Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - City Council - 01/17/2023
AGENDA 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/citycouncilmeeting1-17-2023 You can also dial in using your phone. +1 (224) 501-3412 Access Code: 699-586-277 Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Tuesday, January 17, 2023 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 December 19, 2022, CC MeetingC.*** Accept the Easement Deed Community Center Access Easement and MarketStreet Access Public Roadway Easement from the South Burlington School Districtdated May 19, 2022 and the Easement Deed 146 Market Street from Allard Squaredated January 22, 2020D.*** Approve requests to the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission fortheir FY24 Unified Planning Work ProgramE.*** Approve the acceptance of Bay Crest Drive, Irish Farm Road, Haymaker Lane and Harbor Ridge Road as City Streets 7.*** Warned for 7:00 PM: Public Hearing on the FY24 All Funds Budget and Capital Improvement Plan – Jessie Baker, City Manager (7:00 – 7:45 PM) 8.*** FY24 Budget discussion and approval of a FY24 General Fund, Capital Improvement Plan, and Enterprise Fund budgets with direction to send all to the Steering Committee andthe voters – Jessie Baker, City Manager (7:45 – 8:15 PM) 9. *** Approve the 2023 Town Meeting Day Warning and set the Public Hearing for March 6, 2023 at 6:30 PM – Jessie Baker, City Manager (8:15 – 8:25 PM) 10. *** Receive an update on the Comprehensive Plan Outreach Plan – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (8:25 – 8:40 PM) 11. *** Receive an update on the Auclair parcel, consider allocating $309,033 from the Open Space Fund to support the Vermont Land Trust acquisition conditioned on a Right of First Refusal and approve a memorandum documenting the conservation – Paul Conner, Planning & Zoning Director (8:40 – 9:00 PM) 12. *** City Pension Asset Update - Net Performance Report from the City's Pension Fund Manager – Daniel Cappell, SEI Client Service (9:00 – 9:30 PM) 13. *** City Pension Actuarial Update - FY 22 Pension Valuation – Erik Schait, Newport Group (9:30 – 10:00 PM) 14. *** Consider and possibly approve an update to the Purchasing Policy – Martha Machar, Finance Director (10:00 – 10:10 PM) 15. *** Consider and possibly approve an update to the Grant Policy – Martha Machar, Finance Director (10:10 – 10:15 PM) 16. *** Consider prioritizing adopting a Short-Term Rental Ordinance and associated implementation steps and provide direction to staff – Council Request (10:15 – 10:35 PM) 17. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on Climate Change – Council Request (10:35 – 10:50 PM) 18. Other Business (10:50 – 11:00 PM) 19. Consider entering a possible executive session to consider: • Negotiating and securing a real estate purchase 20. Adjourn Respectfully Submitted: Jessie Baker City Manager *** Attachments Included Champlain Water District Check/Voucher Register - Check Report by Fund From 1/18/2023 Through 1/18/2023 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Invoice Description Check Amount Invoice Number 1/18/2023 4515 Colchester Fire District #3 35 Florence Lane - Connection Fee Deposited into SBWD in Error - Should Be CFD#3 4,215.00 CONNFEE010423 1/18/2023 4516 Champlain Water District - Retail Dec 2022 Retail to SBWD 56,717.24 SBWD-393 1/18/2023 4517 Champlain Water District Dec 2022 Wholesale Invoice 794.26 SBWD-386 1/18/2023 Champlain Water District Dec 2022 Water Consumption for SBWD 155,475.50 SBWDCONSUMP123122 1/18/2023 4518 E.J. Prescott Valve Box Tops 79.36 6121821 1/18/2023 E.J. Prescott Valve Box 54.95 6122839 1/18/2023 4519 Office Essentials of Vermont Binders 32.33 39164 1/18/2023 4520 South Burlington Sewer Department SB Sewer - December 2022 371,030.34 SBSEWER123122 1/18/2023 4521 South Burlington Stormwater Department SB Stormwater - December 2022 150,174.77 SBSTORM123122 1/18/2023 4522 Ti-Sales, Inc.Flanged Meter 454.41 INV0152134 Total 70 - South Burlington Water Department 739,028.16 Report Total 739,028.16 70 - South Burlington Water Department SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Page: 1 CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 19 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 ALSO PRESENT: J. Baker, City Manager; C. McNeill, City Attorney; M. Macher, Finance Officer; I Blanchard, Community Development Director; P. Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning; T. DiPietro, Public Works Director; E. Quallen, Deputy Director of Capital Projects for DPW Department; A. Cate, D. Wheeler, M. Romba, J. Nadeau, B. Fisher, Public Works Department; J. Mitchell, L. Bailey, N. Hyman, D. Peters, J. Bellevance, T. Jarvis, S. Dooley, H. Gagne, D. Leban, E. Krasnow, J. Slason, B. Britt, P. Taylor, C. Trombly 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: No issues were raised. 4. Announcements and City Manager’s Report: Council members reported on meetings and events they had attended. Ms. Baker: Reported on the success of Illuminate Vermont with 750 people present on Friday evening and 1600 people on Saturday evening. She cited the efforts of staff and volunteers and a grant from the State which made the event possible. Encouraged people to listen to the podcast of Chief Burke’s appearance on Vermont Edition. The Administrative team met with incoming Legislators this morning. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 2 The Heating/Hot Water Ordinance goes into effect on 15 February 2023. At the 23 January meeting, staff will ask for appointment of a Building Inspector. The Town of Colchester will not be moving forward with the public safety effort which creates a funding issue. The team will be exploring how to reallocate funding. In January, there will be a new HR Director, 2 new Firefighters and 2 new Police Officers. Thanked Ms. Kinville for serving as Assistant Treasurer. 5. Consent Agenda: a. Approve and Sign Disbursements b. Approve Minutes of 7 November, 21 November, 30 November and 5 December 2022 City Council meetings c. Receive the November 2022 Financials d. Approve the 2022 Grand List Errors and Omissions as presented e. Appoint Donna Leban to the Planning Commission for a term expiring June 2025 f. Appoint Jessie Baker to serve as the initial representative to the Chittenden County Communications Union District Board g. Approve application for a Vermont Transportation Alternatives grant for the scoping, design and construction of Allen Road Shared Use Path h. Approve application for a Vermont Transportation Alternatives grant to design and construct the Bartlett Bay Road Culvert Replacement project i. Approve application for a Reallocation 2020 Homeland Security Grant for security cameras at the Wastewater Facilities j. Appoint Donna Kinville to serve as the Assistant Treasurer Ms. Emery noted that in the Minutes of 5 December, p.4, next to last paragraph, the figure should read 5.75%. On page 6 of those minutes, the heading should read “Emerging Issues.” Mr. Barritt noted that the structures on John Fay Road being converted to condos which reduce the Grand List by $3,900,000. Ms. Lyons said the condos how have a Grand List value. She has viewed that property. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 3 Ms. Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 6. FY24 Budget: Receive the Public Works presentation (including Penny for Paths and Open Space) and provide feedback to staff: Mr. DiPietro introduced his team and noted there are 39 employees with 3 open positions which encompass Highway, Wastewater, Parks, and Stormwater. Highway and Parks: Successes include a lot of local paving including section 3 of Dorset Street and a repaired section of use path. Expenditures include a shift of benefits to this budget. They also reallocated some software (from Administration). There is an increase of $10,000 in Bike/Ped path maintenance and an increase in salt. CIP items include getting started on expansion of the Public Works facility which will include electric charging stations and the conversion of some vehicles. They will also be replacing a sidewalk play, plow truck and a mower. There will be paving of local roads and the final section of Dorset Street in FY25. The CIP also includes $50,000 for replacement of ash trees. They are trying to find ways to treat selected groups of ash trees. Mr. DiPietro showed a graph of increasing costs and noted that emerging issues include paving, addition of a person in 2025, and the ash tree program. They are trying to reduce the amount of salt used in winter by doing more road scraping after the main plowing. Mr. Britt asked about the potential widening of Spear Street. Mr. DiPietro said that is not in the FY24 budget. Mr. Britt said it is the #1 bicycle commuter road. They are trying to build a parallel off-road path which is progressing well. They need traffic calming. He felt this should be back on the CIP. Mr. DiPietro said they can go back and discuss it again. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 4 Stormwater: Mr. DiPietro noted that this is an enterprise fund. Successes include: finishing the replacement of the Muddy Brook failed culvert including the shared use path, the Spear Street gravel wetland in a partnership with the Burlington Country Club (funded by grants), compliance with the 3-acre rule and climate resiliency. There are no major differences in the proposed budget. CIP projects include: the Bartlett Bay Road culvert, stormwater outfall repair, STP construction, expansion of the Bartlett Bay Stormwater Treatment system, and fleet purchases (vacuum truck, street sweeper and a truck). A 1.64% rate increase is being proposed. This would result in a $1.44 annual increase for the typical homeowner. Mr. DiPietro noted the success in obtaining grants which helps to keep the rate down. Emerging issues include: 3 chloride-impaired streams (caused by salting) and compliance with the 3-acre permit (which impacts a lot of private property as well). Ms. Riehle suggested a future discussion of enterprise funds. She noted South Burlington charges the lowest fees but doesn’t seem to have a funding mechanism for replacement of facilities in order to avoid bonding. She suggested possibly beginning to save so there can be less bonding needed. Ms. Baker said the challenge is that the dollar figures are so high (e.g., $34,000,000 for upgrades). Mr. DiPietro said this would be a great discussion to have. Wastewater: Success include: pump station improvements at Oak Creek Village, Valley Ridge and Spear Street and headworks repair at the Airport Parkway Treatment facility. Revenues include an increase in wastewater allocation and a reserve transfer. Mr. DiPietro noted a big increase in the cost of chemicals. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 5 CIP items include: Bartlett Bay facility upgrade, pump station upgrades, debt payment and fleet purchase (split of the vacuum truck). An 8.34% increase in the rate is proposed. This will result in a $29.75 yearly increase for the average homeowner. Mr. DiPietro noted South Burlington has the lowest rates in the state. Emerging issues include: a 50% increase in the cost of chemicals, biosolids regulation, Bartlett Bay facility upgrade, the currently underway rate study, and pump station upgrades. Mr. DiPietro spotlighted the awards won by the department. Drinking Water: Successes include the radio-read units (to read meters), maintenance of aging infrastructure, and preliminary engineering for capital projects (water storage in high-use areas and an interconnection behind UMall). Income will include a 1% revenue increase and a grant to look for lead in servicer lines. Expenditures include a significant increase in the cost of water from CWD. It had been assumed to be 8% but is actually 9.5%. CIP: includes water storage capacity and the service line study for lead. An 8.51% rate increase is proposed which will result in a $22.78 yearly increase for the typical home owner. Mr. DiPietro noted that South Burlington has the lowest rates in the state. Emerging issues include: aging infrastructure, the service line study, and bond votes at the 2024 Town Meeting Day election. Mr. DiPietro spotlighted the use of technology to improve operations and “valve activators” to reduce backstrain and potential injuries. Pennies for Parks: Ms. Quallen reviewed successes including coordination with VTrans for 3 new crosswalks, the CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 6 kickoff of transportation and land use climate implementation plan, work toward a bike/ped master plan, and the beginning of an inventory of all shared use paths. Ms. Quallen then showed fund balances and projections. CIP projects include: Dorset Street shared use path, Mary Street sidewalk, Spear Street and Swift Street shared use paths, and crosswalks at Dorset/Songbird/Pheasant Way/Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive. Sen Chittenden asked about Lime Kiln Road. Ms. Quallen said it is listed as FY26 and FY27 to allow more time to find funding as there is a hefty price tag. Ms. Quallen noted that Pennies for Paths does not pay for path maintenance. Emerging issues include: the ending of revenue in FY32, the increased cost of materials, and the need for good data on the path network. Ms. Quallen spotlighted the fact that 84% of the city’s residences are within a mile of a shared use path. The city now has 20 miles of paths with an additional 3.2 miles under design. Open Space Fund: Successes include the Wayfinding Path at Wheeler, the accessible path to the Wheeler Treehouse, the completion of the Red Rocks Park Management Plan, and trail improvements in permitting. Ms. Quallen showed the fund balances and projections. She noted that FY23 and FY24 are higher because of the increase in costs and the delays due to COVID. CIP projects include final design and construction of the Hubbard Natural Area, train improvements at Red Rocks, and a management plan for Wheeler. Emerging issues include: permitting which often requires Act 250 approval and multi-faceted projects which can lead to large teams. