segregate personal property from material
that is not personal property, provided the segregation does not pose a danger to
the individual segregating the personal property from the other material.
11.5 Tents and/or structures that were not previously posted with a notice but are in the
immediate area of tents or structures that were posted with a notice may be
removed if the tents or structures were placed in the immediate area after notices
were posted.
11.6 Personal property shall be stored as provided for in Section 13 and may be
recovered as provided for in Section 14.
11.7 The City may remove and dispose of garbage, debris, waste, hazardous items, and
other like material. Items of personal property which may present a health and
safety hazard either immediately or during storage due to contamination by blood,
liquid waste, solid waste, dirt, filth or other potentially infectious agent shall be
removed and disposed of.
11.8 If, during the removal process, an individual on site is protesting removal of a
personal property item, as that term is defined herein, the City shall provide a
reasonable opportunity for the individual to remove it. However, the individual
shall be advised that campsite removal work at the site shall continue and that if
the individual fails to remove the personal property item before cleanup is
complete, such item may be retrieved from storage. The individual shall be
provided with the contact information for the storage facility identified in Section
13.
11.9 If the individual has an item that does not meet the definition of personal
property, as defined herein, the person shall be provided a reasonable opportunity
to remove the item. However, the individual shall be advised that campsite
removal work at the site shall continue and that if the individual fails to remove
the item before cleanup is complete, such item may be deemed abandoned and
disposed of.
11.10 City personnel should thoroughly document their actions during the removal
process to adequately corroborate that personal property which is being disposed
of is either hazardous or has no apparent remaining utility.
11.11 When called to the scene, South Burlington Police Department members will
identify, seize, and securely store any weapons found at the campsite site.
11.12 Property attributable to a crime (e.g. weapons, items that have been reported to be
stolen, etc.) will be handled in accordance with the Police Department’s
established evidentiary policy and practice.
Section 12 – Post-campsite Removal Notice:
12.1 A notice shall be prominently posted at the site where a campsite has been
removed and the site cleaned up.
12.2 The notice shall state: (1) the date the cleanup was performed; (2) whether
personal property was stored by the City; (3) where the personal property is
stored; (4) how any stored personal property may be claimed by its owner; (5) that
property not claimed will be destroyed after one (1) week, and (6) contact
information for outreach personnel who can assist individuals with shelter
alternatives and other services. This notice shall not be removed by the City for a
minimum of one (1) week.
Section 13 – Storage of Personal Property Removed from Campsite:
13.1 The City shall store all personal property encountered when removing
obstructions and immediate hazards, or when removing campsites, provided the
City has no obligation to store personal property that is hazardous (for example, a
needle-strewn tent) or is reasonably expected to become a hazard during storage
(for example; wet bedding materials, wet clothing or other textiles contaminated
with biohazard materials).
13.2 The campsite site shall be posted with a notice if personal property is removed
from the site.
13.3 The notice shall contain the same information as referenced in Section 12.2 and
shall not be removed from the site by the City for a minimum of one (1) week.
13.4 The City shall maintain a log of personal property removed from a campsite. Each
item logged shall be kept until the personal property is recovered by its owner, or
the property is discarded as permitted under these rules. The log shall indicate:
13.4.1 Camp location and date of camp cleanup.
13.4.2 Description of each item of property, including the type of item, color,
brand name (if known), and marks thereon identifying the owner.
13.4.3 To whom the property was released and the date of release, or, in the event
the property is not recovered, the date of destruction or disposal.
13.4.4 Containers, backpacks, boxes, etc. that contain personal property can be
sealed at the site, and inventoried as a single item. City personnel will
conduct a visual inspection of the bag to determine if valuables, hazardous
materials or perishable items are enclosed. Valuables will be inventoried
separately. Hazardous materials or perishable items will be disposed of.
13.5 Personal property that is not recovered after thirty (30) daysone (1) week,
excluding the date the property was stored, may be destroyed or disposed of by
the City.
Section 14 – Recovering Stored Property:
14.1 Individuals claiming personal property that has been removed from a campsite
may contact the Police Department or designated community partner who will
inform the individual how the property may be recovered.
14.2 Personal property may be recovered by the individual at the location where the
property is stored.
14.3 The individual shall describe the personal property sought with particularity. No
formal legal identification, such as displaying a valid driver's license, will be
required as a predicate before an individual can recover the property. The log of
personal property, as referenced in section 13.4, shall indicate the name as
provided by the individual who received the recovered property. If there are no
circumstances indicating a competing claim of ownership, the property shall be
released to the individual seeking its recovery. Storage of personal property shall
be at no cost to the individual.
Section 15 – Campsite Removal from an Emphasis Area:
15.1 The City may identify a specific area as an Emphasis Area.
15.2 An area may not be identified as an Emphasis Area, and enforcement of an
Emphasis Area shall not commence until: a campsite or obstruction removal has
occurred; the area is otherwise free of campsites; and the area has been posted
with signage as an Emphasis Area.
15.3 If an area has been designated as an Emphasis Area, the area shall be inspected
and monitored by the City on a regular basis. The area shall be signed, and may
be fenced. The signage shall identify: (1) the location of the Emphasis Area; (2)
that camping is prohibited in the Emphasis Area; (3) that any material found in
the Emphasis Area may be removed without further notice; (4) where any
personal property removed is stored; and (5) how any stored personal property
may be claimed by its owner.
15.4 Individuals camping in an Emphasis Area and their campsite-associated personal
property may be removed as an obstruction.
Signed this XX day of XXX, XXXX.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, Councilor
Enforcement and Removal Policies and Procedures Relating to Unauthorized Campsites on
City Properties
Section 1 – Background:
The City of South Burlington is committed to supporting and maintaining a safe public
environment for all residents and visitors of South Burlington. Like other communities
throughout Vermont and the United States, the City of South Burlington is experiencing an
increase in the levels of individuals experiencing homelessness, including a growing number of
unauthorized campsites on public property. Such campsites pose safety and health concerns for
people living in them and around them, as they create challenges related to human waste,
garbage, exposure to communicable diseases, exposure to violence and other human health
concerns. At the same time, the City is mindful that any enforcement activity must be rooted in
respect for the people we serve, and that the delivery of social services is an essential part of this
policy’s effectiveness.
Section 2 – Purpose:
The City of South Burlington seeks to provide a standardized procedure governing the
enforcement of State and local laws prohibiting camping on public property. It also seeks to
establish a clear and standardized procedure for the cleanup of public property being used
unlawfully for the purpose of shelter and/or temporary residence and for the disposition of
property discovered within those camps.
In establishing this policy, the City also recognizes that enforcement activity is most effective
when social services and resources are offered in conjunction with that activity, and reflect
fundamental principles for addressing encampments, as identified by the U.S. Interagency
Council on Homelessness (USICH). These principles include establishing a multi-sector
response, conducting comprehensive and coordinated outreach, and addressing basic needs and
providing storage.
Section 3 – Policy Statement:
When area shelters are at capacity, City staff shall take a general non-involvement approach to
any found unauthorized campsites, viewing those campsites through the lens of not criminalizing
people creating shelter due to lack of housing.
When, however, area shelter space is available or when campsites or other activity constitute
“obstructions” (as defined herein), present immediate hazards, or are found in “emphasis areas”
that meet specific criteria as outlined in this Policy, unauthorized campsites and obstructions will
be removed.
Where applicable, personal property removed from unauthorized campsites will be temporarily
stored in a manner that is in harmony with other local, state and federal laws;
Whenever practical, City staff will collaborate with community partners to ensure that
enforcement is accompanied by direct service delivery and engagement.
