Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 02/09/2022 South Burlington Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Wednesday, February 9, 2022 @ 5:30 p.m. Virtual Meeting Only Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/124168789 By telephone (audio only): 1-872-240-3311; Access Code: 124-168-789 In all cases, you will have the opportunity to both listen AND speak. AGENDA 1. Welcome, Virtual Meeting Instructions, and Emergency Evacuation Procedure – Havaleh (5:30) 2. Changes or additions to the agenda – Havaleh (5:35 pm) 3. Comments from the public not related to the agenda - Havaleh (5:45 pm) 4. Consideration of minutes from the January 12, 2022 meeting – Havaleh (5:55 pm) 5. Mary Street Pedestrian Facility Alternatives – Paul Conner, Director of P&Z (6:00 pm) 6. Updates from the City – A. Parker (6:30 pm) 7. Review Status of the Kennedy Drive/Twin Oaks Crosswalk Project – A. Parker (6:45 pm) 8. Discussion: Planning for Future Council Presentation – Bob (7:05 pm) 9. Discussion: VT-116 Speed Limits – Havaleh (7:25 pm) 10. Updates Ongoing Committee Work – (7:45 p.m.) a. Monthly DPW Meeting – Bob b. Climate Action - Donna c. DRB Update – Cathy d. Communications/Outreach – Cathy e. Safety – Bob f. Mapping – Amanda/Nic g. Signs – Nic h. Bike Friendly Community Planning - Nic 11. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, March 9, 2022 @ 5:30pm 12. Adjourn (by 8:00 p.m.) 1 South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2021 @ 5:30 p.m. City Hall Room 301 Committee In-Person Attendees: Nic Anderson (Clerk), Bob Britt (Acting-Chair) Committee Remote: Cathy Frank, Amanda Holland, Dana Farr, Donna Leban, Committee Absent: Havaleh Gagne (Chair), Matty Larkspur Other Attendees: Ashley Parker (City Liaison) Public in Person: Public Remote: Jonathan Weber (Local Motion), One other member of public. 1. Welcome, Virtual Meeting Instructions, and Emergency Evacuation Procedure 2. Discussion: I-89 Bike/Ped Bridge Project Status Update–Ilona Blanchard a. Ilona gave slideshow presentation b. Asked for federal grant of over 11M. Got 9.7M. Estimating about 14M for project. c. Will have specific stakeholder meetings which the committee will be included on. d. Bob asked how net build performance metrics were sourced and whether or not they included the foreseeable benefits to retailers and restaurants in City Center and as a source of employees/employment to the same businesses. e. Donna – Interested to see how they calculate the monetary benefit of health benefits. f. Nic asked if conversations have already been had with UMall owners. Nic asked about access points through the mall. g. Ilona – not part of this project to connect through other properties. CCRPC scoping study could look at connections. h. Jonathon Weber – asked about net build performance metrics and maintenance. i. Ilona -Will be owned by the city and have longer life span due to light duty use (plowing etc). j. Jonathon – Discussed assets vs liabilities. Sometimes roads and bridges can become more of a liability vs asset. k. Ilona – Consider this more of an asset due to land value and density potential. These projects support much higher land value so when you look at it that way, its less of a liability. l. Donna – Would like to see carbon budget built into the contract. Materials choice and production relate to carbon content. Would like consultants to be looking at that. Critical questions to ask. m. Ilona – Yes, will be interesting to see what will come out of climate action plan. n. Donna – Should be part of consultant selection. Can be done at the same time as cost analysis. Could be relatively easy to do. o. Nic asked about City Center bridge project too, also part of the TIF district. 3. Changes or additions to the agenda –Bob a. Art Klugo from Beta is not going to come. Canceling #6. b. Bob would like to give City Council January 10th meeting update in place of #6. 4. Comments from the public not related to the agenda a. None 5. Consideration of minutes from the December 8,2021 meeting a. No comments or changes. 2 b. Motion by Kathy c. Seconded by Donna d. Vote: Approved unanimously. 