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 7 Ms. Quallen spotlighted the proximity of 68% of housing to open space/park areas, the hiring of a Project Manager in FY23 to take on open space projects, and permitting for Red Rocks trail and drainage work. 7. Consider a Necessity Resolution and Declaration of Intent on the need to bond for improvement to the Bartlett Bay Water Treatment Facility and consider placing the question on the Town Meeting Day 2023 ballot: It was noted that the city must state the necessity of the project and the fact that the cost is too great to be included in the regular budget. Mr. DiPietro provided an overview of the project including a history of the facility, the expected useful life, photos of wear and tear on equipment, the need to address grit removal, and the fact that the disinfectant system is no longer supported by its manufacturer. He then showed the current and proposed site plans for the facility. Mr. DiPietro then reviewed the needs at the Airport Parkway facility related to volatile solids which are causing issues. The plan is to add a clarifier to address this concern. The proposed bond issue will also include refurbishing of 4 wastewater pump station (3 in Queen City Park and 1 on Bartlett Bay Road). Mr. DiPietro showed a map of pump stations and noted the concern with their aging which is beginning to result in failures. The total project cost based on the most recent bid information and including contingency and inflation is $32,800,000. Mr. DiPietro said a rate study is currently being done, and a 6.8% rate increase is proposed for FY24 for this project. It would cost the average homeowner $71.00 for the year. Grants are being sought to help reduce this amount. Construction is anticipated for FY24 through FY26. Ms. Emery asked if ARPA funds could be used for this. Mr. DiPietro said they are looking for any and all grants/funds and will try to pursue additional ARPA money which opens up on 29 December. Ms. Baker noted that the State has targeted money for disadvantaged communities; however, South Burlington is “getting in line” if the opportunity arises. Mr. McNeill noted the need for 2 motions to address necessity and intent. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 8 Ms. Emery moved to adopt the “Resolution of Necessity for Capital Improvement”. Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Ms. Emery then moved to adopt the “Declaration of Official Intent of the City of South Burlington to Reimburse Certain Expenditures form Proceeds of Indebtedness.” Mr. Barritt seconded. The motion passed 4-0. 8. FY24 Budget: Receive the Community Development presentation (including the Energy Fund) and provide feedback to staff: Ms. Riehle congratulated Ms. Blanchard on the Illuminate Vermont event. Ms. Blanchard then outlined community development successes including securing of funds for the bike/ped bridge, substantial changes to the TIF district, launching of the east-west bridge outreach, and phase 2 of the City Center Park. There are no proposed changes to the general fund budget which now stands at $800,000. Ms. Blanchard noted that potential grant funds for TIF projects are not reflected in the FY24 budget. Sen. Chittenden asked if the Council needed to find funding, could the $800,000 be reduced to $600,000, though he did not advocate this. Ms. Blanchard said they are looking at high debt service and need to be prepared for that. Also, if funding is not there this year, it will need to be there in future years. Ms. Baker noted that if the Council wanted to consider this, an option would be to use surplus funds from FY23 for a one-time investment in the TIF district. Ms. Blanchard then showed a photo of an art piece to come to the Council for approval this year ($5,000 in the budget). Ms. Blanchard noted there is no funding for a Recreation Center in the FY24 budget. Ms. Blanchard then reviewed a summary of debt management and the CIP for FY24. Staff is working to move projects to construction in FY24. Some are in the design phase for construction in FY26-27. She explained the landfill array purchase and the request for a feasibility study regarding potential ownership of the array. This could reduce what is available to the energy fund, but it could be a long-term financial benefit. Ms. Blanchard explained the CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 9 Revolving Energy Fund revenues and expenditures including Public Works heat pump replacement and a fire station generator. FY24 bond issues include funding for Garden Street, Williston Road streetscape, City Center Park Phase 2, and the East-West bike/ped bridge. All are TIF related and will not affect the property tax. Sen. Chittenden noted that is true as long as the assumed development occurs. Emerging issues include: equity and engagement with all of South Burlington, the landfill array acquisition, and funding opportunities. Ms. Blanchard then spotlighted the City Hall Gallery. She noted there is now a curator. The Gallery was featured in the Fall issue of “Best of Burlington.” 9. 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: Sen. Chittenden moved to adopt the Resolution of Necessity for City Center TIF District Capital Improvement Projects as presented. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed 4-0. Sen. Chittenden then moved to adopt the Declaration of Official Intent of the City of South Burlington to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Indebtedness. Ms. Emery seconded. The motion passed 4-0. 10. Receive an update from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee and consider approving an update to the Committee’s charge: Ms. Gagne said there are 14 safety recommendations, number one of which is a budget for painting (striping, etc.) which should be done every year as the City of Burlington does. Ms. Gagne stressed that the Committee is very happy with the work done by Public Works. Ms. Riehle said this is a great list. She expressed concern that drivers do not stop for blinking crossing lights, and that the lights do not always give pedestrians enough time to cross safely. Sen. Chittenden said what is needed is a safety island halfway across. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 10 Mr. Barritt said he would like to see a speed limit review. He noted one section of Dorset Street with a 40 mph posting. Sen. Chittenden asked about the Spear Street widening question. Ms. Quallen said this fell under the Highway CIP, and she did not know why it is no longer included. Ms. Baker said staff spend a lot of time trying to smooth out the CIP, and this project was likely one that was “smoothed out.” She said it can be looked at again. Mr. Barritt said one possibility is the next paving of Spear Street if asphalt is all it will take. Ms. Quallen said the FY23 CIP has it going all the way to the Shelburne line. Mr. Britt said the Committee had moved it forward last year, but it was supposed to be on from Swift Street to the Shelburne line. He stressed that the shoulders of the road are not adequate. The road will also need traffic calming. He cited the need to get people to the neighborhoods. Mr. Britt added that it would be helpful is the City Council “blessed” some of the changes. Ms. Riehle suggested annotating the list so the Council can focus on what isn’t done yet. Regarding the bike/ped Master Plan, Ms. Gagne said the Committee will be going forward with that. The Plan recommends a shared use path in Queen City Park. Ms. Emery then moved to approve the update to the Bike/Pedestrian Committee charge as presented. Sen. Chittenden seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Britt recognized Ms. Quallen. He said she has gotten more done in 6 months than the Committee did in 3 years. 11. Discuss and possibly approve a proposed Encampment Policy: Mr. McNeill said the policy was requested by the City Council. He noted that the original intent to store the personal property of an encamper for a week has been changed to a month. Mr. McNeill said there has been a question as to whether this should be a policy or an ordinance. He noted that other states have policies and they have been working well. This policy is modeled on the Maine policy. One advantage to a policy is that it can be adopted now whereas an ordinance would require several hearings. It is also easier to change. Ms. Baker said this was an emerging need, and a policy is easier to enact quickly to address the needs of residents. Mr. McNeill said it also focuses on city personnel and what they should do. CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 11 Mr. Taylor expressed concern with how this would be carried out in cemeteries. He suggested adding cemeteries to the list in Section 7.2. Council members agreed to this addition. Mr. McNeill stressed that the main intent of the policy is to find safe shelter for people at encampments. Ms. Dooley was pleased with the change to 30 days. She noted this issue is a result of the affordable housing and opiate crises. She also noted that she has protection from police and the Court to prevent incursion into her home. The homeless have not. She felt an ordinance would be more appropriate. She said Burlington adopted an ordinance because they found it was what had standing in Court. Ms. Emery said she would rather give people $600 a month than pay for the Court system. Mr. Trombly thanked the Council for its attempts to address affordable housing. He said rather than use the term “homeless people,” it should be “people experiencing homelessness.” He also would like to see this become an ordinance. Mr. Hyman said he is receiving emails from people about to be homeless. He thanked the Council for putting this on the forefront. Ms. Emery moved to adopt the Encampment Policy with the addition of cemeteries in Section 7.2. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 12. Continued First Reading of an ordinance to implement Education Impact Fees and set a public hearing for a Special Meeting on 23 January 2023 at 6:30 p.m.: Mr. Conner reviewed the history. He noted that a few changes had been made to the Ordinance including an affordable housing exemption and an adjustment to the way fees are recouped (this is now $100 per permit for any impact fee). Mr. Barritt moved to set a public hearing on the Ordinance to Implement Education Impact Fees for 23 January 2023 at 6:30 p.m. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 13. Opportunity for Councilors and the public to share information and resources on Climate Change: CITY COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2022 PAGE 12 There was no information shared. 14. Other Business: No other business was presented. 15. Consider entering a possible executive session to discuss pending litigation: Mr. Barritt moved that the Council make a specific find that premature general public knowledge of the Council’s discussion of pending litigation to which the city is a party would clearly place the city at a substantial disadvantage. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. Mr. Barritt then moved that having so found, the Council meet in executive session to discuss pending litigation to which the city is a party and to invite into the session Ms. Baker and Mr. McNeill. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion passed 4-0. 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 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. _________________________________ Clerk 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.SouthBurlingtonVT.gov To: Jessie Baker, City Manager From: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director Cc: Colin McNeil, City Attorney Amanda Lafferty, Deputy City Attorney Subject: Accept easements related to 180 Market Street. Date: January 12, 2023 Background: 200 Market Street Easement Deed. The South Burlington School District has provided the Easement #1 and Easement #2 as laid out in the attached “Easement Deed Community Center Access Easement and Market Street Access Public Roadway Easement” related to their property at 200 Market Street, the site of the Rick Marcotte Central School, more specifically: 1) Easement #1 – Municipal Building Access Easement - Municipal Access Easement shown as “Municipal Building Access Easement (No. 1) +0.60 AC” and 2) Easement #2 – Market Street Access Public Roadway Easement shown as “Site of Future City Right of Way Easement +0.13 AC (No. 2 – Market Street Access Roadway Easement) These referenced easements are shown on a plan entitled “Library + Senior Center + City Hall, 180 Market St, South Burlington, VT, Local Zoning Permit Plan 1 of 2,” dated September 25, 2019, last revised December 12, 2019, prepared by Engineering Ventures. These easements were provided in accordance with the City agreement with the South Burlington School District approved by City and executed on September 5, 2018. 146 Market Street Easement Deed. Allard Square Limited Partnership has provided a (1) Access Easement and (2) Maintenance of infrastructure easement for the southerly retaining wall, as laid out in the attached “Easement Deed 146 Market Street”. These easements are provided by Allard Square in accordance with an agreement regarding reciprocal access agreements approved 1/21/2020 by the City Council. The 146 Market Street easements are shown on a plan entitled “Library + Senior Center + City Hall, 180 Market St, South Burlington, VT” Sheet Title “146 Market Street Site Plan,” prepared by Engineering Ventures dated 12/6/19. Andrew Bolduc, previously City Attorney, conducted a title search of the property rights to be acquired by the City. Colin McNeil, City Attorney has indicated that the City may now accept these rights. Therefore, the easements are ready for the Council to accept. Attachments: • Easement Deed Community Center Access Easement and Market Street Access Public Roadway Easement • Easement Deed 146 Market Street • Graphic of plans related to the easements with relevant portions related to Easements and stormwater reservations highlighted Recommendation: Accept the Easement Deed Community Center Access Easement and Market Street Access Public Roadway Easement from the South Burlington School District dated May 19, 2022 and the Easement Deed 146 Market Street from Allard Square dated January 22, 2020. Community Center Easement Deed location of # 1 Access Easement (yellow), # 2 Future Right of Way Easement (green), A-Stormwater facility pertaining to SBSD parking lot and reserved by SBSD (blue oval), B - area of SBSD pavement from which water may be sent into the stormwater system pertaining to 180 Market Street for treatment/retention (blue encircling area of pavement which drains into future roadway). Access easement shown in yellow, Maintenance easement shown in green. 