Section 4 – Goals:
The goals of this policy are to:
Provide consistent processes and procedures for removing campsites from City of South
Burlington Property;
Where applicable, temporarily store personal property in a manner that is in harmony
with other local, state and federal laws;
Whenever practical, collaborate with community partners to ensure that enforcement
activity is accompanied by direct service delivery and engagement.
Section 5 – Definitions:
5.1 "City" means the City of South Burlington, including its officers, employees,
agents, or any contractors and sub-contractors.
5.2 "Emphasis Area" means an area or location where homeless campsites have
become a repeated or consistent problem. When designating an Emphasis Area,
the City shall make a determination based on the totality of the circumstances of
a particular location. The City shall follow the guidelines outlined in Section 15.
5.3 "Campsite" means one or more tent, lean-to, structure, tarpaulin, pallet, or
makeshift structure used for purposes of habitation located in an identifiable area
within the City of South Burlington. Habitation is evidenced by the presence of
bedding materials, campfires, cooking materials, storage of clothing and other
personal belongings or items, gathered together in a manner where it appears to
a reasonable person that the site is being used for habitation purposes. Campsites
do not include sites a reasonable person would conclude are no longer in use,
because any remaining materials are garbage, debris, or waste.
5.4 "Immediate hazard" means a campsite where people camping outdoors are at
risk of serious injury or death beyond that caused by increased exposure to the
elements, or their presence creates a risk of serious injury or death to others, or
the campsite presence is causing imminent compromise to the structural
integrity of the surrounding location. Immediate hazard campsites include but
are not limited to areas exposed to moving vehicles, areas that can only be
accessed by crossing driving lanes outside of a legal crosswalk, or other critical
areas, where the lack of sanitation facilities results in human solid or liquid
waste being discharged therein.
5.5 "Obstruction" means people, tents, personal property, garbage, debris or other
objects related to a campsite that: are on a public sidewalk; interfere with the
pedestrian or purposes of public rights-of-way; or interfere with areas that are
necessary for or essential to the intended use of a public property or facility.
5.6 "Personal Property" means an item that: is reasonably recognizable as
belonging to a person; has apparent utility in its present condition and
circumstances; and is not hazardous.
5.7 Examples of personal property include but are not limited to identification
documents, personal papers and/or legal documents, tents or tarps, collapsible
chairs, bicycles, strollers, radios and other electronic equipment, eyeglasses,
prescription medications, photographs, jewelry, and medical devices such as
crutches or wheelchairs.
5.8 Personal property does not include building materials such as wood products,
shopping carts, metal, pallets, or rigid plastic, nor does it include other large
and/or bulky items such as furniture (sofas, dressers, etc.). The relevant staff
member will determine whether an item is personal property, and in cases when
the status of an item cannot reasonably be determined in the staff member's
good faith and best judgment based on the totality of the circumstances, the
staff member will treat the item as personal property under this rule.
Section 6 – Removing Obstructions and Immediate Hazard Campsites:
6.1 Those circumstances arising to obstructions and immediate hazard campsites
may be cause for immediate removal according to applicable laws and rules. The
provisions of Sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of this policy do not apply to removing
obstructions and immediate hazard campsites. While the provisions of this
Section 6 apply to obstructions and immediate hazard campsites, for purposes
of simplicity, the provisions outlined herein in Section 6 shall refer to these
collectively as “obstructions.”
6.2 If an obstruction is observed and is to be immediately removed by City
personnel observing the obstruction, a notice is not required to be affixed to the
obstruction before its removal.
6.3 If the obstruction is determined to be under control of an individual present
where the obstruction is observed, oral notice to immediately remove the
obstruction shall, if reasonably possible, be given to the individual.
6.4 Physical obstructions that are personal property shall be removed and stored by
the City as provided for in Section 13 and may be recovered as provided for in
Section 14.
6.5 Garbage, debris, litter and waste may be immediately removed and disposed of.
6.6 Upon removing an obstructing campsite, the City shall post a notice as provided
for in Section 12.
Section 7 – Campsite Removal Prioritization:
7.1 The removal of campsites may be prioritized after an inspection of campsite
locations by City personnel. The inspection shall be documented in a format
acceptable by the City. The prioritization may be revised at any time as a result of
new campsites being identified, additional campsites being inspected, or as new
information about a campsite's condition becomes available.
7.2 The following criteria, which have no relative priority, shall be considered when
prioritizing campsites for removal: (1) objective hazards such as moving vehicles
and steep slopes; (2) criminal activity; (3) quantities of garbage, debris, or waste;
(4) other active health hazards to occupants or the surrounding neighborhood; (5)
difficulty in extending emergency services to the site; (6) imminent work
scheduled at the site for which the campsite will pose an obstruction; (7) damage
to the natural environment or environmentally critical areas, and (8) the proximity
of individuals experiencing homelessness to uses of special concern including
schools, playgrounds, or facilities for the elderly.
7.2.1 In the event that area emergency shelters are at capacity, City personnel
will not notice campsites for removal. City personnel will consult with
social service providers as to the availability of housing during the
exercise of Section 7 of this policy.
Section 8 – Campsite Removal and Notice Requirements
8.1 For campsites other than “Immediate Hazard Campsites” or Obstructions, notices
shall be prominently posted at the campsite no fewer than 24 hours before a
campsite removal.
8.2 The notice shall contain the following: (1) the date and time the notice was
posted; (2) a warning that garbage, debris, waste, litter and abandoned property
will be disposed of immediately; (3) the location where any personal property
remaining may be stored by the City if removed; (4) information on how personal
property may be claimed by its owner; (5) a warning that failure to claim within
one (1) week may result in the destruction of said property, and (6) contact
information for emergency shelter resources.
8.3 Removal notices shall be posted at the campsite in a manner reasonably calculated
to be seen, preferably in multiple locations.
8.4 Notices shall also be posted on, or as close as reasonably practicable, to each tent
or structure which is subject to removal. Notices so posted on or near each tent or
structure shall contain the same information as outlined in Section 8.2.
8.5 If individuals are present at the campsite, oral notice shall, if reasonably possible,
be given to the individuals that the campsite is subject to removal as provided for
in the posted notice.
8.6 Nothing in this section shall prohibit the City from posting notice that the removal
of a large campsite will occur over a period of several days, until completion, so
long as removal operations commence within the time frame identified in the
notice.
8.7 City personnel overseeing a campsite removal should document the notices posted
at a campsite site. Photographic documentation is recommended.
Section 9 – Identifying or Providing Alternative Shelter Options Before Removal of a
Non-Obstructing or Immediate Hazard campsite:
9.1 Prior to removing a campsite, City personnel shall identify alternative shelter
locations for individuals in the campsite. The alternatives identified must be
available to the campsite occupant starting on the date a campsite removal notice
is posted and continue to be available, subject to the rules of the alternative
shelter, until the campsite removal is completed.
Section 10 – Outreach for Campsite Removals:
10.1 The City of South Burlington will coordinate with community partners to ensure
that City personnel are accompanied by outreach staff during the removal of
inhabited campsites whenever practical. Outreach staff can request police support
for safety reasons as needed.
Section 11 – Campsite Cleanup:
11.1 All designated City personnel, vendors, and other personnel necessary for a
campsite removal and cleanup shall be present at the start of a campsite removal.
11.2 Whenever practical, City personnel should be accompanied by outreach staff at
the removal of any inhabited campsite.