6. Discussion: Beta Technologies New Facility at the BTV Airport –Art Klugo, Beta a. Not discussed. Next month hopefully 7. City Council Meeting a. Approved the Committee’s request to allocate $30K from Paving Budget towards path maintenance. City to come to us at the time they need to do the work for the Committee’s priorities. b. Construction of the Spear St Widening project, a Roads project, got moved from 2029 to 2027 in CIP. So at least its more on the radar for future infrastructure funding. c. Council weary of fact that Penny for Paths’ dollar increase was $95K based on increases in reappraisal. Want to go back to residents in March and ask about option to lower P4P tax to $0.00773 instead of $0.01. They feel that they had told residents that the reassessment was budget neutral, but due to the penny for both P4P and Open Space, it was not budget neutral. d. Bob thinks we may need to create a plan to help the public understand our position that the P4P increase’s impact on the tax rate is only approximately $0.0023. Staff’s budget presentation is disingenuous since it shows the 30% increase in the tax without showing that the increase is only the $0.0023. e. Nic thinks we need to show them that the current slate of projects surpass our P4P funding. f. Donna thinks its time to provide a summary and some education to the public on where we are at, regardless of a potential vote, it would be a great time to provide this information anyway. g. Bob – Sounds like there was an error in the City’s budget calculations and that they need to find 800K in budget to cut if they want to limit the tax increase to residents to 3%. h. Amanda – Asked if this is the first time council have brought it up? i. Bob – Yes, as far as he knows, it is the first time. Doesn’t think that it was expected that this reappraisal would change the % dollar increase so much. Lots of budget challenges. j. Amanda – Seems disingenuous to push such a short time frame when it was anticipated that the city was growing anyway. Feels funny that they are now going back and asking to change the number. May not be as simple as they think. Would not want to see it changed annually. k. Donna – Wouldn’t have another reappraisal. l. Amanda – Always anticipated that property values would increase so P4P would increase too. m. Jonathon – Happy to help PR if needed. n. Bob – Next City Council meeting is Tuesday after MLK Day. o. Nic – Seems like they need to have a minimum timeframe to have the information available for the ballot. p. Donna – Would be good to have summary showing which projects could or not be completed using existing vs future funds. q. Cathy asked if we could get a list of which projects have been funded using this and the significant amount of progress that has been made because of P4P funds. r. Ashley could get a list easily and could include costs. This was information presented a week before for CIP presentation. 3 s. Cathy to draft an article with assistance from Ashley and Bob to educate the public on P4P progress and value. Depending if Council decides to put a ballot item on the March ballot, the article would try to justify the budget increase in P4P. 8. Discussion: Planning for Future Council Presentation a. Bob - We should do a presentation as a bike/ped update. They don’t seem to know all the work the Committee does. Would like to present and then ask for discussion on updated mission and duties document. Would like to shoot for second meeting in March or April. Items that could be shown: i. Overview of committee ii. Safety Concerns iii. Current things being worked iv. Committee Mission b. Nic would like to know what approval would be needed for Greenway. c. Ashley - could just be approved by DPW and would be good to simply engage with City Council so they are aware. She will find out the approval process. d. Nic likes the idea of showing CC all the other things we are doing, not just the projects e. Ashley – Thinks the Committee would have approximately 15 minutes to present and 15 for discussion f. Ashley - Have someone in the meantime work on an outline presentation that can be discussed at next meeting. g. Amanda – Happy to start working on a presentation pulling from workplan and other info submitted to them already. h. Dana will get together with Amanda virtually. Bob too. i. Ashley – Jesse has a spreadsheet on potential items for agenda. Just need date from the committee. The priority list is a good starting point. j. Bob – Would like to shoot for second meeting in April. k. Nic mentioned that was school break week. l. Will think about and come up with a date. 9. Updates from the City –A. Parker a. Read through updates in packet. b. The DPW subgroup should be patient with DPW in the time being as Tom DiPietro and Adam Cate are on a steep learning curve in their interim roles. c. Amanda – Committee would like to be part of scoping effort for maintenance study since we do a lot of the maintenance tracking. d. Committee would like to be included on every scoping study project team. Ashley will work with Paul to discuss it. e. Continued going through report in packet f. Bob asked if RRFB upgrades is just lights or whole unit? g. Ashley thinks that it may be the entire unit. h. Continued packet i. Nic asked about Williston Road and Kennedy Intersection