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com MEMORANDUM TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager; South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Erica Quallen, DPW Deputy Director for Capital Projects SUBJECT: FY ‘24 CCRPC Unified Planning Work Program projects DATE: January 17, 2023 City Council meeting The Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission solicits proposals annually from municipalities for transportation and transportation-related projects for their Unified Planning Work Project (UPWP). Further information about the CCRPC’s UPWP process can be found on their website (https://www.ccrpcvt.org/about-us/commission/annual-work-plan-budget-finances/). For transportation projects involving consultants, the City is generally responsible for 20% of the project cost. For projects of regional importance, the City may not have any financial responsibility. The City can also seek technical assistance from CCRPC staff on transportation and land use planning projects. For land use planning projects, the City pays a per-hour fee for services. Below please find the proposed FY 2024 list. Candidate projects were assembled from various sources, reviewed by staff in view of the Capital Improvement Program, Comprehensive Plan, and Department- identified needs, and presented to the Planning Commission. The Commission approved the proposed project list at their December 13, 2022 meeting*. *Staff is proposing two minor changes to the list as approved by the Planning Commission, based on updated information from the CCRPC: (1) The ADA inventory can be classified as a project the CCRPC’s summer interns complete. As such, no local funding match is required. (2) CCRPC staff have initiated that updating the inventory of the City’s roadway pavement condition is also eligible to be completed by the CCRPC’s interns, as such we have added it to this list. If awarded, the final cost estimates may be revised slightly. 1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan This project would create the City’s first true bicycle/pedestrian master plan. This is a specific recommendation / request of the City’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Committee and would tie in with other subject-specific plans to be developed over the coming years. Subject to be addressed in the Master Plan could include the following • Measurement/Definition of existing Shared Use Paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, trails. Show growth over time • Define preferred future routes and gaps in the existing networks. Prioritize between these desired routes/gaps/connections. Identify what is included in the current CIP (10 year plan). Does that match priority? What is missing/what gaps are left? 2 • Location of existing traffic signals. Show growth over time. Update GIS data as needed. • Identify intersections where new traffic signals will be necessary • Connections to neighboring facilities • Identify lighting needs Estimated Project budget: $60,000 to $80,000; 20% local match Proposed source of local match (estimated at $15,000 to $20,000): a combination of Planning & Zoning consulting and Pennies for Paths. 2. Nowland Farm Road / Spear Street intersection configuration This year we are having a stop sign warrant analysis done. This project would complement that effort by identifying options to narrow the pedestrian crossing at this location while maintaining vehicular functionality. This will build from work already done this year as a stop sign warrant analysis and turn lane analysis. [note: we are reaching out to the CCRPC for this project to possibly be considered as an amendment to the existing project rather than a new request, which would allow it to be done this year] Estimated Project budget: $10,000 to $15,000; 20% local match Proposed source of local match (estimated at $2,000 to $3,000): Planning & Zoning Consulting and Pennies for Paths. 3. Traffic Counts at various locations. Complete traffic counts to support future efforts / monitor changes in existing areas. DPW will present a list of ~6 sites for counts to be completed. The tentative list (subject to change) includes: Market Street at City Hall; Dorset Street at High School; Patchen Road near Pine Street; Imperial Drive near Shelburne Road; Airport Drive south of the Airport entrance; and IDX Drive near Blackberry Lane 4. Turning Movement Counts at various locations Complete turning movement counts to support future efforts / monitor changes in existing areas. DPW will present a list of ~6 sites for counts to be completed. The tentative list (subject to change) includes: Spear St / Cedar Glen Dr; Spear St / Swift St; Spear St / Pheasant Way; Dorset St / Swift St; Pheasant Way / Harbor Ridge Rd 5. Pavement and Shared Use Path Condition Inventories This project would update the inventory of paving conditions using software in hand. As an inventory, this project has no local required match. 6. Inventory of ADA compliant-structures in sidewalk/shared use path/crosswalk/signals system This project would inventory the existing of appropriate signals, curb ramps, etc. in support of developing an ADA Transition Plan, which is a required Plan under the law. As an inventory, this project has no local required match. 7. Stop Sign Warrant Analysis Complete a stop sign warrant analysis if a high-priority site is identified. which would become the legal foundation for a future stop sign if the warrant is met. 104 Landfill Road, South Burlington, VT 05403 www.southburlingtonvt.gov tel 802.658.7961 Memo To: South Burlington City Council From: Thomas J. DiPietro Jr., Director of Public Works Cc: Jessie Baker, City Manager Date: January 10, 2023 Re: Acceptance of Bay Crest Drive, Irish Farm Road, Haymaker Lane, and Harbor Ridge Road It has been requested that the City accept Bay Crest Drive, Irish Farm Road, Haymaker Lane and Harbor Ridge Road (highlighted on the attached Subdivision Plat) as City Streets. City Attorney Colin McNeil conducted a title search of the properties to be acquired by the City and has indicated that the City may accept these streets and rights of way, along with a 15’ easement for a sanitary sewer pipe in the rear lines of Lots 14 and 15 and in the common boundary of Lots 27 and 28, across Lot 33 and then in the common boundary of Lots 22 and 23, all subject to and contingent on the City’s receipt of any necessary waivers. I find these streets to be in general conformance with City standards and in good condition. I recommend that council make a motion to accept Bay Crest Drive, Irish Farm Road, Haymaker Lane, and Harbor Ridge Road as City streets. 1/13/2023 1 Public Hearing: FY24 Proposed Budget Jessie Baker, City Manager Martha Machar, Finance Director Leadership Team City Council January 17, 2023 Overview •Budget Challenges and Assumptions •FY24 Budget Goals •FY24 Proposed Budget •ARPA Allocations •Capital Improvement Plan •FY24 Enterprise Funds and Special Funds •Bond Votes •Emerging Issues •Community Engagement 2 All Proposed FY24 Budget documents available here: https://www.southburlingtonvt.gov/departments/finan ce/fy_24_budget_(7_1_23_- _6_30_24)_proposed_budget.php 1 2 1/13/2023 2 Proposed Budget: Challenges 3 •Multi-year high inflation rates for goods and services •COLA currently at 6.4% •Continued need to incrementally recover from lean COVID budget years •Maintaining community’s service expectations and standards as the City grows •Need to smooth General Fund allocation to the Capital Improvement Plan to increase capacity 3 4 5 6 7 8 Northeast Region CPI-U Proposed Budget: Assumptions 4 •Contractual COLA and step increases per the Collective Bargaining Agreements •Grand List Growth of 1.75% (9.6% growth in TIF, 1% in City-wide GL) •Increases in cost of goods and services (gas and diesel, supplies and repairs, materials, etc.) •ARPA salary and CIP step down •Health insurance increase of 6% •Casualty and workers comp savings of $110,000 •Green Mountain Transit increase of 9.8%($53k) 3 4 1/13/2023 3 FY24 Budget Goals 5 Ensure we are meeting the community’s service expectations as we grow •Address rising inflation rates and cost of living adjustments •Increase capacity to maintain our Parks •Restore a Police Officer position and Deputy Chief position •Restore a Firefighter/EMT position and establish a second ambulance beginning January 1, 2024 •Incrementally invest in our Capital Improvement Plan to ensure we maintain our infrastructure •Restore GIS/Analyst staff capacity to inform data driven decision making FY24 Budget Goals: Public Works 6 Add Parks maintenance capacity in FY24 to address community needs. In the last 22 years, South Burlington added 20 new miles of road without adding a new position in the Highway Division. This capacity will be added in FY25. 5 6 1/13/2023 4 FY24 Budget Goals –Police 7 Restore two Police Officers over the next two years and reestablish the Deputy Chief position to meet the community’s expectation on response, restore specialized assignments, and do adequate succession planning for the future. In 2020 an analysis was done of our public safety needs •Result: 40 sworn officers and 10 civilians (including dispatch) are needed •Currently we have:Civilian Filled 9 Vacant 1 Total 10 Sworn Filled 32 Vacant 5 Proposed in FY24 2 Total 39 FY24 Budget Goals –Fire 8 Restore a Firefighter/EMT position to meet minimum staffing of 8 Firefighters per shift. Establish a second ambulance starting January 2024 to address that currently, with a single ambulance, 23% of our medical calls are responded to by professionals from other agencies. 7 8 1/13/2023 5 FY24 Budget Goals –Capital Improvement Plan 9 $- $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY 23 FY 24 Property Tax -CIP Funding FY23 FY24 $ change % change GF Tax Capacity*$2,688,000 $3,118,000 $430,000 16.0% ARPA $672,000 $541,500 ($130,500)-19.4% Total $3,360,000 $3,659,500 $299,500 8.9% Add incremental investment to sustain tax capacity for infrastructure maintenance and projects. *Includes projects, City Center Reserve, and bond payments FY24 Proposed Budget 10 •Fully fund current operations •Restore previous cuts and incrementally keep up with growth •Maintain $800k funding for TIF Capital Reserve •Two-year plan •Focus on core municipal government •Future ability to be data driven 9 10 1/13/2023 6 FY24 Budget: ARPA 11 Continue to step-down ARPA General Fund and CIP spending from FY22 & FY23 Possible future ARPA: Climate Action Plan 12 NEW: Climate Action Plan Implementation FY24 FY25 FY26 STAFF: Climate Director / Technical Planner (implementation strategy, ordinance research and drafting, data collection and reporting, recommendation on financing plan) $119,700 $124,488 $129,468 STAFF: Sustainability community engagement manager and analyst (engagement, researcher grants opportunity, relationship, planner) $86,450 $89,908 $93,504 Consultant (planning & design of city projects, experts to advise) $100,000 $104,000 $108,160 Public outreach funding (meetings, stipends, events by sectors or interest groups, materials) $100,000 $104,000 $108,160 Enforcement Team (~3 FTEs: Inspector for single family homes, additional Inspector, Administrative support, 2 vehicles, materials) $500,000 $400,000 CIP Additional Investment (City vehicle charging stations, expanded bike/ped facilities, etc) ***TBD TBD TOTAL $406,150 $922,396 $839,292 pennies $0.01 $0.02 $0.02 percent 2.13%4.83%4.39% *** FY24 Proposed CIP includes investment in paths, charging stations at DPW, East-West bridge, weatherization of Wheeler House, hybrid police cruisers, and upgrade to Airport Parkway and Bartlett Bay Treatment Facilities 11 12 1/13/2023 7 General Fund –Capital Improvement Plan 13 $452,000 in new investment of property tax capacity for capital projects •8% annually needed to fund a future Recreation Center•4% annually if we don’t move that forward and projects/funding streams remain stagnant Included in the FY24 Budget (highlights only) •Ambulance and setting aside funding for a future fire truck with CIP reserve fund•DPW Garage bay expansion •$800k for paving ($80k more than FY23)•$305k for DPW fleet replacement•$324k for Dorset Street signal project •Weatherization improvements at Wheeler House & Fire Stations•3 hybrid police cruisers•Level fund Ash Tree Replacement ($50k) •Parks improvements at Vet Memorial Not included •Funding for a Recreation Center pushed forward •Funding for Regional Dispatch Stormwater Fund 14 Capital Improvement Plan•Stormwater Treatment Practice (STP) Construction•Kennedy Drive Pond 2•Kennedy Drive Pond 7•Expansion of the Bartlett Bay Stormwater Treatment System (BBSTS)•Bartlett Bay Road Culvert•Engineering and design work•Fleet Purchases•Vacuum truck (split with Wastewater)•Street sweeper•1-Ton truck $12,668,857.0 $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 13 14 1/13/2023 8 Wastewater Fund 15 Wastewater rate increase driven by the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements and other capital projects Capital Improvement Plan •Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade •Pump Station Upgrade •Fleet purchase: Vacuum truck (split with stormwater) $0.00 $200.00 $400.00 $600.