11.3 If there are any individuals remaining on site, a final warning and reasonable
opportunity to leave shall be given prior to further enforcement.
11.4 The City shall take reasonable steps to segregate personal property from material
that is not personal property, provided the segregation does not pose a danger to
the individual segregating the personal property from the other material.
11.5 Tents and/or structures that were not previously posted with a notice but are in the
immediate area of tents or structures that were posted with a notice may be
removed if the tents or structures were placed in the immediate area after notices
were posted.
11.6 Personal property shall be stored as provided for in Section 13 and may be
recovered as provided for in Section 14.
11.7 The City may remove and dispose of garbage, debris, waste, hazardous items, and
other like material. Items of personal property which may present a health and
safety hazard either immediately or during storage due to contamination by blood,
liquid waste, solid waste, dirt, filth or other potentially infectious agent shall be
removed and disposed of.
11.8 If, during the removal process, an individual on site is protesting removal of a
personal property item, as that term is defined herein, the City shall provide a
reasonable opportunity for the individual to remove it. However, the individual
shall be advised that campsite removal work at the site shall continue and that if
the individual fails to remove the personal property item before cleanup is
complete, such item may be retrieved from storage. The individual shall be
provided with the contact information for the storage facility identified in Section
13.
11.9 If the individual has an item that does not meet the definition of personal
property, as defined herein, the person shall be provided a reasonable opportunity
to remove the item. However, the individual shall be advised that campsite
removal work at the site shall continue and that if the individual fails to remove
the item before cleanup is complete, such item may be deemed abandoned and
disposed of.
11.10 City personnel should thoroughly document their actions during the removal
process to adequately corroborate that personal property which is being disposed
of is either hazardous or has no apparent remaining utility.
11.11 When called to the scene, South Burlington Police Department members will
identify, seize, and securely store any weapons found at the campsite site.
11.12 Property attributable to a crime (e.g. weapons, items that have been reported to be
stolen, etc.) will be handled in accordance with the Police Department’s
established evidentiary policy and practice.
Section 12 – Post-campsite Removal Notice:
12.1 A notice shall be prominently posted at the site where a campsite has been
removed and the site cleaned up.
12.2 The notice shall state: (1) the date the cleanup was performed; (2) whether
personal property was stored by the City; (3) where the personal property is
stored; (4) how any stored personal property may be claimed by its owner; (5) that
property not claimed will be destroyed after one (1) week, and (6) contact
information for outreach personnel who can assist individuals with shelter
alternatives and other services. This notice shall not be removed by the City for a
minimum of one (1) week.
Section 13 – Storage of Personal Property Removed from Campsite:
13.1 The City shall store all personal property encountered when removing
obstructions and immediate hazards, or when removing campsites, provided the
City has no obligation to store personal property that is hazardous (for example, a
needle-strewn tent) or is reasonably expected to become a hazard during storage
(for example; wet bedding materials, wet clothing or other textiles contaminated
with biohazard materials).
13.2 The campsite site shall be posted with a notice if personal property is removed
from the site.
13.3 The notice shall contain the same information as referenced in Section 12.2 and
shall not be removed from the site by the City for a minimum of one (1) week.
13.4 The City shall maintain a log of personal property removed from a campsite. Each
item logged shall be kept until the personal property is recovered by its owner, or
the property is discarded as permitted under these rules. The log shall indicate:
13.4.1 Camp location and date of camp cleanup.
13.4.2 Description of each item of property, including the type of item, color,
brand name (if known), and marks thereon identifying the owner.
13.4.3 To whom the property was released and the date of release, or, in the event
the property is not recovered, the date of destruction or disposal.
13.4.4 Containers, backpacks, boxes, etc. that contain personal property can be
sealed at the site, and inventoried as a single item. City personnel will
conduct a visual inspection of the bag to determine if valuables, hazardous
materials or perishable items are enclosed. Valuables will be inventoried
separately. Hazardous materials or perishable items will be disposed of.
13.5 Personal property that is not recovered after thirty (30) days, excluding the date
the property was stored, may be destroyed or disposed of by the City.
Section 14 – Recovering Stored Property:
14.1 Individuals claiming personal property that has been removed from a campsite
may contact the Police Department or designated community partner who will
inform the individual how the property may be recovered.
14.2 Personal property may be recovered by the individual at the location where the
property is stored.
14.3 The individual shall describe the personal property sought with particularity. No
formal legal identification, such as displaying a valid driver's license, will be
required as a predicate before an individual can recover the property. The log of
personal property, as referenced in section 13.4, shall indicate the name as
provided by the individual who received the recovered property. If there are no
circumstances indicating a competing claim of ownership, the property shall be
released to the individual seeking its recovery. Storage of personal property shall
be at no cost to the individual.
Section 15 – Campsite Removal from an Emphasis Area:
15.1 The City may identify a specific area as an Emphasis Area.
15.2 An area may not be identified as an Emphasis Area, and enforcement of an
Emphasis Area shall not commence until: a campsite or obstruction removal has
occurred; the area is otherwise free of campsites; and the area has been posted
with signage as an Emphasis Area.
15.3 If an area has been designated as an Emphasis Area, the area shall be inspected
and monitored by the City on a regular basis. The area shall be signed, and may
be fenced. The signage shall identify: (1) the location of the Emphasis Area; (2)
that camping is prohibited in the Emphasis Area; (3) that any material found in
the Emphasis Area may be removed without further notice; (4) where any
personal property removed is stored; and (5) how any stored personal property
may be claimed by its owner.
15.4 Individuals camping in an Emphasis Area and their campsite-associated personal
property may be removed as an obstruction.
Signed this 19th day of December, 2022.
______________________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair
______________________________________
Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair
______________________________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk
______________________________________
Thomas Chittenden, Councilor
______________________________________
Matt Cota, Councilor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager;
South Burlington City Council
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning
Colin McNeil, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Continued First Reading; Potential School Impact Fee Ordinance
DATE: December 19, 2022 City Council meeting
Enclosed please find the most recent version of Impact Fee Ordinance, with the proposed addition of a
School Impact Fee, alongside the analysis report prepared earlier this fall. This meeting a continuation of
the first reading that took place on November 21, 2022. See materials
Updates since November 21, 2022 Council meeting:
At Council’s direction, staff has made the following adjustments to the draft Impact Fee Ordinance
following the Council’s last discussion:
• Administrative Fee. The previously proposed 4% administrative fee has been replaced with a flat
fee of $100 per zoning permit requiring the payment of one or more impact fees.
This change would equalize the fee across all types of permits and would apply per building, not
per dwelling unit or unit of commercial space. The Council could also choose to apply the fee per
dwelling unit and per unit (s.f. of commercial space). There are pros and cons to each approach.
The per-permit reflective of the immediate work involved, while a per unit fee may better reflect
the relative scale of projects & impact fees.
As drafted, the administrative fee would apply to ALL projects triggering the use of impact fees,
not just residential projects. This is a change from the last draft, which had applied the 4%
administrative fee ONLY to projects triggering the School Impact Fee (ie, residential projects).
Council could choose to have it apply only to the school impact fees, but the administrative costs
exist regardless of the type of fees.
The fee as stated may be applied to support administrative costs to the City, as well as for hiring
consultants to help update the impact fee ordinance and/or analysis reports. Note that as
presented, the revenue generated would not likely provide significant support to consultant costs
for updating impact fee analysis reports/ordinances.
