Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee - 01/12/20221 South Burlington Bike & Pedestrian Committee Regular Meeting Minutes Wednesday, January 12, 2022 @ 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), Michael Powers 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.)