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $1,200.00 Annual Sewer Fee for Single Family HomeAnnual Sewer Fee for Single Family Home Water Fund 16 Water rate increase driven by an anticipated bond vote in 2024 for storage capacity Capital Improvement Plan •Water Storage Capacity –Design and construction of additional water storage in the high service area •Interconnection with CWD Main behind the UMall •Water Meter Replacement Program •Lead Service Line Survey $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 15 16 1/13/2023 9 Penny for Paths 17 FY24 CIP ProjectsDorset Street Shared Use Path•Final Design and Construction ($510k) •$500k is grant funded, $10k from Penny for PathsSpear 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 FY26Mary Street Sidewalk•Design and Construction ($90k) •Highway Impact Fee fundedSwift Street Shared Use Path Connection (From Spear Meadows) •Design ($20k) •Penny for Paths fundedCrosswalks (Dorset/Songbird, Spear/Pheasant, Hinesburg/Dubois) •Design ($15k) •Penny for Paths funded 86.4% of residential buildings are within 0.1 miles of a shared use path! 3.2 miles of shared use path is under design or planned for design within 5 years Penny for Open Space 18 FY24 CIP ProjectsHubbard 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 Recent trail reconstruction in Wheeler Recreation and Natural Area 68% of 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. 17 18 1/13/2023 10 Special Funds 19 Across 25 Special Funds •Projected Revenue of $9,793,355.68 •Project Expenses of $9,424,500.00 Bond Votes! 20 Tax Increment Financing Bond Vote = $15,086,430 Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements = $33,833,000 19 20 1/13/2023 11 Emerging Issues 21 •Two-year operations proposal •Requires another increase in FY25 to add staff capacity, incrementally invest in the CIP, and step-down ARPA funding •Significant Executive Team transitions •Future for Regional Dispatch •2024 Bond Vote on Water storage capacity •No funding allocated for Recreation Center planning •Marathon Health –ongoing negotiations on structure •Fire collective bargaining agreement expires at the end of FY24 •Wage pressure in surrounding municipalities –especially in public safety Community Engagement 22 •January 23rd –Steering Committee with School Board •January 31st –Town Meeting TV Presentation –5:25 pm •February 14th –#LoveyourCity Town Meeting Day informational meeting (6 to 7 pm) •February 28th –Town Meeting Day informational meeting (6 to 7 pm) •March 6th –Annual Meeting Presentation (6:30 pm) •March 7th –Town Meeting Day! Polls open 7:00 am to 7:00 pm 21 22 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 FY 2024 Budget FY 22 Budget FY 22 Actual FY23 Budget FY24 Budget FY 23-24 $ Change FY 23-24 % Change General Fund $26,745,676.56 $26,432,506.49 $28,461,478.56 $31,140,318.33 $2,678,839.77 9.41% General Fund Non-Property Tax Revenues $9,347,272.00 $11,171,114.74 $10,498,666.00 $11,752,019.41 $1,253,353.41 11.94% Net to be raised by property tax $17,398,404.56 $17,962,812.57 $19,388,298.92 $1,425,486.35 7.94% TIF Grand List (100%)$300,121.00 $333,317.00 $365,317.00 $32,000.00 9.60% General Fund Grand List $31,087,070 $40,231,028.93 $40,615,363.32 $41,019,963.54 $404,600.22 1.00% Estimated Tax Rate $0.5597 $0.4455 $0.4727 $0.0272 6.10% Other approved Ballot Items Open Space $310,870.00 $310,870.00 $406,153.63 $412,677.84 $6,524.21 1.61% Penny for Paths $310,870.00 $310,870.00 $406,153.63 $412,677.84 $6,524.21 1.61% Total to be Raised by Property tax $17,398,404.56 $18,775,119.83 $20,213,654.61 $1,4368,534.78 7.66% Total Estimated Tax Rate $0.4928 Actual Tax rate $0.4350 $0.4660 $0.0268 5.75% ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) GENERAL GOVERNMENT CITY COUNCIL General Operating Budget General Expenses $3,500.00 $155.18 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Housing Trust $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Designated Reserve $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 -$10,000.00 0.00% Advertising $2,000.00 $2,951.60 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Councilors $7,750.00 $7,750.00 $7,750.00 $7,750.00 $0.00 0.00% Liquor Control $500.00 $500.01 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 0.00% Council approved-Unbudgeted project $0.00 $11,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $63,750.00 $72,356.79 $73,750.00 $63,750.00 -$10,000.00 -13.56% HR & BENFITS ADMINISTRATION Wages and Benefits Salaries $142,784.69 $159,145.94 $193,256.46 $168,282.00 -$24,974.46 -12.92% Payment to Sickbank Fund 298 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 -$125,000.00 -100.00% EAP Services $6,000.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Wellness/Activities $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fringe Benefits $6,000.00 $11,059.09 $14,400.00 $800.00 -$13,600.00 -94.44% FICA/Medicare $10,923.03 $12,201.97 $14,784.12 $12,873.57 -$1,910.55 -12.92% Vision Plan $12,764.16 $15,912.26 $13,007.03 $306.24 -$12,700.79 -97.65% Disability Insurance $52,979.40 $52,667.01 $60,547.40 $1,388.18 -$59,159.22 -97.71% Group Health Plan $2,538,185.00 $2,357,693.07 $2,715,116.17 $54,994.75 -$2,660,121.42 -97.97% Bank - Benefits $8,000.00 $3,371.15 $9,000.00 $4,000.00 -$5,000.00 -55.56% Group Life Insurance $42,123.72 $46,411.94 $45,454.95 $625.24 -$44,829.71 -98.62% Group Dental Insurance $132,939.96 $120,360.22 $132,561.16 $2,742.72 -$129,818.44 -97.93% Pension $1,598,110.00 $1,437,657.71 $1,634,501.39 $21,666.31 -$1,612,835.09 -98.67% ICMA Match $199,076.00 $181,430.10 $229,516.20 $9,255.51 -$220,260.69 -95.97% Total Wages and Benefits $4,879,885.96 $4,522,910.46 $5,198,144.87 $287,934.52 -$4,910,210.35 -94.46% General Operating Budget Advertising & Recruiting $1,000.00 $1,269.50 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 -$1,000.00 -16.67% Employee Health Center-Rent + Services $553,932.00 $553,932.00 0.00% Phone $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $960.00 $960.00 0.00% Dues and Subscriptions $1,000.00 $2,323.50 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 100.00% Hiring - required testing $1,500.00 $3,674.50 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $3,500.00 233.33% Payroll Service $36,500.00 $31,994.17 $36,500.00 $37,230.00 $730.00 2.00% Contractual Services $26,200.00 $0.00 $26,200.00 $0.00 -$26,200.00 -100.00% Travel and Training $4,000.00 $4,090.50 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $70,200.00 $43,352.17 $75,200.00 $608,122.00 $532,922.00 708.67% Total HR & Benefits Administration $4,950,085.96 $4,566,262.63 $5,273,344.87 $896,056.52 -$4,377,288.35 -83.01% GF INSURANCE General Operating Budget Workers Comp Insurance $381,000.00 $389,526.98 $385,434.50 $348,023.32 -$37,411.18 -9.71% Page 1 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) VLCT Unemployment Insurance $16,400.00 $16,726.00 $17,000.00 $17,850.00 $850.00 5.00% Property Insurance $297,000.00 $312,834.44 $343,035.00 $301,687.41 -$41,347.59 -12.05% Bonding Insurance-Public Officials $6,100.00 $6,064.00 $6,100.00 $6,405.00 $305.00 5.00% Accident -Deductibles $10,000.00 $13,218.55 $8,000.00 $8,400.00 $400.00 5.00% $710,500.00 $738,369.97 $759,569.50 $682,365.73 -$77,203.77 -10.16% CITY MANAGER Wages and Benefits Departmental Salaries $349,830.08 $390,764.83 $371,845.59 $301,814.33 -$70,031.26 -18.83% Leave Time Turn-In $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $26,762.00 $36,800.79 $28,446.19 $23,088.80 -$5,357.39 -18.83% Fringe Benefits $1,100.00 $1,100.00 0.00% Vision Plan $312.84 $312.84 0.00% Disability Insurance $2,082.27 $2,082.27 0.00% Group Health Plan $55,739.08 $55,739.08 0.00% Group Life Insurance $937.86 $937.86 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $2,758.68 $2,758.68 0.00% Pension $38,858.60 $38,858.60 0.00% ICMA Match $23,776.99 $23,776.99 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $376,592.08 $427,565.62 $400,291.78 $450,469.45 $50,177.67 12.54% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $3,000.00 $4,995.68 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $1,500.00 42.86% Advertising $10,800.00 $9,341.59 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $3,800.00 $10,630.06 $4,000.00 $960.00 -$3,040.00 -76.00% Postage $2,000.00 $580.23 $500.00 $600.00 $100.00 20.00% Dues and Subscriptions $4,100.00 $3,559.84 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 0.00% Printing $3,000.00 $709.77 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 50.00% Consulting Fees $30,000.00 $16,958.45 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Travel & Training $5,000.00 $5,606.40 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 20.00% Online Platform-Training $12,000.00 $0.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $73,700.00 $52,382.02 $72,200.00 $72,760.00 $560.00 0.78% Total City Manager $450,292.08 $479,947.64 $472,491.78 $523,229.45 $50,737.67 10.74% LEGAL/ACCOUNTING/ ACTUARY Wages and Benefits Salaries $174,104.81 $180,848.12 $207,476.89 $215,017.75 $7,540.86 3.63% FICA/Medicare $13,319.02 $14,701.41 $15,871.98 $16,448.86 $576.88 3.63% Fringe Benefits $600.00 $600.00 0.00% Vision Plan $153.12 $153.12 0.00% Disability Insurance $1,388.18 $1,388.18 0.00% Group Health Plan $31,821.54 $31,821.54 0.00% Group Life Insurance $625.24 $625.24 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $1,371.36 $1,371.36 0.00% Pension $27,683.54 $27,683.54 0.00% ICMA Match $9,505.72 $9,505.72 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $187,423.83 $195,549.53 $223,348.87 $304,615.31 $81,266.44 36.39% General Operating Budget Subscriptions $7,040.00 $8,024.42 $7,612.00 $8,000.00 $388.00 5.10% Legal/Labor/Suits $65,000.00 $9,358.24 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Professional Development $2,000.00 $2,251.08 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 16.67% Total General Operating Budget $74,040.00 $19,633.74 $60,612.00 $61,500.00 $888.00 1.47% Total Legal $261,463.83 $215,183.27 $283,960.87 $366,115.31 $82,154.44 28.93% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Wages and Benefits Salaries $273,878.49 $280,009.67 $172,759.63 $229,251.49 $56,491.86 32.70% Salaries-Intens/PT $0.00 $4,908.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Leave Time turn-in $2,134.40 $2,134.40 0.00% FICA/Medicare $20,951.70 $24,216.55 $13,216.11 $17,537.74 $4,321.63 32.70% Fringe Benefits $1,500.00 $1,500.00 0.00% Vision Plan $313.20 $313.20 0.00% Disability Insurance $2,082.27 $2,082.27 0.00% Group Health Plan $57,253.85 $57,253.85 0.00% Group Life Insurance $937.86 $937.86 0.00% Page 2 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) Group Dental Insurance $2,669.40 $2,669.40 0.00% Pension $29,516.13 $29,516.13 0.00% ICMA Match $12,608.83 $12,608.83 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $294,830.19 $309,134.64 $185,975.75 $355,805.18 $169,829.43 91.32% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $0.00 $0.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 -$5,000.00 -25.00% Municipal Bld Cleaning Supplies $12,000.00 $12,550.91 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Expense $1,700.00 $1,700.16 $1,700.00 $1,800.00 $100.00 5.88% Office equipment fees $10,000.00 $11,515.20 $11,000.00 $12,000.00 $1,000.00 9.09% Branding and Outreach $25,000.00 $958.01 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 -$5,000.00 -20.00% Digital Media $19,000.00 $18,795.16 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Municipal Bld Cleaning Service $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% City Hall Maintenance $39,000.00 $36,424.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Contingency/ Repairs/Grants $140,000.00 $156,604.72 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Energy Efficiency $40,000.00 $20,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 0.00% HVAC Maintenance $2,400.00 $4,198.44 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Positive Pay $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Archives and Digitalization $20,000.00 $15,211.20 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Electricity-City Hall $21,000.00 $48,317.20 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Heating/Cooling-City Hall $17,000.00 $19,731.60 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Street Lights $144,000.00 $150,471.85 $148,000.00 $160,000.00 $12,000.00 8.11% Stormwater User Rent $325,000.00 $338,297.69 $330,200.00 $346,710.00 $16,510.00 5.00% Parking Lot Lease $0.00 $0.00 $29,200.00 $43,800.00 $14,600.00 50.00% 19 Gregory Lease-Tax pmts $57,600.00 $26,695.77 $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Generator Preventive Maint.$1,000.00 $1,098.67 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Council/Board Secretary (wage/FICA)$14,000.00 $17,088.09 $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $3,000.00 20.00% Total General Operating Budget $888,700.00 $879,659.28 $844,100.00 $881,310.00 $37,210.00 4.41% Capital Budget Public Art $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total Administrative $1,188,530.19 $1,193,793.92 $1,035,075.75 $1,242,115.18 $207,039.43 20.00% INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Wages and Benefits IT Salaries $151,733.40 $172,497.10 $231,090.08 $247,881.01 $16,790.93 7.27% Leave time Turn-in $3,232.00 $3,232.00 0.00% IT-Overtime/Part Time $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $11,607.61 $13,823.49 $17,678.39 $11,611.25 -$6,067.14 -34.32% Fringe Benefits $1,300.00 $1,300.00 0.00% Vision Plan $361.56 $361.56 0.00% Disability Insurance $2,082.27 $2,082.27 0.00% Group Health Plan $64,922.56 $64,922.56 0.00% Group Life Insurance $937.86 $937.86 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $3,240.24 $3,240.24 0.00% Pension $31,914.68 $31,914.68 0.00% ICMA Match $11,611.25 $11,611.25 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $163,341.01 $186,320.59 $248,768.47 $379,094.68 $130,326.21 52.39% General Operating Budget IT Utility Services $28,660.00 $19,676.64 $12,000.00 $30,900.00 $18,900.00 157.50% Travel & Training $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Computer Software $39,000.00 $63,704.36 $93,000.00 $81,000.00 -$12,000.00 -12.90% IT Support Service $5,000.00 $4,696.14 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 200.00% Total General Operating Budget $72,660.00 $88,077.14 $112,000.00 $128,900.00 $16,900.00 15.09% Capital Budget Computer Hardware/Servers $35,000.00 $45,594.60 $37,000.00 $77,000.00 $40,000.00 108.11% Total Capital budget $35,000.00 $45,594.60 $37,000.00 $77,000.00 $40,000.00 108.11% Total Information Technology $271,001.01 $319,992.33 $397,768.47 $584,994.68 $187,226.21 47.07% CITY CLERK Wages and Benefits City Clerk Salaries-Perm.