• Affordable Housing. This version of the draft Ordinance excludes housing that meets the
definition of an Inclusionary or Affordable Dwelling Unit under the Land Development Regulations
from payment of School Impact Fees. This consists of homes made permanently affordable to
households earning 80% of medium income.
• Updated the text of the ordinance to include the amendments adopted by Council on 12/5/2022
• Corrected Typos from last draft.
2
Public Hearing and possible enactment:
This meeting serves as the first reading of the draft Ordinance. Should the Council wish to proceed, the
next step would be to warn and hold a public hearing on the draft Ordinance (with any changes made by
Council), after which time the Council may vote on adoption of the amendment.
Jessie Baker and I recommend Monday, January 23rd, as discussed briefly at the last Council meeting; this
would be the same night as the Steering Committee meeting with the School Board, enabling both bodies
to be present.
Possible motion:
“I move to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance as presented
in this meeting’s packet, for Monday, January 23, 2023 at ____ pm.”
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
1
Impact Fee Ordinance
Adopted: January 9, 1995
Amended:
April 17, 1995
December 2, 1996
February 2, 1998
September 7, 1999
July 16, 2001
December 3, 2007
October 19, 2009
July 1, 2013 (Effective October 15, 2013)
May 19, 2014
December 5, 2022
DRAFT DECEMBER 19, 2022
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
2
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE
Section 1. Authority.
This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the specific authority granted municipalities to establish impact
fees contained in 24 V.S.A., Chapter 131 and the authority granted the City of South Burlington to enact
ordinances set forth in its Charter and 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59. This ordinance shall be a civil ordinance within
the meaning of 24 V.S.A. Chapter 59.
Section 2. Purpose.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to establish impact fees to pay portions of the cost of constructing
capital facilities for new development in the City that will be served by such facilities. To the extent that
new capital facilities are necessitated by new development and such facilities benefit the new
development, it is appropriate that the new residents and owners bear an appropriate portion of the costs
of constructing the new facilities.
Section 3. Establishment of Fees.
A. Road Improvement Impact Fee: Except as provided in subparagraph (5), any land development
as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington
Zoning Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall
pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2).
(1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in dwelling
units or, in the case of non-residential development, an increase in PM peak hour vehicle trip
ends (vehicle trips occurring between the hours of 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM on weekdays), as
determined by the Development Review Board / Administrative Officer as appropriate.
(a) In making the determination required by subparagraph (1), the Development Review
Board or Administrative Officer shall use the methodology set forth in Appendix B.2 of
the applicable South Burlington Land Development Regulations.
(b) In determining the trip generation rate for Child Care Centers, as defined within the latest
version of the ITE Trip Generation manual (i.e. “Licensed non-residential child care
facilities” as defined in the applicable South Burlington Land Development Regulations),
the Development Review Board or the Administrative Officer shall apply a pass-by rate of
30%. This pass-by rate shall apply to all Child Care Centers for which the City already has
issued a zoning permit since January 1, 2011, upon (re)submission of an application and
to all future applications for Child Care Centers.
(2) Formula for determination of impact fees:
(a) Single Family Dwelling: $1,009.86 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 5
(net fee, single-family dwellings) of Table RD-4.
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
3
(b) Multi-Family Dwelling (fee per unit): $669.91 per unit, less appropriate credits as shown
in column 9 (net fee, multi-family dwellings) of Table RD-4.
(c) Non-residential Development: $999.86 multiplied by the number of PM peak hour vehicle
trip ends and reduced by the amount of any credit due from Tables RD-5 and RD-6.
Estimate of post-construction assessed value of non-residential development shall be
calculated as described in the Road Impact Fee section of the City of South Burlington
2007 Impact Fee Analysis Report referenced below.
(3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report
entitled, “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2007 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS”, prepared by
Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, dated October 12, 2007, which report is incorporated into
this ordinance by reference. The pass-by rate in subparagraph (1)(b) is based on a study and
report entitled, “Adjustment to Traffic Impact Fees for Child care Centers” prepared by BFJ
Planning, dated February 21, 2014, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by
reference.
(4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs
associated with the following road improvement projects which are described in the above
referenced report:
(a) Hinesburg Road/Van Sicklen Road Intersection Improvements
(b) Williston Road Reconstruction
(c) Airport Drive Extension
(d) Airport Parkway/Ethan Allen Road Intersection Improvements
(e) Tilley to Community Drive Connector
(f) City Center Road Network
(5) This impact fee shall not apply to land development as described in subparagraph (1) which:
(a) is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval under the South
Burlington Subdivision Regulations prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval
contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding
road improvements; and
(b) the fees specified in the subdivision approval were paid to the City in accordance with the
terms of the approval; and
(c) a permit is issued for the development under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on
or before January 9, 2005.
(6) A development that includes a Traffic Demand Management Plan approved by the
Development Review Board / Administrative Officer may be granted a credit not to exceed 25
percent of the original number of trips generated multiplied by the fee per PM Peak Hour Trip
($999.86), provided that the applicant agrees to provide the post development verification
study and security described in the above referenced Impact Fee Analysis report.
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
4
B. Recreation Impact Fee: Except as provided in Subparagraph (5), any land development as
described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Land
Development Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective
shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2).
(1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development resulting in an increase in dwelling units.
(2) Formula for determination of impact fees:
(a) Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units: $1,685.67 per unit, less
appropriate credits, as shown in column 4 of Table REC-4.
(b) Dwellings in structures containing four or more units: $1,179.97 per unit, less appropriate
credits as shown in column 7 of Table REC-4.
(3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report
entitled, “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS UPDATED” prepared by
Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, dated May 28, 2013, which report is incorporated into this
ordinance by reference.
(4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs
associated with the following recreation improvement projects which are described in the
above referenced reports:
(a) Develop Soccer Field on land in South Village
(b) Land acquisition for “Marceau Meadows” recreation fields property in the vicinity of
Hinesburg Road and Van Sicklen Road
(c) Development of “Marceau Meadows” recreation fields
(d) Development of Old Farm Road area recreation fields
(e) Development of Dumont Park recreation area in the vicinity of Iby Street and Market
Street
(f) Development of recreation paths and bicycle lanes as described in the above referenced
Impact Fee Analysis, including:
(i) Dorset Street/Hoehn connection along Dorset Street
(ii) Spear Street bicycle lane
(iii) Shelburne Rd/Queen City Park Rd improvements
(iv) Connection from Tilley Drive to Marshall Avenue, including bridging
(v) Vale Drive to Spear & Swift recreation path connection
(vi) Recreation path extension along Airport Drive extension to Lime Kiln Road
(vii) Recreation path connection from the Williston Road Holiday Inn to Patchen
Road
(viii) Extension along Hinesburg Road to Tilley Drive
(5) This impact fee shall not apply to land development as described in subparagraph (1) which:
(a) is for development within a subdivision that received final plat approval under the South
Burlington Subdivision Regulations prior to January 9, 1995, which subdivision approval
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
5
contained a condition requiring payment of fees to the City for the purpose of funding
recreation improvements; and
(b) the fees specified in the subdivision approval were paid to the City in accordance with the
terms of the approval; and
(c) a permit is issued for the development under the South Burlington Zoning Regulations on
or before January 9, 2005.
C. Dorset Street Waterline Fee: Any dwelling unit as described in subparagraph (1) which connects
to the Dorset Street waterline referred to in subparagraph (3), after February 2, 1998, shall pay
an impact fee set forth in subparagraph (2).