scoping study and if there was any update 10. Updates Ongoing Committee Work a. Monthly DPW Meeting –Bob i. A list of topics and questions generated by the DPW subgroup for the next DPW Coordination meeting was included in packet to allow other Committee members to add questions and topics they would like to see added. b. Climate Action -Donna 4 i. Next meeting Jan 13th 7:30pm c. DRB Update –Cathy i. Not a lot going on with the ones we are most interested in. Long property on hold, O’Brien and what is happening on Old Farm have not come back. d. Communications/Outreach–Cathy i. Nothing to report. May now need to get a good article about what has been accomplished with P4P. Will start on that. e. Safety –Bob i. No progress. Need to get subgroup together. Have about 5 or 6 things to add to the current issues list and will get it out to the entire Committee. f. Mapping –Amanda/Nic i. Amanda - No update. Was hoping for communication with CCRPC on scoping study for mapping. Have edits that need to happen with Pam at CCRPC. Would like to hear about this coming weeks meeting from Ashley. ii. Ashley – If Amanda has connection to Pam, it may be faster to get together to get edits rolling. g. Signs –Nic i. Nic – Need to revise list and get group together. Now that there is potentially 30K in funding in CIP we could actually get more done. ii. Ashley – Travis is the parks person who has been doing things. Once we have a better list she can connect with Travis/Holly. h. Bike Friendly Community Planning -Nic i. Sign – Would love to get one and have installed at bike shelter on west side of City Hall. Ashley would also like to. Nic to provide her with a request/recommendation ii. Greenway – Working with Jonathon on planning. Have estimate of $1,700 for signs. Ashley to connect with Andrew B to find out what approval is needed and where funding can be obtained from. Ashley to use January document. 11. Confirmation: Next meeting Wednesday, February 9, 2022 @ 5:30pm 12. Adjourn (by 7:36 p.m.) 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning SUBJECT: Mary Street Pedestrian Facility Alternatives DATE: February 9th Bike/Ped Committee meeting The City’s Planning & Public Works Departments engaged the CCRPC, and their consultant D&K, to perform an assessment of a potential facility improvement along Mary Street between Williston Road and the newly- built segment adjacent to Allard Square. Historically, no sidewalk has existed in this northern segment except a small section adjacent to Northfield Saving Bank. The staff project team kicked off the study last fall and held a first neighborhood meeting in November. The meeting was held at Allard Square and included approximately 20 participants, mostly residents and property owners of either buildings on Mary Street or of Allard Square. Staff presented the Existing Conditions Report, and then gathered initial thoughts / questions / concerns. Concerns were raised concerning speeding of vehicles on the dead-end road, possible future opening of the road (which is not part of this assessment, but which staff encouraged residents to consider as future possibility in evaluating pedestrian facilities), and availability of on- and off-street parking were raised. Enclosed with this memo please find draft Alternatives Report, which includes a proposed Purpose and Need statement, a review of potential viable alternatives, and additional considerations. Staff is planning a second neighborhood meeting to present and gather feedback on this Analysis Report for later this month. Project schedule: August 2021: project kick-off October 2021: Neighborhood Meeting 1: present existing conditions, gather questions/feedback February 2022: Bike / Ped Committee meeting 1: Analysis Report, Draft Purpose and Needs, Alternatives ~February 2022: Neighborhood Meeting 2: present Analysis Report, gather feedback ~March 2022: Bike/Ped Committee meeting 2: review of feedback, receive project team recommendations, possible approval of preferred alternative At this meeting: At this meeting, we have two requests of the Committee: 1. Review, and if appropriate, approve the Purpose and Need Statement 2. Provide informal feedback to the project team on Alternatives The existing conditions report, draft alternatives assessment, and project schedule are also available on the project website. Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 11 Purpose & Need Purpose & Need Purpose The purpose of the project is to create a safe pedestrian facility along Mary Street between Market Street and Williston Road. Need Mary Street is a key link in the grid network connecting the major commercial corridors of Market Street, Dorset Street, and Williston Road in South Burlington’s city center. The following excerpt from the City’s 2016 Comprehensive Plan outlines their vision for the city center: “Establish a city center with pedestrian-oriented design, mixed uses, and public buildings and civic spaces that act as a focal point to the community.” A pedestrian link on Mary Street would connect the existing sidewalks on Williston Road and Market Street.DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 12 Alternatives Alternatives The following pages detail four alternative options that create pedestrian accommodations on Mary Street. These include: 1a. West Sidewalk, uncurbed 1b. West Sidewalk, curbed 2a. East Sidewalk, uncurbed 2b. East Sidewalk, Uncurbed 3. West Sidewalk with Traffic Calming Each page reviews parking impacts, additional considerations as applicable, and a preliminary cost estimate for the alternative. An alternatives comparison matrix and parking impact diagram is also provided.DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 13 West Sidewalk A continuous sidewalk on the west side of the street separated from the road by a 5 foot grass buffer. Sidewalk SidewalkGreen Strip Green Strip CurbNo Change No ChangeRoadRoad Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSProposed Sidewalk Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSS Option A: Uncurbed Parking Impacts • May maintain space for parallel parking along both sides of the street • Cars on the west side can’t park in the first 10 feet of driveways in the ROW Option B: Curbed Parking Impacts • May maintain space for on street parking on the east side of the road • Cars on the west side can’t park in the first 10 feet of driveways in the ROW 5 ft 5 ft 22 ft 14 ft4 ft 5 ft 5 ft 22 ft 14 ft4 ft 45’ Right of Way (Approx)45’ Right of Way (Approx) Utility Conflict Sidewalk adjacent and flush to the road for ~65 ft Additional Considerations • 1 catch basin would be relocated Cost Estimate | $132,000 Additional Considerations • 1 catch basin would be relocated Cost Estimate | $195,000 West Sidewalk, Uncurbed Typical Section West Sidewalk Layout (Uncurbed+Curbed) West Sidewalk, Curbed Typical Section DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 14 East Sidewalk A continuous sidewalk on the east side of the street separated from the road by a 4 foot grass buffer. S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSUtility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSS Option A: Uncurbed Parking Impacts • May maintain space for parallel parking along both sides of the street • Cars on the east side can’t park in the first 9 feet of driveways in the ROW Option B: Curbed Parking Impacts • May maintainsspace for on street parking on the west side of the road • Cars on the east side can’t park in the first 9 feet of driveways in the ROW 14 ft 22 ft 4 ft 5 ft 5 ft 14 ft 22 ft 4 ft 5 ft 5 ft 45’ Right of Way (Approx)45’ Right of Way (Approx) Additional Considerations • 2 utility poles & 1 catch basin would be relocated • Access management for driveway behind Century 21 would be required Cost Estimate | $190,000 Additional Considerations • 2 utility poles & 1 catch basin would be relocated • Access management for driveway behind Century 21 would be required Cost Estimate | $260,000 East Sidewalk, Uncurbed Typical Section East Sidewalk Layout (Uncurbed+Curbed) East Sidewalk, Curbed Typical Section Proposed Sidewalk Utility ConflictUtility Conflict Sidewalk SidewalkGreen Strip Green Strip No Change No ChangeRoad Road Curb DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 15 West Sidewalk with Traffic Calming A continuous, uncurbed sidewalk separated from the street by a 5 foot grass buffer, and chicanes along the street to calm traffic. Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSUtility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSS West Sidewalk Layout with Chicanes Proposed Chicanes narrow the road to ~16-18 feet Proposed Sidewalk Utility Conflict Sidewalk adjacent and flush to the road for ~65 ft Parking Impacts • May maintain space for parallel parking along both sides of the street • Cars on the west side can’t park in the first 10 feet of driveways in the ROW Additional Considerations • 1 catch basin would be relocated • Curb extension areas could be used to treat stormwater • Chicanes/Curb Extensions could be a near term Quick Build installation OR long term installation Cost Estimate (Chicanes) | $56,000 Cost Estimate (Sidewalk) | $132,000 Stormwater Curb Extention on North Street in Burlington Image from Google Maps Chicane on Brokes Ave in Burlington Image from Google Maps Traffic Calming Examples DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 16 Alternatives Comparison Table –1 - Alternatives Comparison