$207,863.18 $204,625.83 $217,908.30 $255,931.91 $38,023.61 17.45% Leave time turn-in $6,469.20 $6,469.20 0.00% Overtime $300.00 $186.12 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $15,924.48 $15,800.59 $16,692.93 $19,578.79 $2,885.86 17.29% Fringe Benefits $1,800.00 $1,800.00 0.00% Page 3 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) Vision Plan $417.24 $417.24 0.00% Disability Insurance $2,776.36 $2,776.36 0.00% Group Health Plan $76,352.45 $76,352.45 0.00% Group Life Insurance $1,250.48 $1,250.48 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $3,648.48 $3,648.48 0.00% Pension $48,004.54 $48,004.54 0.00% ICMA Match $8,639.98 $8,639.98 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $224,087.66 $220,612.54 $234,901.23 $425,169.43 $190,268.19 81.00% General Operating Budget General Supplies $3,500.00 $3,647.90 $3,000.00 $6,500.00 $3,500.00 116.67% Animal Control Costs $5,500.00 $4,077.22 $5,100.00 $4,500.00 -$600.00 -11.76% Election Expenses $6,500.00 $5,432.63 $12,000.00 $7,500.00 -$4,500.00 -37.50% Election Reimbursable $1,500.00 $1,033.28 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 33.33% Election Supplies $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $400.00 $197.04 $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $2,250.00 $814.44 $2,250.00 $1,500.00 -$750.00 -33.33% Dues and Subscriptions $400.00 $355.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 0.00% Printing $350.00 $657.95 $400.00 $600.00 $200.00 50.00% BCA elections $5,200.00 $1,841.31 $9,700.00 $3,700.00 -$6,000.00 -61.86% Election Workers $4,200.00 $1,601.40 $9,000.00 $3,500.00 -$5,500.00 -61.11% BCA Appeals/Abatements $350.00 $0.00 $350.00 $700.00 $350.00 100.00% Office Equip Maintenance $1,300.00 $906.29 $1,200.00 $1,800.00 $600.00 50.00% Travel & Training $4,200.00 $4,063.79 $4,200.00 $4,200.00 $0.00 0.00% Photocopier Lease Prin $1,500.00 $1,488.00 $1,500.00 $1,700.00 $200.00 13.33% Total General Operating Budget $37,150.00 $26,116.25 $51,000.00 $39,000.00 -$12,000.00 -23.53% Total Clerk $261,237.66 $246,728.79 $285,901.23 $464,169.43 $178,268.19 62.35% PHYSICAL PLANT Wages and Benefits Physical Plant Salaries-Perm. $0.00 $0.00 $167,658.49 $251,968.90 $84,310.41 50.29% Over Time $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $0.00 $0.00 $12,825.87 $19,658.12 $6,832.25 53.27% Fringe Benefits $1,800.00 $1,800.00 0.00% Vision Plan $417.24 $417.24 0.00% Disability Insurance $2,776.36 $2,776.36 0.00% Group Health Plan $76,401.98 $76,401.98 0.00% Group Life Insurance $1,250.48 $1,250.48 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $3,648.48 $3,648.48 0.00% Pension $32,441.00 $32,441.00 0.00% ICMA Match $7,796.48 $7,796.48 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $0.00 $0.00 $180,484.36 $403,159.04 $222,674.68 123.38% General Operating Budget Cleaning Supplies $0.00 $0.00 $42,000.00 $45,785.00 $3,785.00 9.01% Building Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $10,250.00 $14,250.00 $4,000.00 39.02% Building Repair $0.00 $0.00 $15,900.00 $21,900.00 $6,000.00 37.74% Bio waste Disposal $0.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 -$400.00 -40.00% Recycle & Trash Removal $0.00 $0.00 $17,100.00 $18,900.00 $1,800.00 10.53% HVAC Maintenance $0.00 $0.00 $31,020.00 $40,100.00 $9,080.00 29.27% Electricity-City Hall $0.00 $0.00 $14,250.00 $70,250.00 $56,000.00 392.98% Heating/Cooling-City Hall $0.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 $14,600.00 $7,600.00 108.57% Generator Preventive Maint.$0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,000.00 33.33% Facility Stewardship $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $12,500.00 $2,500.00 25.00% Facilities Cleaning Services $0.00 $0.00 $90,000.00 $97,000.00 $7,000.00 7.78% Total General Operating Budget $0.00 $0.00 $253,520.00 $355,885.00 $102,365.00 40.38% Capital Budget PP Capital projects $116,000.00 $116,000.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $116,000.00 Total Physical Plant $0.00 $0.00 $434,004.36 $875,044.04 $327,539.68 75.47% FINANCE, ASSESSING & TAX Wages and Benefits Assessing/Tax Sal.-Perm. $233,089.92 $274,930.96 $322,752.92 $397,948.87 $75,195.95 23.30% Leave Time Turn-in $3,322.80 $3,322.80 0.00% Overtime $800.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Page 4 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) FICA/Medicare $17,892.58 $21,784.75 $24,690.60 $30,443.09 $5,752.49 23.30% Fringe Benefits $2,100.00 $2,100.00 0.00% Vision Plan $619.08 $619.08 0.00% Disability Insurance $3,470.45 $3,470.45 0.00% Group Health Plan $89,186.54 $89,186.54 0.00% Group Life Insurance $1,563.10 $1,563.10 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $5,501.40 $5,501.40 0.00% Pension $74,531.55 $74,531.55 0.00% ICMA Match $21,887.19 $21,887.19 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $251,782.50 $296,715.71 $347,443.52 $630,574.07 $283,130.55 81.49% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $2,500.00 $3,040.05 $3,000.00 $3,200.00 $200.00 6.67% Advertising $500.00 $248.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $300.00 $260.08 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $5,500.00 $7,203.74 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Dues and Memberships $500.00 $550.35 $800.00 $800.00 $0.00 0.00% Printing $3,500.00 $3,058.15 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Consulting/Assessing Other $30,000.00 $23,140.00 $30,000.00 $5,000.00 -$25,000.00 -83.33% Appeals and Abatements $6,000.00 $11,771.17 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 25.00% Gen Govt. Actuaries/Pension $24,000.00 $20,900.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Gen Govt. Audit/Accounting $28,000.00 $29,250.00 $35,000.00 $30,500.00 -$4,500.00 -12.86% NEMRC/APEX $5,500.00 $7,595.03 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,000.00 14.29% Travel & Training $3,000.00 $606.79 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $109,300.00 $107,623.36 $120,600.00 $93,300.00 -$27,300.00 -22.64% Total Finance, Tax and Assessing $361,082.50 $404,339.07 $468,043.52 $723,874.07 $255,830.55 54.66% PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Wages and Benefits Planning Salaries-Perm. $289,802.25 $341,716.41 $372,532.08 $548,721.83 $176,189.75 47.30% Leave Time Turn-In $2,428.00 $2,428.00 0.00% Overtime $6,300.00 $4,230.34 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $22,651.82 $27,893.19 $28,881.20 $42,359.72 $13,478.52 46.67% Fringe Benefits $3,300.00 $3,300.00 0.00% Vision Plan $478.80 $478.80 0.00% Disability Insurance $4,858.63 $4,858.63 0.00% Group Health Plan $86,531.77 $86,531.77 0.00% Group Life Insurance $2,188.34 $2,188.34 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $4,251.24 $4,251.24 0.00% Pension $70,647.94 $70,647.94 0.00% ICMA Match $30,179.70 $30,179.70 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $318,754.07 $373,839.94 $406,413.28 $800,945.97 $394,532.69 97.08% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $2,500.00 $1,095.33 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Public Meeting Advertising $3,000.00 $2,630.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $150.00 $137.83 $150.00 $150.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $800.00 $549.67 $800.00 $800.00 $0.00 0.00% Dues and Subscriptions $1,650.00 $880.35 $1,650.00 $2,000.00 $350.00 21.21% Document Printing $700.00 $0.00 $700.00 $700.00 $0.00 0.00% Consultants $55,000.00 $67,385.75 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Cmte Support (Nat Res, Energy, Other)$2,900.00 $253.67 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Payment for GIS services $2,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,635.00 $12,635.00 0.00% PC/DRB Stipends $9,000.00 $8,564.00 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Travel & Training $4,500.00 $2,308.77 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $2,500.00 50.00% Equipment $1,500.00 $14.95 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Special Projects/permitting Software $0.00 $0.00 $75,000.00 $20,000.00 -$55,000.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $84,200.00 $83,820.32 $157,300.00 $117,785.00 -$39,515.00 -25.12% Total Planning and Zoning $402,954.07 $457,660.26 $563,713.28 $918,730.97 $355,017.69 62.98% CULTURE AND RECREATION RECREATION ADMINISTRATION Wages and Benefits Rec.Admin.Salaries-Perm. $279,351.07 $262,219.84 $291,160.46 $313,990.32 $22,829.86 7.84% Leave Time Turn-In $7,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 $10,739.60 $7,739.60 257.99% Page 5 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) Overtime $1,500.00 $7,785.93 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $22,020.61 $20,837.28 $22,656.28 $24,020.26 $1,363.98 6.02% Fringe Benefits $2,300.00 $2,300.00 0.00% Vision Plan $374.40 $374.40 0.00% Disability Insurance $3,470.45 $3,470.45 0.00% Group Health Plan $68,315.44 $68,315.44 0.00% Group Life Insurance $1,563.10 $1,563.10 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $2,879.88 $2,879.88 0.00% Pension $52,546.06 $52,546.06 0.00% ICMA Match $8,714.19 $8,714.19 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $309,871.68 $290,843.05 $318,816.73 $490,913.70 $172,096.97 53.98% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $1,500.00 $2,497.26 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 0.00% Clothing $1,000.00 $1,158.00 $1,200.00 $3,000.00 $1,800.00 150.00% Telephone $1,500.00 $1,002.72 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $150.00 $8.72 $150.00 $50.00 -$100.00 -66.67% Dues and Subscriptions $1,700.00 $2,349.57 $2,100.00 $2,400.00 $300.00 14.29% Scholarships $1,000.00 $85.96 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Printing/Advertising/Marketing $36,000.00 $3,280.68 $25,000.00 $11,000.00 -$14,000.00 -56.00% Computer Software Contract $5,000.00 $5,269.24 $6,000.00 $11,000.00 $5,000.00 83.33% Travel & Training $3,500.00 $2,382.89 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 100.00% Lease Printer and Copier $1,500.00 $169.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $52,850.00 $18,204.46 $40,700.00 $36,700.00 -$4,000.00 -9.83% Total Recreation Administration $362,721.68 $309,047.51 $359,516.73 $527,613.70 $168,096.97 46.76% RECREATION PROGRAMS General Operating Budget Supplies and Equipment $11,000.00 $8,192.18 $11,000.00 $11,000.00 $0.00 0.00% SoBu Night Out $27,000.00 $27,463.84 $27,000.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 11.11% Adult Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0.00% Special Events $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 0.00% Youth Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 0.00% Program Cell Phones $2,400.00 $1,071.43 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Advertising $9,000.00 $1,842.86 $7,000.00 -$7,000.00 -100.00% School Use $3,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $52,400.00 $38,570.31 $50,000.00 $146,000.00 $96,000.00 192.00% Red Rock Park Budgeted under Recreation Facilities Red Rocks Park Salaries $8,500.00 $10,347.49 $12,285.00 $0.00 -$12,285.00 -144.53% FICA/Medicare $650.25 $789.63 $939.80 $0.00 -$939.80 -144.53% General Supplies $1,000.00 $873.98 $1,000.00 $0.00 -$1,000.00 -100.00% Clothing $200.00 $184.00 $200.00 $0.00 -$200.00 -100.00% Telephone $250.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Utilities $400.00 $492.73 $500.00 $0.00 -$500.00 -100.00% $11,000.25 $12,687.83 $14,924.80 $0.00 -$14,924.80 -100.00% RECREATION FACILITIES General Operating Budget Seasonal Park Salaries $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $956.25 $956.25 0.00% Supplies-Park Facilities $5,000.00 $1,486.61 $2,500.00 $8,000.00 $5,500.00 220.00% Vehicle Maintenance $1,500.00 $2,241.02 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $4,500.00 300.00% Fuel-Gas - Heat-Park Facilities $1,500.00 $1,524.45 $1,500.00 $1,600.00 $100.00 6.67% Facilities Maintenance Contracts $1,500.00 $1,070.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 -$1,500.00 -100.00% Port-O-Lets $7,000.00 $7,090.00 $7,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,000.00 14.29% Electric-Park Facilities $1,300.00 $1,825.71 $1,300.00 $6,000.00 $4,700.00 361.54% Electric-Dorset Park $3,000.00 $2,737.57 $3,000.00 $0.00 -$3,000.00 -100.00% Electric-Overlook Park $300.00 $348.88 $500.00 $0.00 -$500.00 -100.00% Electric-Tennis Courts $300.00 $283.03 $350.00 $0.00 -$350.00 -100.00% Ongoing Facilities Improvements $20,000.00 $3,157.50 $20,000.00 $32,000.00 $12,000.00 60.00% Total General Operating Budget $41,400.00 $21,764.77 $39,150.00 $75,056.25 $35,906.25 91.71% Capital Budget Capital Items $35,000.00 $31,120.00 $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $76,400.00 $52,884.77 $139,150.00 $175,056.25 $35,906.25 25.80% Page 6 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) SENIOR PROGRAMS General Operating Budget Program Supplies $2,000.00 $8,242.89 $2,000.00 $9,500.00 $7,500.00 375.00% Meal Cost $14,500.00 $6,256.20 $14,500.00 $15,000.00 $500.00 3.45% Marketing $2,000.00 $101.46 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Senior Programs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Custodial $4,200.00 $4,523.29 $6,701.57 -$6,701.57 -100.00% Senior Events $3,000.00 $1,895.