(1) This impact fee shall apply to any dwelling unit in the Dorset Street Waterline Service Area as
delineated on a plan dated January 30, 1998, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(2) The impact fee shall be $187.25 per dwelling unit, which amount shall be increased on January
1, 1999, and each year thereafter by 4%.
(3) The impact fee in subparagraph (2) above is based on cost in excess of $141,932 to construct
approximately 5180 feet of waterline and related improvements within the Dorset Street
right-of-way.
(4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay the cost of the
waterline improvements described in subparagraph (3) above.
D. Fire Protection Fee: Except as provided in subparagraph (5), any land development as described
in subparagraph (1) which is issued a permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning
Regulations after the date this Impact Fee Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an
impact fee determined in accordance with the formula set forth in subparagraph (2).
(1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in total value
of property at risk in the City (including structures and contents), as described in the report
entitled “CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON 2007 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORTS” prepared by
Michael J. Munson, Ph.D., FAICP, and dated October 12, 2007, which is incorporated into this
ordinance by reference.
(2) Formula for determination of impact fees:
(a) Single Family Dwelling: $304.85 per unit less appropriate credits as shown in column 5
(net fee, single-family dwellings) of Table FP-7.
(b) Multi-Family Dwelling (fee per unit): $192.96 per unit less appropriate credits as shown
in column 9 (net fee, multi-family dwellings) of Table FP-7.
(c) Non-residential Development: $0.67 per $1,000 estimated value of all structures and
contents. Estimate of post-construction assessed value of non-residential structures shall
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
6
be based on estimated improvement values for new structures contained in Table FP-8,
multiplied by a factor of 2.5 to provide the total estimated value of the structure, site
improvements and contents, reduced by the amount of any credits due using the
procedure described in the above referenced Fire Protection Impact Fee Analysis report
and Tables FP-9 and FP-10.
(3) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs
associated with the following fire protection improvement projects which are described in
the above referenced report:
(a) Renovations to Fire Station #2
(b) New Heavy Vehicles
(c) New Light Vehicles
(d) New Equipment
(4) A credit of up to ten percent of the base impact fee may be awarded to non-residential
developments that include installation of a sprinkler system designed to meet the guidelines
of the Insurance Rating Organization with no more than 25 deficiency points.
E. Police Impact Fee: Any land development which is issued a permit under the City of South
Burlington Land Development Regulations after the date these amendments to the Impact Fee
Ordinance become effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with the formula
set forth in subparagraph (1). This impact fee shall be based on the report entitled POLICE
IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS: CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON, prepared by Michael J. Munson, Ph.D.,
FAICP, and dated May 28, 2013.
(1) Formula for determination of Police impact fees
(a) Dwellings in structures containing three or fewer units: $503.88 per unit less appropriate
credits as shown in column 5 of Table PD-4.
(b) Dwellings in structures containing four or more units: $352.72 per unit less appropriate
credits as shown in column 9 of Table PD-4.
(c) Non-Residential Development: $237.76 per 1,000 square feet of floor area, less
appropriate credits as described in the above referenced Police Impact Fee Analysis,
making use of Tables PD-5, PD-6, and PD-7.
(2) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall only be used to pay capital
costs associated with the new police station, as described in the above referenced report.
F. School Impact Fee: Any land development as described in subparagraph (1) which is issued a
permit under the City of South Burlington Zoning Regulations after the date this Impact Fee
Ordinance provision becomes effective shall pay an impact fee determined in accordance with
the formula set forth in subparagraph (2).
(1) This impact fee shall apply to any land development that results in an increase in dwelling
units on a per bedroom basis or an increase in bedrooms in an existing dwelling unit.
(2) Formula for determination of impact fees:
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
7
(a) For new dwelling units, the fee listed in Table SC-1, less appropriate credits for payment
of past and future property taxes as shown in Tables SC-2 and SC-3.
(b) For existing dwelling units that increase the number of bedrooms: the new dwelling unit
impact fee listed in Table SC-1 for the total number of bedrooms in the unit after the
increase is complete minus the new dwelling unit impact fee listed in Table SC-1 for the
number of bedrooms that existed in the unit prior to the increase.
(c) Affordable Housing. Dwelling Units meeting the definition of Affordable Housing or
Inclusionary Unit in the City of South Burlington Land Development Regulations shall be
exempt from the payment of School Impact Fees..
TABLE SC-1:
SCHOOL IMPACT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
NUMBER OF BEDROOMS IN DWELLING UNIT AMOUNT OF SCHOOL IMPACT FEE
Zero or One Bedroom $2,748
Two Bedrooms $4,636
Three Bedrooms $8,929
Four or more Bedrooms $12,535
(3) The impact fee formula set forth in subparagraph (2) above is based on a study and report
entitled “South Burlington School District Impact Fee Study” prepared by RSG, dated
November 9, 2022, which report is incorporated into this ordinance by reference.
(4) Impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance provision shall be used to pay costs
associated with the following school improvement projects which are described in the above
referenced report:
(a) PK-8 Zero Energy Modular (ZEM) Classroom Flexible Space: Capital Costs for eight (8) zero-
energy modular (ZEM) structures for use within the PK-8 grade facilities as listed in Table
12 of the Report referenced in this Subsection.
Section 4. Payment of Fees
A. Except as provided for under subsection (A) below, impact fees levied under this ordinance shall
be paid to the City Treasurer prior to the issuance of any permits under the Zoning Regulations of
the City of South Burlington for the construction of any development subject to the payment of
impact fees. The Zoning Administrator shall not issue any zoning permit for the construction of
such developments without first receiving proof of payment of the required impact fees from the
City Treasurer.
(1) Perpetually Affordable Housing to which the City is a Financial Contributor. Payment of
impact fees levied under this ordinance may be paid to the City Treasurer after the issuance
of any permits under the Zoning Regulations of the City of South Burlington for construction
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
8
and development but prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy provided the
following two criteria are met:
(a) The project is for the development of housing that is not less than 50% of the dwelling
units perpetually affordable, with “affordable” being defined by the City’s Land
Development Regulations; and
(b) The City has made some prior financial contribution to the development in the form of a
grant from the City’s general or housing trust fund or by means of a Vermont Community
Development Fund/Community Development Block Grant or other such State of Federal
grants or loans in which the City is a transactional party.
B. Applicability of School Impact Fees levied under this ordinance shall be phased in as follows:
(1) For complete zoning permit applications submitted on or after July 1, 2023, 50% of the
fees listed in Section 3F of this ordinance;
(2) For complete zoning permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2024, the full
fees listed in Section 3F of this ordinance.
B.C. Administrative Fee. An administrative fee of $100 shall be levied upon the issuance of each zoning
permit eliciting payment of one or more of the impact fees established under this Ordinance, with
payment due contemporaneous with payment of the applicable Iimpact Fee(s). The
administrative fee may be used to offset administrative costs associated with payment and
tracking of impact fees, for preparation of amendments to the Impact Fee Ordinance, and for
preparation of analysis reports.
Section 5. Accounting and Register of Payment.
A. Impact fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be placed by the City Treasurer in separate
interest bearing accounts for each type of impact fee established.
B. The City Treasurer shall maintain a register for each account indicting the date of payment of each
fee, the amount paid, and the name of the payer.
C. The City Treasurer shall prepare an annual accounting of all fees paid into and withdrawn from
each account, showing the source and amounts collected, and the amounts expended and the
projects for which such expenditures were made.