Alternative Pedestrian Safety Traffic Calming On-Street Parking Impact Off-Street Parking Impact* Utility Impact Planning-Level Cost Other No Build None None None None None -- West Sidewalk, uncurbed Improved None None -5 spots Relocate 1 catch basin $132,000 West Sidewalk, curbed Improved None No on-street parking, west side -5 spots Relocate 1 catch basin $195,000 East Sidewalk, uncurbed Improved None None -4 spots Relocate 2 utility poles + 1 catch basin $190,000 Access management would be required at parking lot behind the Century 21 buildingEast Sidewalk, curbed Improved None No on-street parking, east side -4 spots Relocate 2 utility poles + 1 catch basin $260,000 West Sidewalk, uncurbed with Traffic Calming Improved Improved -3 on-street spaces -5 spots Relocate 1 catch basin $56,000 (chicanes) + $132,000 (sidewalk) Chicanes can be installed as a quick build, approx. $2,000- $4,000 *See parking impact diagrams on the following page.DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 17 Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSDriveway Capacity (# of parked cars, does NOT include garages) Existing, No Sidewalk | 3 cars | | 3 cars | | 2 cars | | 3 cars | | 6 cars | With West Sidewalk | 2 cars | | 2 cars | | 2 cars | | 2 cars | | 4 cars |60 ft 61 ft 53 ft 35 ft 22 ft 32 ft Parking Impact Diagram (sidewalk on west side) Parking Impact Diagram (sidewalk on east side) S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSDriveway Capacity (# of parked cars, does NOT include garages) Existing, No Sidewalk | 3 cars | | 5 cars | | 6 cars | | 4 cars | | 6 cars | | 3 cars | | 2 cars | With East Sidewalk | 3 cars | | 4 cars | | 4 cars | | 4 cars | | 6 cars | | 3 cars | | 1 car |70 ft 65 ft 60 ft 45 ft 40 ft 70 ft 70 ft Key Driveway Proposed Sidewalk Existing parking spot, retained* Existing parking spot, lost* *Based on average car dimensions of 14.5ft by 6.5ft DRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 18 S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing SidewalkROUTE 2MARKET ST 1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSYield Roadway People driving, walking, and bicycling share the same slow-speed travel area. This design is also compatible with a sidewalk on either side of the road. Parking Impacts • Maintains space for parallel parking along the street • Cars can park in full length of driveways Additional Considerations • Could be a short OR long term installation • Design would support the existing use of the road but adds traffic calming and potential stormwater treatment Cost Estimate • Approximately $2,000 - $4,000 (Quick Build) • $56,000 (Permanent) Image from the FHWA Small Town & Rural Multimodal Network report. Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSS Proposed Chicanes narrow the road to ~16-18 feet MARY STDRAFT Mary Street Pedestrian Feasibility Study :: 19 Other Options Considered Advisory Shoulders Two dashed shoulders and one two-way center travel lane where cars yield to people walking or bicycling in the shoulders. The project team reviewed this option and decided not to pursue it further, given the uncertainty of this facility as a State and Federal accepted standard, as well as the on- street parking impacts. Parking Impacts • Does not maintain space for on street parking • Cars can park in full length of driveways Additional Considerations • The future of this type of facility as a State and Federal accepted standard is unclear. • Advisory shoulders only require paint and signs and could be a short-term OR long- term installation Cost Estimate • Approximately $1,000 - $2,000 S Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing SidewalkROUTE 2MARKET ST 1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSSProposed Advisory Shoulders MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Existing Sidewalk Existing Street TreeROUTE 2MARKET ST MARY ST Utility Pole Catch Basin Sewer Manhole Sanitary Sewer Line Storm Drain Line Water Line Gas Line (approx) Existing Sidewalk Existing Street Tree S S 1 in = 60 ft1 in = 60 ftSSSSSSS DRAFT Bike/Ped Staff Update – 2/9/2022 • Hinesburg Road Speed Limit: VTrans installed the new speed limit signage recently. • Rec Path Maintenance Projects: DPW has indicated they intend to repair the path at the end of Nowland Farm and Dorset Street in the spring. They are looking into the Stonehedge path as a separate project as it might have some stormwater implications. • Crosswalk Striping: DPW has indicated they intend to paint crosswalk lines at the intersections of the high school at Kennedy Drive and Dorset, at the new Jug Handle crosswalk, and at the Spear Street and Swift Street crossing in the spring. • Penny for Paths (Bike/Ped Improvements) CIP: The Council approved the proposed Penny for Paths CIP (Bike/Ped Improvements). Voters will be asked to approve it on Town Meeting Day. • Recreation & Parks Department Rec Path Maintenance Funding: Council has approved the concept of allocating 30K towards maintaining City rec path infrastructure via the DPW paving budget. If the voters approve the budget, this will be usable in FY23. It is a starting place for maintenance of these facilities. • DPW Director Transition: We are still transitioning. Tom and Adam continue to fill Justin’s shoes as the search for a new DPW Director continues. • Shared Use Path Maintenance Costs Scoping Study: The project team reviewed the initial work product provided by the consultant and provided feedback. The consultant looked at City rec paths and bike/ped bridges. There was also some mapping data provided that Tom is working to incorporate into the City GIS system. The next step is to determine how best to budget for the maintenance of both of these pieces of infrastructure. Staff will be working on this. Penny for Paths Projects Updates – 2/9/2022 • South Dorset Street Shared Use Path: The project is still on the verge of entering the Right of Way process. The project engineer relayed that the survey team has been backlogged and has not been able to get the abstract work complete. We did get approval from VTrans to submit the ROW plans so that they can begin their review of those. Once we get the abstracts, we can submit those to VTrans and work on getting their approval before connecting with adjacent property owners. • Hubbard Recreation & Natural Area Shared Use Path: The archaeology study revealed the need to do a follow-up study to determine the extent of possible archaeological artefacts on-site. This work can’t happen until the spring of 2022, so much of the project will be on hold until the archaeology work can be completed. DPW may be striping Nowland Farm Road to accommodate off-site parking this summer/fall. This work was planned for over a year, but had not happened yet. • Kimball Culvert & Bike/Ped Infrastructure: The road was paved and open for cars on November 29th. That will be it for construction this season. The rec path work will take place spring 2022. • RRFB Upgrades & Dorset Street Barriers: DPW completed its ordering for all RRFB locations in the City. Staff will continue install/upgrade of all RRFBs for completion in FY22 (likely to start up again in the spring). DPW is still moving the Dorset Barrier project for completion in FY22. In talking with DPW, they are looking into permanent options for under the overpass to Grandview. • Twin Oaks/Kennedy Drive Crosswalk: The City received bids for constructing this project and we are reviewing those along with the costs. The bids came in much higher than we expected so we are taking some time to go through them and discuss next steps. The project team would like some guidance from the Committee regarding priority projects, while also taking cost effectiveness into consideration. As a reminder, this project needs to be built by the end of 2022, and has received 75K in state funds through the VTrans Small-Scale Bike/Ped Program. • Spear Street Phase 1: The project team is working to identify which side of Spear Street the path will go. The consultant did look at moving the centerline, but they identified a potential issue with the location of the existing guardrail. They are looking into this, as well as reaching out to VTrans, to help us determine the feasibility of the layout being on the west or east side. The team hopes to identify a layout in February. • Hinesburg Road Crosswalks: DPW has relayed that striping will not occur until the spring. They are now in winter mode. • Williston Road Crosswalk Project: The consultant’s survey crew completed a survey of the area around each crosswalk to aid in the designs. The project team expects to come together to review the layout in the near future. • Queen City Park Scoping Study: Bob – are you still on the advisory committee for this project? The project team is working on scheduling a public meeting to present alternatives. In the meantime, they are also working on a preferred alternative, and will incorporate input from the public meeting into this. Bob, you should be getting information on when this public meeting will be. • Kimball Ave (Phase 2) Scoping Study: The Project Team met to discuss next steps with this study. The consultant has been asked to provide updates to their proposed concepts, as well as add one that could be considered a short-term option. They are also adding a public meeting to their scope of work. This will likely be in March, and may be held during the Bike/Ped Committee’s regular meeting.