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $9,000.00 300.00% Utilities $6,800.00 $3,734.57 $5,110.00 -$5,110.00 -100.00% $32,500.00 $24,753.41 $33,311.57 $38,500.00 $5,188.43 15.58% Contracted General Programs Budgeted under Recreation programs Adult Programs $23,000.00 $322.14 $12,000.00 $0.00 -$12,000.00 -100.00% Special Events $20,000.00 $20,753.67 $20,000.00 $0.00 -$20,000.00 -100.00% Swim Lessons-Sport/Fit Ed $1,500.00 $3,180.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 -$1,500.00 -100.00% Youth Programs $30,000.00 $21,161.54 $25,000.00 $0.00 -$25,000.00 -100.00% Driver's Education $38,000.00 $24,550.00 $28,000.00 $0.00 -$28,000.00 -100.00% VRPA Discount $9,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Ski Programs $11,000.00 $0.00 $11,000.00 $0.00 -$11,000.00 -100.00% Chorus Director $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 -$4,000.00 -100.00% $137,100.00 $73,967.35 $101,500.00 $0.00 -$101,500.00 -100.00% PUBLIC LIBRARY Wages and Benefits Library Salaries $536,361.98 $500,692.01 $605,115.45 $666,035.33 $60,919.87 10.07% FICA/Medicare $41,031.69 $39,320.39 $46,291.33 $50,951.70 $4,660.37 10.07% Fringe Benefits $3,000.00 $3,000.00 0.00% Vision Plan $540.72 $540.72 0.00% Disability Insurance $6,246.81 $6,246.81 0.00% Group Health Plan $113,900.81 $113,900.81 0.00% Group Life Insurance $2,813.58 $2,813.58 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $4,764.72 $4,764.72 0.00% Pension $65,112.10 $65,112.10 0.00% ICMA Match $19,630.86 $19,630.86 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $577,393.67 $540,012.40 $651,406.78 $932,996.63 $281,589.84 43.23% General Operating Budget Library Supplies $7,000.00 $7,766.64 $7,250.00 $8,500.00 $1,250.00 17.24% Books - Adult $20,000.00 $20,763.56 $20,000.00 $22,000.00 $2,000.00 10.00% Books - Children $10,000.00 $7,116.95 $10,000.00 $10,800.00 $800.00 8.00% DVDs/CDs-Adult $7,000.00 $5,891.31 $7,000.00 $7,500.00 $500.00 7.14% DVDs/CDs-Children $1,000.00 $835.34 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 -$500.00 -33.33% Program Supplies-Arts/Craft $3,000.00 $3,487.93 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 16.67% Books - Young Adults $4,000.00 $3,326.27 $4,000.00 $4,500.00 $500.00 12.50% Lost Book Replacement $1,000.00 $1,000.00 0.00% Bookmobile maintenance $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $2,500.00 $925.88 $2,500.00 $1,700.00 -$800.00 -32.00% Inter-Library delivery $2,157.00 $1,843.22 $2,232.00 $2,232.00 $0.00 0.00% Dues and Subscriptions $1,400.00 $1,786.44 $1,500.00 $1,800.00 $300.00 20.00% Online & Print Subscription $20,625.00 $19,293.07 $20,000.00 $23,000.00 $3,000.00 15.00% Community Programs $6,000.00 $6,243.08 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 20.00% Janitorial Services & Supplies $40,800.00 $49,693.44 $65,100.92 $0.00 -$65,100.92 -100.00% Repair/Maintenance Library $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Building Lease $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Computer Operations - Software $2,000.00 $2,597.63 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 25.00% Computer Operations - Hardware $11,000.00 $12,470.57 $3,000.00 $4,000.00 $1,000.00 33.33% Travel & Training $1,500.00 $307.24 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Utilities $57,800.00 $55,440.32 $49,640.00 $0.00 -$49,640.00 -100.00% Library Equipment $26,579.00 $12,870.87 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Computer Program Fees $6,000.00 $6,377.28 $6,000.00 $6,500.00 $500.00 8.33% C/L Photocopier Lease Pri $6,000.00 $4,064.56 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $236,861.00 $223,101.60 $215,222.92 $112,032.00 -$103,190.92 -47.95% Total Public Library $814,254.67 $763,114.00 $866,629.70 $1,045,028.63 $178,398.92 20.59% Page 7 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) PUBLIC SAFETY FIRE & AMBULANCE SERVICES DEPARTMENT Wages & Benefits Fire Salaries-Permanent $2,256,045.39 $2,234,439.06 $2,395,409.13 $2,735,934.13 $340,525.00 14.22% Leave time turn-in $5,500.00 $5,500.00 0.00% Holiday Pay $335,100.00 $370,109.76 $359,755.77 $397,609.77 $37,854.00 10.52% Fair Labor Standard O/T $106,149.70 $106,149.70 $111,352.98 $114,982.65 $3,629.68 3.26% F/D Overtime - Fill-In $160,000.00 $301,364.87 $160,000.00 $185,000.00 $25,000.00 15.63% F/D Overtime - Training $0.00 $1,276.44 $16,000.00 $20,000.00 $4,000.00 25.00% F/D Overtime - Emerg Call $0.00 $35.37 $12,500.00 $9,000.00 -$3,500.00 -28.00% Wellness/Fitness (Fringe Benefit) $23,000.00 $18,583.29 $23,000.00 $24,725.00 $1,725.00 7.50% Fire-Off Duty Outside Emp $1,000.00 $846.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% New Employee Training $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 -$10,000.00 -100.00% FICA/Medicare $220,419.07 $234,332.78 $236,845.37 $266,120.60 $29,275.23 12.36% Vision Plan $3,539.40 $3,539.40 0.00% Disability Insurance $4,713.00 $4,713.00 0.00% Group Health Plan $599,564.97 $599,564.97 0.00% Group Life Insurance $11,879.56 $11,879.56 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $33,391.20 $33,391.20 0.00% Pension $527,846.41 $527,846.41 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $3,101,714.16 $3,267,137.27 $3,332,863.25 $4,947,806.70 $1,614,943.45 48.46% General Operating Budget Fire Inspector Car/Equipment $500.00 $4,098.00 $850.00 $850.00 $0.00 0.00% Office Supplies $2,000.00 $1,650.85 $2,100.00 $2,850.00 $750.00 35.71% Oxygen $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Vaccinations-HEP $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 -$500.00 -50.00% REHAB Supplies $300.00 $0.00 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% Station Operating Supply $2,000.00 $2,444.46 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $0.00 0.00% Maintenance Tools $350.00 $50.19 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 0.00% Uniforms $18,000.00 $17,986.99 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Uniforms -Electrical Inspector $450.00 $158.00 $650.00 $0.00 -$650.00 -100.00% Firefighting Clothing (PPE) $10,000.00 $12,797.55 $48,000.00 $13,500.00 -$34,500.00 -71.88% Vehicle Tools $850.00 -$24.99 $500.00 $0.00 -$500.00 -100.00% Gas Chiefs' vehicle & rei $2,800.00 $3,294.12 $2,800.00 $5,250.00 $2,450.00 87.50% Diesel Fuel $19,000.00 $35,043.80 $18,000.00 $46,875.00 $28,875.00 160.42% Oil $600.00 $1,188.94 $725.00 $725.00 $0.00 0.00% Films and Books $1,000.00 $0.00 $500.00 $800.00 $300.00 60.00% Fire Prevention Materials $1,000.00 $50.97 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fire Extinguishers $775.00 $485.00 $850.00 $850.00 $0.00 0.00% Airpacks Maintenance $7,000.00 $6,232.31 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $10,500.00 $16,320.26 $13,500.00 $22,525.00 $9,025.00 66.85% Postage-Tool Shipping $200.00 $169.36 $225.00 $675.00 $450.00 200.00% Dues and Subscriptions $1,500.00 $18,102.00 $2,800.00 $3,500.00 $700.00 25.00% Dues and Subscriptions - Electric $250.00 $270.00 $200.00 $0.00 -$200.00 -100.00% HVAC Maintenance $4,500.00 $4,202.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Stations Maintenance/Repairs $25,000.00 $21,360.75 $25,500.00 $26,500.00 $1,000.00 3.92% Laundry and Bedding $4,000.00 $1,345.59 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Radio Repair $2,500.00 $2,132.46 $5,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,000.00 36.36% Vehicle Maintenance $38,000.00 $17,812.30 $35,000.00 $38,000.00 $3,000.00 8.57% Vehicle Repair $30,000.00 $81,813.42 $30,000.00 $33,000.00 $3,000.00 10.00% Equipment R & M $25,000.00 $10,860.37 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Tires $5,500.00 $0.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Computers Contract ACS $7,000.00 $7,155.84 $12,500.00 $28,825.00 $16,325.00 130.60% Comm Tower Rent $1,500.00 $5,109.00 $1,000.00 $5,100.00 $4,100.00 410.00% Conferences $0.00 $0.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Training Schools $6,500.00 $6,611.02 $10,000.00 $13,500.00 $3,500.00 35.00% Covid Vaccine Admin Expen $0.00 $25,112.97 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Training Schools-Electrical Inspector $500.00 $175.00 $400.00 $400.00 $0.00 0.00% Training Equipment $1,200.00 $400.00 $1,200.00 $4,200.00 $3,000.00 250.00% Recruiting & Testing $2,000.00 $9,174.59 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fire Station #1 Heat/Elec $0.00 $0.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fire Station #2 Heat/Elec $20,000.00 $12,301.38 $17,000.00 $15,000.00 -$2,000.00 -11.76% Fire Safety Equipment $28,000.00 $31,826.26 $28,000.00 $34,000.00 $6,000.00 21.43% Equipment Purchase $250.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 0.00% F/D Furniture/Equipment $5,000.00 $79.99 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Page 8 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) Hoses, Nozzles, Misc.$2,500.00 $53.60 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $4,500.00 300.00% Copier $500.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 $0.00 0.00% Medical Supplies-Disposal $49,000.00 $52,426.67 $49,000.00 $50,225.00 $1,225.00 2.50% Medical Supplies-Oxygen $3,000.00 $2,843.04 $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $0.00 0.00% Medical Equipment Replace $17,500.00 $4,992.77 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Billing Service $35,000.00 $4,775.91 $35,000.00 $41,040.00 $6,040.00 17.26% To Reserve Fund-Training $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $25,000.00 $15,000.00 150.00% EMS Patient Care Equip $33,000.00 $27,850.00 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 $0.00 0.00% State Payment Medicaid/Medicare $24,750.00 $50,831.23 $25,500.00 $29,000.00 $3,500.00 13.73% Total General Operating Budget $461,775.00 $511,563.97 $540,200.00 $616,590.00 $76,390.00 14.14% Capital Budget Vehicle-Fire/Ambulance $400,000.00 $400,000.00 0.00% Thermal Imaging Cameras $30,000.00 $30,000.00 0.00% Total Capital Budget $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $430,000.00 $430,000.00 0.00% Total Fire and Ambulance Services $3,563,489.16 $3,778,701.24 $3,873,063.25 $5,994,396.70 $2,121,333.45 54.77% AMBULANCE Office Supplies $750.00 $493.65 $750.00 $0.00 -$750.00 -100.00% Uniforms-Career $2,500.00 $2,142.42 $3,000.00 $0.00 -$3,000.00 -100.00% Diesel Fuel $6,800.00 $0.00 $6,800.00 $0.00 -$6,800.00 -100.00% Training Films and Books $0.00 $0.00 $300.00 $0.00 -$300.00 -100.00% Telephone $6,200.00 $6,919.84 $6,700.00 $0.00 -$6,700.00 -100.00% Billing Postage $750.00 $105.78 $450.00 $0.00 -$450.00 -100.00% Dues & Subscriptions $500.00 $215.80 $500.00 $0.00 -$500.00 -100.00% Radio Repair $0.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 -$2,000.00 -100.00% Vehicle Maintenance $2,000.00 $1,138.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 -$3,000.00 -100.00% Vehicle Repair $3,000.00 $1,102.33 $3,000.00 $0.00 -$3,000.00 -100.00% Equipment R&M $3,400.00 $7,933.88 $5,000.00 $0.00 -$5,000.00 -100.00% Office Equip Maintenance $250.00 $57.31 $250.00 $0.00 -$250.00 -100.00% Med Equipment Maintenance $2,000.00 $0.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 -$2,000.00 -100.00% Training Programs $2,000.00 $3,226.63 $3,500.00 $0.00 -$3,500.00 -100.00% Training Equipment $500.00 $90.95 $1,000.00 $0.00 -$1,000.00 -100.00% Vehicles/Ambulance $0.00 $0.00 $310,000.00 $0.00 -$310,000.00 -100.00% Operating Transfer out $0.00 $12,062.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $30,650.00 $35,488.59 $348,250.00 $0.00 -$348,250.00 -100.00% POLICE Wages and Benefits Police Salaries-Permanent $3,418,581.44 $3,387,998.63 $3,590,393.02 $3,690,784.34 $100,391.32 2.80% Rec Path Patrol - Interns $0.00 $0.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Leave Time turn-in $4,500.00 $4,500.00 0.00% Police Salaries-Overtime $227,000.00 $332,441.87 $238,350.00 $314,000.00 $75,650.00 31.74% Police Holiday Pay $210,000.00 $218,927.41 $248,708.73 $261,731.84 $13,023.11 5.24% Mandatory Training - Overtime $78,000.00 $68,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 0.00% BCI On Call $14,800.00 $0.00 $16,000.00 $20,800.00 $4,800.00 30.00% Shift Differential $56,000.00 $48,405.46 $56,000.00 $60,286.50 $4,286.50 7.65% Off-Duty Police Salary $10,000.00 $3,710.25 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fitness $10,000.00 $4,225.00 $20,000.00 $25,925.00 $5,925.00 29.63% FICA/Medicare $307,100.18 $308,485.36 $325,542.06 $338,711.60 $13,169.55 4.05% Vision Plan $4,091.88 $4,091.88 0.00% Disability Insurance $12,684.63 $12,684.63 0.00% Group Health Plan $681,299.30 $681,299.30 0.00% Group Life Insurance $15,318.38 $15,318.38 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $43,035.36 $43,035.36 0.00% Pension $683,931.63 $683,931.63 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $4,331,481.62 $4,372,193.98 $4,600,993.80 $6,263,100.46 $1,662,106.65 36.12% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $10,500.00 $11,470.23 $10,500.00 $10,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Firearms equip/supplies $13,000.00 $10,692.55 $13,000.00 $13,500.00 $500.00 3.85% Radio Equipment-Supplies $300.00 $313.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Investigative Supplies $8,500.00 $4,591.87 $8,500.00 $5,000.00 -$3,500.00 -41.18% Youth Services Supplies $2,500.00 $102.50 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Traffic Safety Grant $0.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Traffic Unit Supplies $2,000.00 $4,517.50 $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $500.00 20.00% COMBINED AS ONE BUDGET WITH FIRE -Starting FY24 and forward Page 9 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) K-9 Supplies $4,000.00 $8,647.56 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 50.00% Janitorial Supplies $3,200.00 $2,559.