D. Collected School Impact Fees shall be distributed to the South Burlington School District in
accordance with the “School Impact Fee Agreement” between the City of South Burlington and
the South Burlington School District. The South Burlington School District shall prepare and
provide to the City of South Burlington an annual accounting of all fees paid into and withdrawn
from the School District’s Impact Fee account, showing the source and amounts collected, and
the amounts expended and the project(s) for which such expenditures were made.
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
9
Section 6. Refunds.
A. If the actual expense to the City of a project to be funded at least in part by impact fees is less
than the fees collected or to be collected, the City shall refund to the then owner of the property
for which the fee was paid, that portion of any impact fee, with accrued interest, which is in excess
of the appropriate amount due to the City. The City shall provide this refund within one year of
the date it completes or terminates construction of the project. If the actual expense to the School
District of a project to be funded at least in part by school impact fees is less than the fees
collected or to be collected, the School District shall return the overage with accrued interest to
the City who shall refund the fees in accordance with this subsection.
B. If the City reduces the amount of an impact fee after some fees have been collected, the City shall
refund to the then owner of the property for which a fee was paid, that portion of any impact fee,
with accrued interest, which is in excess of the appropriate amount due to the City. The City shall
provide this refund within one year of the date it reduces the impact fee.[reserved]
C. If the City or School District does not expend an impact fee within six years of the date it is paid
to the City, the then owner of the property for which the fee was paid may apply for and receive
a refund of the fee, provided the request for refund is filed within one year of the expiration of
the six year time period. Any School Impact Fee subject to a refund in accordance with this section
shall be returned by the School District to the City for distribution of the refund.
D. A person who pays an impact fee established under this ordinance and subsequently abandons
the project without commencing construction of the land development on which the impact fee
was based, may request and receive from the City a refund of the impact fee in full. All such fees
distributed to the School District shall be returned to the City with accrued interest so the City can
refund the fees in accordance with this subsection. Any accrued interest shall be retained by the
City to offset administrative costs. A person who receives a refund under this provision shall not
commence construction of the land development for which the refund was made without
repaying the required impact fees.
Section 7. Expenditure Restrictions.
A. All impact fees collected pursuant to this ordinance, and accrued interest, shall be expended only
for the specifically identified projects which were the basis for the fees. Such fees and accrued
interest shall be expended within six years of the date they are received by the City Treasurer.
B. The City or School District Treasurer shall pay, from the appropriate account, expenses associated
with the designated projects as they become due and upon receipt of appropriate documentation
regarding such expense.
Section 8. Credits for "In-Kind" Contributions.
A. "In-Kind" contribution shall mean provision, by a person subject to payment of an impact fee, of
land or equipment or construction of facilities that are included in the impact fee analyses and
computations, and which are included in or consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
10
B. Upon recommendation of the Development Review Board or Administrative Officer, the City
Council may approve a credit against any impact fee levied under this ordinance for the value of
"In-Kind" contributions. The amount of credit for an "In-Kind" contribution shall be based on the
actual cost to the person requesting the credit of providing or creating the facilities. The
Development Review Board or Administrative Officer shall indicate the basis on which the amount
of credit is determined. The amount of credit for an "In-Kind" contribution shall not exceed the
total amount of the impact fee for that type of facility which would otherwise be levied on the
proposed development.
Section 9. Appeals.
An individual or entity required to pay an impact fee under this ordinance may challenge the imposition
of such fee, or the amount of the fee, by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk, which appeal
shall not be filed later than thirty days after payment of the impact fee. Said notice of appeal shall state
the basis of the appellant's challenge to the fee. Within sixty days of the filing of a notice of appeal, the
City Council shall hold a public hearing to receive oral and written evidence and argument from the
appellant and City representatives. Within forty-five days after the conclusion of the hearing, the Council
shall notify the appellant of its decision in writing.
Section 10. Enforcement.
A. Any individual or entity who undertakes land development in the City of South Burlington without
first paying a required impact fee imposed pursuant to this ordinance shall be subject to a civil
penalty of up to five hundred dollars per day for each day that such land development continues
without payment of said fee. The Administrative Officer shall be authorized to act as the issuing
municipal official to issue and pursue before the Traffic and Municipal Ordinance Bureau a
municipal complaint. The Administrative Officer is authorized to recover a waiver fee of not less
than $50 and not more than $150 for each violation and a civil penalty of not less than $100 and
not more than $500 for each violation.
B. In addition to the enforcement procedures set forth above, the Administrative Officer is
authorized to commence a civil action to obtain injunctive and other appropriate relief
Section 11. Severability.
In the event any provision of this ordinance is for any reason invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the
remaining provisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision.
SOUTH BURLINGTON IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE DRAFT December 19, 2022
Amended December 5, 2022
11
TABLES
ROAD IMPACT FEES: RESIDENTIAL
TABLE RD-4:
NET RESIDENTIAL ROAD IMPACT FEES PER UNIT
Dwelling
Year
Single Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings
Base Fee
Credit for
past taxes
Credit for
future
taxes Net fee Base fee
Credit for
past taxes
Credit for
future
taxes Net fee
2007 $1,009.86 $0.00 $439.81 $570.05 $669.91 $0.00 $278.36 $391.54
2008 $1,009.86 $0.70 $414.68 $594.48 $669.91 $0.40 $262.46 $407.05
2009 $1,009.86 $2.09 $345.40 $662.38 $669.91 $1.19 $218.61 $450.11
2010 $1,009.86 $3.14 $299.17 $707.56 $669.91 $1.79 $189.35 $478.77
2011 $1,009.86 $4.79 $214.14 $790.93 $669.91 $2.74 $135.53 $531.64
2012 $1,009.86 $5.44 $197.39 $807.03 $669.91 $3.11 $124.93 $541.87
2013 $1,009.86 $6.10 $181.31 $822.45 $669.91 $3.49 $114.75 $551.67
2014 $1,009.86 $6.77 $165.87 $837.21 $669.91 $3.87 $104.98 $561.05
2015 $1,009.86 $7.46 $151.06 $851.35 $669.91 $4.26 $95.61 $570.04
2016 $1,009.86 $8.16 $136.83 $864.88 $669.91 $4.66 $86.60 $578.65
2017 $1,009.86 $8.87 $123.16 $877.83 $669.91 $5.07 $77.95 $586.89
2018 $1,009.86 $9.60 $110.02 $890.24 $669.91 $5.49 $69.63 $594.79
2019 $1,009.86 $10.35 $97.39 $902.12 $669.91 $5.92 $61.64 $602.36
2020 $1,009.86 $11.13 $85.23 $913.50 $669.91 $6.36 $53.94 $609.61
2021 $1,009.86 $11.92 $73.53 $924.41 $669.91 $6.81 $46.54 $616.56
2022 $1,009.86 $12.74 $62.25 $934.87 $669.91 $7.28 $39.40 $623.23
2023 $1,009.86 $13.59 $51.38 $944.89 $669.91 $7.76 $32.52 $629.62
2024 $1,009.86 $14.46 $40.89 $954.51 $669.91 $8.26 $25.88 $635.76
2025 $1,009.86 $15.37 $30.76 $963.73 $669.91 $8.78 $19.47 $641.66
2026 $1,009.86 $16.30 $20.97 $972.59 $669.91 $9.32 $13.27 $647.32
2027 $1,009.86 $17.28 $11.48 $981.10 $669.91 $9.87 $7.27 $652.77
2028 $1,009.86 $18.29 $2.29 $989.28 $669.91 $10.45 $1.45 $658.01
12
ROAD IMPACT FEES: NON-RESIDENTIAL
Table RD-5:
Credit for Past Tax Payments
Construction
Year
Annual
Expense
Tax Rate
Needed
Tax on
$1,000 value
Credit per
$1,000 of
assessed value
2007 $372,750 0.014913 $0.15 $0.00
2008 $733,375 0.02848632 $0.28 $0.16
2009 $532,875 0.02009548 $0.20 $0.46
2010 $864,163 0.03163963 $0.32 $0.70
2011 $244,500 0.00869115 $0.09 $1.06
2012 $237,938 0.00821155 $0.08 $1.21
2013 $231,375 0.00775248 $0.08 $1.36
2014 $224,813 0.00731321 $0.07 $1.51
2015 $218,250 0.00689293 $0.07 $1.66
2016 $211,688 0.00649096 $0.06 $1.81
2017 $205,125 0.00610652 $0.06 $1.97
2018 $198,563 0.005739 $0.06 $2.13
2019 $192,000 0.00538768 $0.05 $2.30
2020 $185,438 0.00505199 $0.05 $2.47
2021 $178,875 0.00473125 $0.05 $2.65
2022 $172,313 0.00442494 $0.04 $2.83
2023 $165,750 0.00413243 $0.04 $3.02
2024 $159,188 0.00385323 $0.04 $3.21
2025 $152,625 0.00358677 $0.04 $3.41
2026 $146,063 0.00333258 $0.03 $3.62
2027 $139,500 0.00309013 $0.03 $3.84
2028 $35,438 0.00076214 $0.01 $4.06
Table RD-6
Credit for Future Tax Payments
Construction
Year
Annual
Expense
Tax Rate
Needed
Tax on
$1,000 value
Credit per
$1,000 of
assessed value
2007 $372,750 0.014913001 $0.15 $1.39
2008 $733,375 0.028486315 $0.28 $1.31
2009 $532,875 0.020095476 $0.20 $1.09
2010 $864,163 0.03163963 $0.32 $0.95
2011 $244,500 0.008691152 $0.09 $0.68
2012 $237,938 0.008211549 $0.08 $0.62
2013 $231,375 0.007752477 $0.08 $0.57
2014 $224,813 0.007313213 $0.07 $0.52
2015 $218,250 0.00689293 $0.07 $0.48
2016 $211,688 0.006490955 $0.06 $0.43
2017 $205,125 0.006106519 $0.06 $0.39
2018 $198,563 0.005739 $0.06 $0.35
2019 $192,000 0.005387682 $0.05 $0.31
2020 $185,438 0.005051987 $0.05 $0.27
2021 $178,875 0.00473125 $0.05 $0.23
2022 $172,313 0.004424937 $0.04 $0.20
2023 $165,750 0.004132428 $0.04 $0.16
2024 $159,188 0.00385323 $0.04 $0.13
2025 $152,625 0.003586766 $0.04 $0.10
2026 $146,063 0.003332578 $0.03 $0.07
2027 $139,500 0.003090133 $0.03 $0.04
2028 $35,438 0.00076214 $0.01 $0.01
Page 13
RECREATION FEES: RESIDENTIAL ONLY
TABLE REC-4
NET IMPACT FEES PER UNIT
. 1 THRU 3 UN IT STRUCTURES 4 + UNIT STRUCTURES
DWELLING BASE TOTAL NET BASE TOTAL NET
YEAR FEE CREDITS FEE FEE CREDITS FEE
2007 $1,685.67 $281.33 $1,404.34 $1,179.97 $178.06 $1,001.91
2008 $1,685.67 $295.40 $1,390.27 $1,179.97 $186.96 $993.01
2009 $1,685.67 $296.06 $1,389.61 $1,179.97 $187.35 $992.62
2010 $1,685.67 $254.96 $1,430.71 $1,179.97 $161.21 $1,018.76
2011 $1,685.67 $243.77 $1,441.90 $1,179.97 $154.07 $1,025.90
2012 $1,685.67 $183.17 $1,502.50 $1,179.97 $115.54 $1,064.43
2013 $1,685.67 $109.60 $1,576.07 $1,179.97 $68.77 $1,111.20
2014 $1,685.67 $72.38 $1,613.29 $1,179.97 $45.08 $1,134.89
2015 $1,685.67 $58.95 $1,626.72 $1,179.97 $36.51 $1,143.46
2016 $1,685.67 $45.86 $1,639.81 $1,179.97 $28.15 $1,151.82
2017 $1,685.67 $33.07 $1,652.60 $1,179.97 $19.98 $1,159.99
2018 $1,685.67 $20.59 $1,665.08 $1,179.97 $12.00 $1,167.97
Page 14
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES: RESIDENTIAL
TABLE FP-7:
NET RESIDENTIAL FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT
Single Family Dwellings Multi-Family Dwellings
Dwelling
Year Base fee
Credit for
past taxes
Credit for
Future
Taxes Net Fee Base Fee
Credit for
past taxes
Credit for
future taxes Net Fee
2007 $304.85 $0.00 $168.74 $136.11 $192.16 $0.00 $106.80 $85.36
2008 $304.85 $0.04 $174.27 $130.53 $192.16 $0.02 $110.30 $81.84
2009 $304.85 $0.78 $133.91 $170.16 $192.16 $0.45 $84.75 $106.96
2010 $304.85 $1.52 $93.42 $209.91 $192.16 $0.87 $59.13 $132.16
2011 $304.85 $2.37 $46.90 $255.58 $192.16 $1.35 $29.69 $161.12
2012 $304.85 $2.99 $15.14 $286.72 $192.16 $1.71 $9.58 $180.87
2013 $304.85 $3.34 $2.81 $298.71 $192.16 $1.91 $1.78 $188.48
2014 $304.85 $3.53 $1.68 $299.65 $192.16 $2.01 $1.06 $189.09
2015 $304.85 $3.72 $0.83 $300.30 $192.16 $2.12 $0.53 $189.51
2016 $304.85 $3.91 $0.28 $300.66 $192.16 $2.23 $0.18 $189.75
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES:
NON-RESIDENTIAL
TABLE FP-8
ESTIMATED POST-DEVELOPMENT VALUES PER SQUARE FOOT OF FLOOR SPACE
Type of Use
Type and Quality of Construction:
Fireproofed Steel
Skeleton or
Reinforced
Concrete
Masonry or Concrete
Bearing Wall
Structure
Wood Frame
Structure
Pre-Fabricated Steel
Structure
Industrial/Manufacturing $66 $49 $46 $45
Engineering & Research $88 $69 $65 $64
General Office $123 $96 $93 $88
Medical Office $133 $113 $110 $104
General Retail $84 $71 $69 $67
Auto Service Facility N/A $54 $51 $41
Elder Care Facility $102 $84 $81 $78
Motel N/A $74 $72 $72
Page 15
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEES:
NON-RESIDENTIAL (continued)
TABLE FP-9: NON-RESIDENTIAL
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
Assume grand list has a 2006 value of $24,994,969, has grown at 3.0 %, and will continue to grow at 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR
ANNUAL
EXPENSE
TAX RATE
NEEDED
TAX ON
$1000 VALUE
CREDITS PER $1,000 OF
ASSESSED VALUE
2007 $23,000 0.000920 $0.01 $0.00
2008 $399,800 0.015529 $0.16 $0.01
2009 $396,000 0.014934 $0.15 $0.17
2010 $442,400 0.016198 $0.16 $0.34