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Uniform Supplies $38,500.00 $34,679.15 $38,500.00 $38,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Tires $9,800.00 $3,304.08 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Gas and Oil $55,000.00 $73,372.76 $57,000.00 $73,500.00 $16,500.00 28.95% Community Outreach $25,680.00 $37,036.00 $40,351.00 $48,380.00 $8,029.00 19.90% Telephone/Internet/Software $30,000.00 $58,878.39 $37,500.00 $50,000.00 $12,500.00 33.33% Postage $2,200.00 $2,119.10 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0.00 0.00% Dues and Subscriptions $2,000.00 $1,250.00 $2,300.00 $2,300.00 $0.00 0.00% Towing Services $1,000.00 $2,535.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 200.00% Crime Prevention Supplies $1,000.00 $235.40 $500.00 $0.00 -$500.00 -100.00% Building Maintenance $15,000.00 $5,912.57 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Uniform Cleaning $15,000.00 $10,846.14 $15,000.00 $13,000.00 -$2,000.00 -13.33% Office Equip. Contract $6,000.00 $4,093.88 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Generator Preventive Maint.$1,200.00 $507.37 $0.00 $750.00 $750.00 0.00% Radio Equip. Maintenance $2,000.00 $1,865.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Repair $55,000.00 $60,330.16 $58,000.00 $62,000.00 $4,000.00 6.90% Computer Connections Syst $8,800.00 $0.00 $8,800.00 $0.00 -$8,800.00 -100.00% Equipment Maintenance $1,500.00 $215.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Records Management System $12,000.00 $1,825.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 -$12,000.00 -100.00% Consulting Services $27,000.00 $22,648.34 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Animal Control Contracts $26,000.00 $37,390.12 $27,820.00 $29,500.00 $1,680.00 6.04% Conferences $0.00 $743.95 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 0.00% In-Service Training $25,000.00 $28,479.86 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Recruiting & Testing $3,000.00 $5,721.49 $3,500.00 $7,500.00 $4,000.00 114.29% Tuition Reimbursement $0.00 $0.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Electric-Police Dept. $60,000.00 $62,011.92 $85,714.29 $86,000.00 $285.71 0.33% Heat/Hot Water $5,500.00 $5,846.78 $7,857.14 $7,900.00 $42.86 0.55% Radio Installation Utility $500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Building Maintenance Fees-Common Area$65,000.00 $88,694.47 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Cleaning/Building Service $33,000.00 $33,135.42 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Equipment $2,500.00 $1,378.43 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Office Equipment $4,000.00 $6,620.39 $4,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 50.00% Taser Replacement/Body worn Cameras $45,000.00 $45,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Computers/software $98,000.00 $214,728.27 $325,000.00 $82,000.00 -$243,000.00 -74.77% Total General Operating Budget $720,180.00 $894,299.48 $954,142.43 $739,130.00 -$215,012.43 -22.53% Capital Budget Building Stewardship $68,000.00 $25,312.49 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicles and Equipment $96,000.00 $93,608.44 $110,000.00 $165,000.00 $55,000.00 50.00% Firearms Replacement $38,000.00 $38,000.00 0.00% Total Capital Budget $164,000.00 $118,920.93 $160,000.00 $253,000.00 $93,000.00 58.13% Total Police $5,215,661.62 $5,385,414.39 $5,715,136.23 $7,255,230.46 $1,540,094.23 26.95% PUBLIC SERVICES STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Wages and Benefits Highway Salaries-Perm. $797,961.31 $832,201.30 $908,726.50 $1,117,249.17 $208,522.67 22.95% Leave Time turn-in $5,500.00 $5,500.00 0.00% Highway Salaries-Overtime $35,000.00 $68,212.86 $40,000.00 $65,000.00 $25,000.00 62.50% On-Call Pay $36,400.00 $36,400.00 $36,400.00 $36,400.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $66,506.14 $69,726.14 $75,362.18 $85,469.56 $10,107.38 13.41% Fringe Benefits $18,792.40 $18,792.40 0.00% Vision Plan $1,760.16 $1,760.16 0.00% Disability Insurance $11,518.88 $11,518.88 0.00% Group Health Plan $308,208.59 $308,208.59 0.00% Group Life Insurance $5,158.23 $5,158.23 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $16,901.62 $16,901.62 0.00% Pension $235,555.05 $235,555.05 0.00% ICMA Match $58,537.38 $58,537.38 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $935,867.45 $1,006,540.30 $1,060,488.68 $1,966,051.04 $905,562.36 85.39% General Operating Budget Drug/Alcohol/Phys.Testing $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Office Supplies $1,750.00 $1,849.88 $1,750.00 $1,800.00 $50.00 2.86% Traffic Light Supplies $28,000.00 $25,795.54 $28,000.00 $30,000.00 $2,000.00 7.14% Page 10 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) Sign Supplies $7,500.00 $9,416.37 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 0.00% City Highways Material $35,000.00 $34,372.07 $35,000.00 $38,000.00 $3,000.00 8.57% Road Striping $20,000.00 $9,487.46 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Winter Salt $135,000.00 $114,681.76 $120,000.00 $130,000.00 $10,000.00 8.33% Winter Sand $300.00 $97.22 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% Winter Liquid Deicer Addi $16,500.00 $12,168.96 $15,000.00 $16,000.00 $1,000.00 6.67% Building Supplies $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Uniforms $20,000.00 $16,232.50 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Repair Parts $80,000.00 $102,153.35 $80,000.00 $86,000.00 $6,000.00 7.50% School Bus parts $37,500.00 $47,494.55 $37,500.00 $37,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Gasoline HW $35,000.00 $32,716.23 $35,000.00 $38,000.00 $3,000.00 8.57% Oil $4,000.00 $3,107.50 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Diesel Fuel HW $27,500.00 $52,829.19 $27,500.00 $35,000.00 $7,500.00 27.27% Diesel/Gasoline Non City $120,000.00 $158,315.52 $110,000.00 $120,000.00 $10,000.00 9.09% Fuel Station Maintenance $1,500.00 $1,478.28 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Software/Asset management $6,000.00 $722.50 $6,000.00 $28,635.00 $22,635.00 377.25% Telephone/Internet $6,000.00 $6,586.56 $6,200.00 $6,800.00 $600.00 9.68% Building Maintenance $31,400.00 $32,631.80 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 0.00% HVAC Maintenance $5,000.00 $2,629.68 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Generator Preventive Maint.$4,500.00 $3,105.86 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Consulting Services $20,000.00 $92,902.37 $20,000.00 $35,000.00 $15,000.00 75.00% Tree Care $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 0.00% Equipment Rental/Purchase $1,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Office Equipment Maintnce $1,500.00 $1,849.90 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Travel & Training $5,000.00 $4,187.80 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Utilities - Garage $15,000.00 $14,483.55 $16,500.00 $17,000.00 $500.00 3.03% Utilities-Garage Heat $13,000.00 $16,649.54 $13,200.00 $15,000.00 $1,800.00 13.64% Traffic Lights -Electricity $21,000.00 $19,307.03 $21,000.00 $21,500.00 $500.00 2.38% Curbs and Sidewalks $1,500.00 $476.50 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 33.33% Bike/Ped Maintnce/Paving $0.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $40,000.00 $10,000.00 33.33% Facility Stewardship $10,000.00 $6,570.45 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Operating Transfers Out $0.00 $3,350.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $710,450.00 $827,649.92 $691,450.00 $800,535.00 $109,085.00 15.78% Capital Budget public works facility expansion $330,000.00 $330,000.00 0.00% Ash Trees $50,000.00 $56,511.68 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Replacement $225,000.00 $231,085.08 $225,000.00 $305,000.00 $80,000.00 35.56% Highway Paving $700,000.00 $735,228.13 $720,000.00 $800,000.00 $80,000.00 11.11% Dorset Street Signal $600,000.00 $9,563.81 $600,000.00 $324,000.00 -$276,000.00 -46.00% Total Capital Budget $1,575,000.00 $1,032,388.70 $1,595,000.00 $1,809,000.00 $214,000.00 13.42% Total Street and Highways $3,221,317.45 $2,866,578.92 $3,346,938.68 $4,575,586.04 $1,228,647.36 36.71% PARK MAINTENANCE Wages and Benefits Park Maint.Salaries-Perm.$209,696.26 $226,847.57 $262,775.23 $369,506.09 $106,730.85 40.62% Park Maint.Sal-Overtime $10,000.00 $9,104.64 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $16,806.76 $18,631.86 $20,867.31 $33,145.35 $12,278.04 58.84% Fringe Benefits $7,260.00 $7,260.00 0.00% Vision Plan $521.64 $521.64 0.00% Disability Insurance $4,164.54 $4,164.54 0.00% Group Health Plan $100,834.73 $100,834.73 0.00% Group Life Insurance $1,875.72 $1,875.72 0.00% Group Dental Insurance $4,538.28 $4,538.28 0.00% Pension $68,258.59 $68,258.59 0.00% ICMA Match $18,329.99 $18,329.99 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $236,503.02 $254,584.07 $293,642.54 $618,434.92 $324,792.38 110.61% General Operating Budget Park Supplies $30,000.00 $27,057.13 $30,000.00 $32,000.00 $2,000.00 6.67% Maintenance & Landscaping Contract $45,000.00 $55,986.87 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Cemetery Supplies $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Wheeler House $0.00 $3,046.61 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $76,000.00 $87,090.61 $106,000.00 $108,000.00 $2,000.00 1.89% Total Park Maintenance $312,503.02 $341,674.68 $399,642.54 $726,434.92 $326,792.38 81.77% Page 11 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS $16,189,528.91 $16,263,960.10 $17,683,983.93 $19,257,071.09 $1,573,087.15 8.90% TOTAL GENERAL OPERATING $4,747,366.25 $4,880,533.34 $5,714,703.22 $5,777,220.98 $62,517.76 1.09% TOTAL CAPTIAL PROJECTS $1,814,000.00 $1,233,024.23 $1,897,000.00 $2,790,000.00 $893,000.00 47.07% DEBT SERVICE REPAYMENT Principal Payment Public Works Facility $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Pension Liability Note Principal $395,407.02 $586,223.59 $586,224.00 $586,224.00 $0.00 0.00% Kennedy Dr Reconstruction $22,493.70 $22,508.00 $22,493.70 $22,493.70 $0.00 0.00% Lime Kiln Bridge $22,494.00 $22,508.00 $22,494.00 $22,494.00 $0.00 0.00% F/D Building Improvements $29,991.60 $30,005.00 $29,991.60 $29,991.60 $0.00 0.00% Police Headquarters $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $360,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Communications Equipment-Community$190,000.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $190,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total Principal payment $1,020,386.32 $1,211,244.59 $1,211,203.30 $1,211,203.30 $0.00 0.00% Interest Payment Public Works Facility-Int. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Kennedy Dr Reconstruction $3,926.00 $2,458.56 $2,924.00 $1,705.00 -$1,219.00 -41.69% Lime Kiln Bridge $3,926.00 $2,458.56 $2,824.00 $1,705.00 -$1,119.00 -39.62% F/D Building Improvements $5,264.00 $3,277.47 $3,787.00 $2,287.00 -$1,500.00 -39.61% Police Headquarters $160,866.00 $160,866.00 $145,602.00 $129,780.00 -$15,822.00 -10.87% Pension Liability Note Interest $272,982.59 $102,589.13 $93,613.00 $83,668.00 -$9,945.00 -10.62% Sewer Fund Note-Solar $12,005.00 $12,005.00 $12,005.00 $0.00 -$12,005.00 -100.00% Communications Equipment-Community $22,002.00 $22,330.13 $18,335.00 $14,668.00 -$3,667.00 -20.00% Total Interest payment $480,971.59 $305,984.85 $279,090.00 $233,813.00 -$45,277.00 -16.22% Total debt payment $1,501,357.91 $1,517,229.44 $1,490,293.30 $1,445,016.30 -$45,277.00 -3.04% SOCIAL SERVICES &OTHER OPERATING ENTITIES G.B.I.C. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% V.L.C.T. $23,440.00 $23,440.00 $25,198.00 $27,088.00 $1,890.00 7.50% Chamber of Commerce $3,600.00 $0.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $0.00 0.00% Social Services $15,000.00 $15,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% CCTV-Clickable Meetings $21,000.00 $20,000.00 $22,050.00 $22,050.00 $0.00 0.00% Front Porch Forum $4,900.00 $5,028.00 $5,200.00 $5,530.00 $330.00 6.35% County Court $145,000.00 $145,956.56 $147,677.11 $155,060.97 $7,383.86 5.00% Winooski Valley Park $63,320.00 $63,320.00 $67,916.00 $72,913.00 $4,997.00 7.36% C.C.T.A. $519,232.49 $528,471.00 $538,462.00 $591,554.00 $53,092.00 9.86% Regional Planning $35,991.00 $35,991.00 $37,195.00 $40,014.00 $2,819.00 7.58% $836,483.49 $842,706.56 $867,298.11 $937,809.97 $70,511.86 8.13% TO CAPITAL/RESERVE FUNDS Ambulance Department $155,000.00 $155,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Payment to Sickbank Fund 298 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $125,000.00 $125,000.00 0.00% Fuel Pump Reserve Fund $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $8,200.00 $0.00 0.00% Open Space Reserve Fund $310,870.00 $310,870.00 Under other approved ballot items $0.00 0.00% Penny for Paths $310,870.00 $310,870.00 Under other approved ballot items $0.00 0.00% To undesignated reserve fund $12,000.00 $2,118.63 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% To Recreation Center Reserve $0.00 $0.00 0.00% To Capital Improvements $860,000.00 $860,000.00 $800,000.00 $800,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $1,656,940.00 $1,647,058.63 $808,200.00 $933,200.00 $125,000.00 15.47% Total General Fund $26,745,676.56 $26,384,512.30 $28,461,478.56 $31,140,318.33 $2,678,839.77 9.41% Page 12 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 FY 23-24 $ Change FY 23-24 % Change DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-) %(+/-) VT Payment in Lieu of Tax $230,000.00 $208,967.95 $240,000.00 $216,000.00 ($24,000.00)-10.00% Taxes, Reappraisal/ACT 60 $65,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Penalty, Current & Prior $160,000.00 $191,260.08 $170,000.00 $195,000.00 $25,000.00 14.71% Interest, Current & Prior $80,000.00 $73,289.64 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Attorney Fees $3,000.00 $123.90 $1,000.00 $500.00 ($500.00)-50.00% Fee to Collect State Educ $99,000.00 $111,949.00 $100,000.00 $115,000.00 $15,000.00 15.00% Current Use $15,300.00 $21,171.00 $18,000.00 $23,000.00 $5,000.00 27.78% $652,300.00 $606,761.57 $619,000.00 $639,500.00 $20,500.00 3.31% Local Option Tax-Sales $2,950,000.00 $3,359,792.35 $3,083,388.90 $3,700,000.00 $616,611.10 20.00% Local Option Tax-Rooms/Me $850,000.00 $1,071,902.15 $950,000.00 $1,150,000.00 $200,000.00 21.05% $3,800,000.00 $4,431,694.50 $4,033,388.90 $4,850,000.00 $816,611.10 20.25% Other Health Services Revenue $0.00 $314,141.89 $247,346.40 $267,346.40 $20,000.00 8.09% $0.00 $314,141.89 $247,346.40 $267,346.40 $20,000.00 8.09% ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ARPA - Salary $0.00 $344,391.17 $280,519.44 $194,726.23 ($85,793.20)-30.58% ARPA -Projects $0.00 $0.00 $672,000.00 $541,500.00 ($130,500.00)-19.42% Admin. Services-Stormwater $134,392.00 $134,392.00 $102,103.95 $95,000.00 ($7,103.95)-6.96% Administrative Services-Sewer $150,336.00 $150,336.00 $149,344.05 $145,281.42 ($4,062.63)-2.72% Marathon cost share-WW $22,031.39 $22,031.39 0.00% Marathon cost share-SW $25,178.73 $25,178.73 0.00% From Sewer-Audit/ Actuary/Asset $6,214.00 $6,214.00 4,246.55 $3,773.86 ($472.69)-11.13% From SW-Audit & Actuary/Asset $3,555.00 $3,555.00 6,180.66 $4,287.21 ($1,893.45)-30.64% Wellness Payment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Pension Liability Note - Sewer $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $0.00 0.00% Pension Liability Note - Stormwater $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $0.00 0.00% From Water-Audit $0.00 $2,100.00 $2,554.71 $2,272.71 ($282.00)-11.04% From SW- Legal costs $22,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 ($5,000.00)-100.00% From SB Water-Insurance Liability $0.00 $5,727.00 $0.00 $5,175.00 $5,175.00 0.00% Spending Rebates $0.00 $1,451.99 $0.