2011 $303,700 0.010796 $0.11 $0.53
2012 $120,000 0.004141 $0.04 $0.67
2013 $12,000 0.000402 $0.00 $0.74
2014 $9,000 0.000293 $0.00 $0.78
2015 $6,000 0.000189 $0.00 $0.83
2016 $3,000 0.000092 $0.00 $0.87
TABLE FP-10: NON-RESIDENTIAL
FIRE PROTECTION IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
Assume grand list has a 2006 value of $24,994,969, has grown at 3.0 %, and will continue to grow at 3.0%
CONSTRUCTION
YEAR PAYMENT
TAX RATE
NEEDED
TAX ON $1000
VALUE
CREDITS PER $1,000 OF
ASSESSED VALUE
2007 $23,000 0.000920 $0.01 $0.53
2008 $399,800 0.015529 $0.16 $0.55
2009 $396,000 0.014934 $0.15 $0.42
2010 $442,400 0.016198 $0.16 $0.30
2011 $303,700 0.010796 $0.11 $0.15
2012 $120,000 0.004141 $0.04 $0.05
2013 $12,000 0.000402 $0.00 $0.01
2014 $9,000 0.000293 $0.00 $0.01
2015 $6,000 0.000189 $0.00 $0.00
2016 $3,000 0.000092 $0.00 $0.00
Page 16
TABLE PD-4
NET RESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEES, PER UNIT
1 THRU 3 UNIT STRUCTURES 4 + UNIT STRUCTURES
DWELLING Base Credit for Credit for Net Base Credit for Credit for Net
YEAR Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee Fee Past taxes Future taxes Fee
2010 $503.88 $0.00 $158.93 $344.95 $352.72 $0.00 $99.90 $252.82
2011 $503.88 $0.20 $153.60 $350.08 $352.72 $0.10 $96.55 $256.07
2012 $503.88 $0.73 $126.81 $376.34 $352.72 $0.36 $79.71 $272.65
2013 $503.88 $1.26 $100.03 $402.59 $352.72 $0.63 $62.88 $289.21
2014 $503.88 $1.71 $79.39 $422.78 $352.72 $0.85 $49.90 $301.96
2015 $503.88 $2.02 $68.07 $433.79 $352.72 $1.01 $42.79 $308.92
2016 $503.88 $2.33 $57.49 $444.05 $352.72 $1.17 $36.14 $315.42
2017 $503.88 $2.64 $47.81 $453.43 $352.72 $1.32 $30.05 $321.35
2018 $503.88 $2.93 $39.20 $461.74 $352.72 $1.47 $24.64 $326.61
2019 $503.88 $3.22 $31.77 $468.89 $352.72 $1.61 $19.97 $331.14
2020 $503.88 $3.50 $25.58 $474.80 $352.72 $1.75 $16.08 $334.89
2021 $503.88 $3.93 $10.10 $489.86 $352.72 $1.96 $6.35 $344.41
2022 $503.88 $4.19 $6.09 $493.60 $352.72 $2.10 $3.83 $346.80
2023 $503.88 $4.44 $3.50 $495.94 $352.72 $2.22 $2.20 $348.30
2024 $503.88 $4.68 $2.39 $496.80 $352.72 $2.34 $1.50 $348.87
2025 $503.88 $4.92 $2.51 $496.45 $352.72 $2.46 $1.58 $348.68
2026 $503.88 $5.16 $2.64 $496.08 $352.72 $2.58 $1.66 $348.48
2027 $503.88 $5.42 $2.77 $495.69 $352.72 $2.71 $1.74 $348.27
2028 $503.88 $5.69 $2.91 $495.28 $352.72 $2.85 $1.83 $348.05
2029 $503.88 $5.98 $3.05 $494.85 $352.72 $2.99 $1.92 $347.81
2030 $503.88 $6.33 $0.00 $497.55 $352.72 $3.16 $0.00 $349.56
Page 17
TABLE PD-5
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR PAST TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2006 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
CONS- CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER $1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.00
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.04
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.15
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.25
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.34
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.40
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.47
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.53
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.59
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.64
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.70
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.79
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.84
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.89
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.94
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.98
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.03
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.08
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.14
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $1.20
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $1.27
Page 18
TABLE PD-6
NON-RESIDENTIAL
IMPACT FEE CREDIT FOR FUTURE TAX PAYMENTS
ASSUME 2003 MUNICIPAL GRAND LIST EQUALS $24,994,969
Grand List will continue to grow at 2.0% per year
CONS- CREDITS
TRUCTION ANNUAL TAX RATE TAX ON PER $1,000 OF
YEAR EXPENSE NEEDED $1000 VALUE ASSESSED VALUE
2010 $102,666 0.003795 $0.04 $0.45
2011 $271,764 0.009848 $0.10 $0.44
2012 $266,400 0.009464 $0.09 $0.36
2013 $210,316 0.007325 $0.07 $0.29
2014 $127,972 0.004370 $0.04 $0.23
2015 $119,296 0.003994 $0.04 $0.19
2016 $109,288 0.003587 $0.04 $0.16
2017 $97,696 0.003144 $0.03 $0.14
2018 $85,096 0.002684 $0.03 $0.11
2019 $71,848 0.002222 $0.02 $0.09
2020 $157,916 0.004788 $0.05 $0.07
2021 $43,372 0.001289 $0.01 $0.03
2022 $28,360 0.000827 $0.01 $0.02
2023 $12,844 0.000367 $0.00 $0.01
2024 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2025 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2026 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2027 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2028 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.01
2029 $36,108 0.000916 $0.01 $0.01
2030 $0 0.000000 $0.00 $0.00
SCHOOL IMPACT FEES:
RESIDENTIAL TAX CREDIT APPLIED TO IMPACT FEE
TABLE SC-2:
2023-2031 PAST TAX RATE FOR ZEM BOND PER $1,000 OF VALUATION
DWELLING
CONSTRUCTION YEAR
[A]
ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX RATE NEEDED
(PER $1,000
ASSESSMENT) [C]
CUMULATIVE TAX
RATE (PER $1,000
ASSESSMENT) [D]
2023 $250,000 0.120431 $0.00
2024 $250,000 0.118652 $0.12
2025 $250,000 0.116898 $0.25
2026 $250,000 0.115171 $0.38
2027 $250,000 0.113469 $0.51
2028 $250,000 0.111792 $0.64
2029 $250,000 0.110140 $0.77
2030 $250,000 0.108512 $0.91
2031 $250,000 0.106908 $1.05
Page 19
TABLE SC-3:
2023-2031 FUTURE TAX RATE PER BEDROOM
DWELLING
CONSTRUCTION YEAR
[A]
ANNUAL EXPENSE [B] TAX ASSESED PER
BEDROOM [C]
CUMULATIVE TAX
PAID PER BEDROOM
(NET PRESENT VALUE)
[D]
2023 $250,000 $31.31 $230.55
2024 $250,000 $30.85 $206.15
2025 $250,000 $30.39 $181.49
2026 $250,000 $29.94 $156.54
2027 $250,000 $29.50 $131.29
2028 $250,000 $29.07 $105.73
2029 $250,000 $28.64 $79.83
2030 $250,000 $28.21 $53.59
2031 $250,000 $27.80 $26.99
Adopted at South Burlington, Vermont this _______day of ______, 2022, and to be effective upon
adoption.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________ ____________________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Matt Cota
__________________________________ ______________________________
Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair Thomas Chittenden
__________________________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk
Received and recorded this ______ day of ________, 2022.
______________________________
Donna Kinville, City Clerk