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 0.00% Payment Payroll Services-Sewer $1,825.00 $1,825.00 $1,796.41 $1,692.27 ($104.14)-5.80% Payment Payroll ServiceStormw $1,825.00 $1,825.00 $1,347.31 $1,480.74 $133.43 9.90% Administrative Svc-CJC $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Interest on Investments $63,000.00 $63,331.30 $70,000.00 $250,000.00 $180,000.00 257.14% Solar Credits $15,000.00 $10,590.23 $15,000.00 $14,000.00 ($1,000.00)-6.67% CIGNA/VLCT Insur Rebate $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Worker's Comp. Reimbursement $0.00 $97,229.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Insurance Reimbursement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Third Floor Rooms Rental $0.00 $375.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 0.00% Miscellaneous $2,500.00 $29,150.66 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% 2nd Floor Lease Revenue $155,000.00 $180,092.57 $218,997.24 $205,308.00 ($13,689.24)-6.25% Operating Transfers In fund 216 $0.00 $0.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 ($40,000.00)-100.00% Open Space funds (5% park maintenance is use to fund park staff)$20,634.00 $20,634.00 0.00% Transfers In fund 242-Energy fund $66,500.00 $66,500.00 0.00% Energy fund, Grants, impact fees, $0.00 $0.00 0.00% CIP Reserve-Assigned fund balance $170,000.00 $170,000.00 0.00% $0.00 0.00% $625,132.00 $1,104,570.92 $1,640,075.32 $1,842,326.56 $202,251.24 12.33% CITY CLERK Recording Fees $220,000.00 $230,125.00 $275,000.00 $230,000.00 ($45,000.00)-16.36% Photocopy Fees $25,000.00 $25,723.15 $25,000.00 $22,000.00 ($3,000.00)-12.00% Photocopies-Vital Records $30,000.00 $57,752.00 $46,500.00 $60,000.00 $13,500.00 29.03% Pet Licenses $23,000.00 $27,275.35 $24,000.00 $26,000.00 $2,000.00 8.33% Pet Control Fees $1,500.00 $4,072.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Beverage/Cabaret License $9,000.00 $7,740.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Page 1 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 FY 23-24 $ Change FY 23-24 % Change DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-) %(+/-) Entertainment Permit $0.00 $130.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Marriage Licenses $1,400.00 $1,270.00 $1,500.00 $1,300.00 ($200.00)-13.33% Green Mountain Passports $300.00 $412.00 $300.00 $400.00 $100.00 33.33% Motor Vehicle Renewals $300.00 $324.20 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% Election Expenses Reimbur $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% General- Election Reimbur $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $500.00 33.33% Miscellaneous Income $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $312,000.00 $356,323.70 $383,100.00 $351,000.00 ($32,100.00)-8.38% PLANNING/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Zoning & Sign Permits $240,000.00 $514,323.51 $270,000.00 $400,000.00 $130,000.00 48.15% Bianchi Ruling $15,000.00 $23,810.00 $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $3,000.00 20.00% Development Review $95,000.00 $126,093.37 $95,000.00 $140,000.00 $45,000.00 47.37% Sewer Inspection Fees $2,500.00 $2,450.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Peddlers' Permits $600.00 $170.00 $600.00 $600.00 $0.00 0.00% Solar Credit-Transfer In Fund $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $353,100.00 $666,846.88 $383,100.00 $561,100.00 $178,000.00 46.46% SENIOR PROGRAM Meal costs $14,500.00 $5,798.00 $14,500.00 $15,000.00 $500.00 3.45% Rentals $5,000.00 $1,600.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 20.00% Senior Programs $5,000.00 $2,210.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Grants $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $500.00 $500.00 0.00% Donations $2,000.00 $727.00 $2,000.00 $150.00 ($1,850.00)-92.50% $36,500.00 $10,335.00 $26,500.00 $26,650.00 $150.00 0.57% SPECIAL ACTIVITIES VRPA Discounts $9,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Youth Programs $70,000.00 $54,147.62 $50,000.00 $86,000.00 $36,000.00 72.00% Adult Evening Classes $28,000.00 $138.75 $13,000.00 $2,000.00 ($11,000.00)-84.62% Special Event Revenue $12,000.00 $23,065.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Afternoon Skiing/Middle Sc $16,000.00 $0.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 ($16,000.00)-100.00% Drivers Education $42,000.00 $26,055.00 $31,000.00 $0.00 ($31,000.00)-100.00% SoBu Night Out $30,000.00 $18,965.00 $20,000.00 $22,000.00 $2,000.00 10.00% $207,600.00 $122,371.37 $145,000.00 $125,000.00 ($20,000.00)-13.79% COMMUNITY LIBRARY Grants $600.00 $1,373.54 $1,000.00 $600.00 ($400.00)-40.00% Library Lost Books $0.00 $1,414.15 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 ($1,000.00)-50.00% General Fees $600.00 $266.00 $600.00 $200.00 ($400.00)-66.67% Non-Resident Fees $1,800.00 $2,900.75 $2,000.00 $2,250.00 $250.00 12.50% Conference Room Rental $1,000.00 $720.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Library Photocopies & Printing $2,700.00 $1,198.61 $2,700.00 $2,000.00 ($700.00)-25.93% Library Miscellaneous $400.00 $492.51 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Transfer In - Fund Balance $37,579.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $44,679.00 $8,365.56 $10,300.00 $8,050.00 ($2,250.00)-21.84% FIRE DEPARTMENT Covid Vax Grant Reimbursement $0.00 $48,761.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Electrical Inspection Revenue $70,000.00 $58,648.42 $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Outside Employment $700.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Misc. Revenue-Fire Dept.$0.00 $3,828.19 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Fire Inspection Revenue $440,000.00 $891,017.97 $480,000.00 $725,000.00 $245,000.00 51.04% $510,700.00 $1,002,256.36 $554,000.00 $799,000.00 $245,000.00 44.22% AMBULANCE Tax Revenues $155,000.00 $155,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Ambulance Service Billing $750,000.00 $838,775.89 $720,000.00 $912,000.00 $192,000.00 26.67% Ambulance Service Billing-New Ambulance additional revenues $77,000.00 $77,000.00 0.00% Miscellaneous Income $5,000.00 $343.33 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $910,000.00 $994,119.22 $721,000.00 $990,000.00 $269,000.00 37.31% Page 2 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 FY 23-24 $ Change FY 23-24 % Change DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-)%(+/-) POLICE Vermont District Court $10,000.00 $7,333.62 $8,500.00 $8,000.00 ($500.00)-5.88% Miscellaneous Grants $5,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 ($5,000.00)-100.00% Sale of Cruisers/Bequest $3,000.00 $8,191.00 $3,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 66.67% Police Reports $2,000.00 $609.85 $1,000.00 $500.00 ($500.00)-50.00% I.C.A.C.$3,500.00 $1,289.15 $5,000.00 $0.00 ($5,000.00)-100.00% SHARP $8,000.00 $3,113.15 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Drug Task Force Grant $110,000.00 $155,468.43 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Parking Tickets $0.00 $185.00 $5,000.00 $200.00 ($4,800.00)-96.00% Alarm Registrations $20,000.00 $9,938.56 $17,000.00 $12,000.00 ($5,000.00)-29.41% Alarm Fines $3,500.00 $885.00 $2,500.00 $750.00 ($1,750.00)-70.00% Off Duty Police $12,000.00 $3,537.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Bullet Proof Vest Grant $3,000.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $4,500.00 ($500.00)-10.00% Police Impact Fee - defray bond $110,000.00 $140,463.36 $110,000.00 $110,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Solar Credits $1,375.00 $1,073.72 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 ($800.00)-40.00% Miscellaneous - Police $6,000.00 $2,109.04 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Transfer In-Fund 207 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% $297,375.00 $334,196.88 $299,000.00 $277,150.00 ($21,850.00)-7.31% STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Road Opening Permits $100,000.00 $70,289.00 $75,000.00 $80,000.00 $5,000.00 6.67% Overweight truck permits $2,000.00 $1,780.40 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $0.00 0.00% Highway State Aid $225,000.00 $398,365.98 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Grants $600,000.00 $0.00 $480,000.00 $0.00 ($480,000.00) Fuel Pump Surcharge $5,000.00 $4,974.80 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 HazMat Facility Lease $23,000.00 $20,748.36 $28,000.00 $26,000.00 ($2,000.00) School Bus Parts Reimburse $35,000.00 $51,039.06 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $0.00 Diesel/Gas reim Non-City $120,000.00 $160,744.39 $110,000.00 $120,000.00 $10,000.00 School vehicle repair pay $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 Sewer pmt to Highway-Salary & Bene $280,454.00 $280,454.00 $250,000.00 $278,354.89 $28,354.89 Sewer Reimbursement-Benefits $22,944.00 $21,454.73 $33,420.19 $33,289.64 ($130.55) Stormwater pmt to Highway-Rent $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $0.00 Administrative Services-Water $47,500.00 $47,500.00 $42,000.00 $49,003.28 $7,003.28 SW Reimbursement-Benefits $18,773.00 $18,773.00 $33,420.19 $33,289.64 ($130.55) Asset Management Reim from SW & WW $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $9,944.00 $9,944.00 Hgwy Miscellaneous Revenue $20,000.00 $44,792.17 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 -100.00% 0.00% -7.14% 0.00% 9.09% 0.00% 11.34% -0.39% 0.00% 16.67% -0.39% 0.00% 0.00% $1,597,886.00 $1,219,130.89 $1,436,855.38 $1,014,896.45 ($420,158.93) Total General Fund Revenue $9,347,272.00 $11,171,114.74 $10,498,666.00 $11,752,019.41 $1,253,353.41 -29.37% 11.94% Page 3 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 DESCRIPTION BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET BUDGET $(+/-) %(+/-) EXPENDITURES SEWER Wages and Benefits Salaries-Permanent $597,791.71 $645,709.85 $672,300.45 $700,693.02 $28,392.57 4.22% PMT to Highway-wages & Benefits $280,454.00 $280,454.00 $250,000.00 $278,354.89 $28,354.89 11.34% Leave Time Turn-In $7,976.39 $0.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Salaries-Overtime $50,000.00 $77,237.69 $50,000.00 $75,000.00 $25,000.00 50.00% Payment to Sick bank Fund $6,250.00 $6,250.00 $6,677.02 $6,677.02 $0.00 0.00% Payroll Service $1,825.00 $1,825.00 $1,796.41 $1,692.27 -$104.14 -5.80% PAFO Certification $11,400.00 $11,166.39 $29,065.71 $9,000.00 -$20,065.71 -69.04% Sick bank payouts $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% FICA/Medicare $51,803.36 $56,209.70 $58,780.01 $60,794.02 $2,014.00 3.43% Payment to Highway-Benefits $21,454.73 $21,454.73 $33,420.18 $33,289.64 -$130.54 -0.39% Nontaxable Fringe Ben. $4,800.00 $300.00 $4,135.00 $9,300.69 $5,165.69 124.93% Vision Plan $973.59 $682.10 $2,829.21 $779.69 -$2,049.52 -72.44% Disability Insurance (ST & AD&D) $2,009.01 $5,757.08 $2,175.17 $2,139.12 -$36.05 -1.66% Long Term Disability $3,831.84 $0.00 $4,148.39 $4,060.42 -$87.98 -2.12% Group Health Plan $183,863.39 $87,477.60 $196,366.10 $131,970.16 -$64,395.94 -32.79% Group Life Insurance $1,643.25 $1,518.02 $2,829.21 $2,782.32 -$46.89 -1.66% Group Dental Insurance $9,126.27 $5,909.64 $7,893.29 $7,409.53 -$483.76 -6.13% Pension $71,337.26 $82,164.28 $85,733.42 $94,710.61 $8,977.19 10.47% ICMA Match $22,851.77 $22,349.35 $29,065.71 $30,067.64 $1,001.93 3.45% Pension Note Payment $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $39,075.00 $0.00 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $1,378,466.58 $1,345,540.43 $1,493,290.28 $1,504,796.03 $11,505.75 0.77% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $2,000.00 $2,444.65 $2,000.00 $2,100.00 $100.00 5.00% Plant Equipment/supplies $100,000.00 $120,341.77 $120,000.00 $125,000.00 $5,000.00 4.17% Polymer $75,000.00 $109,691.15 $100,000.00 $120,000.00 $20,000.00 20.00% Sewer Line Maint/Supplies $30,000.00 $140,180.68 $25,000.00 $27,000.00 $2,000.00 8.00% Pumping Station Supplies $25,000.00 $27,457.32 $25,000.00 $18,000.00 -$7,000.00 -28.00% Laboratory Supplies $11,500.00 $14,442.52 $13,000.00 $14,500.00 $1,500.00 11.54% Caustic Soda and Lime $110,000.00 $112,799.57 $120,000.00 $175,000.00 $55,000.00 45.83% Alum $125,000.00 $227,066.68 $180,000.00 $280,000.00 $100,000.00 55.56% Water-Airport-B/B-Pump $1,400.00 $1,774.97 $1,600.00 $1,800.00 $200.00 12.50% Generator Preventive Maint. $8,000.00 $13,298.22 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Clothing Supplies $3,750.00 $3,272.53 $4,250.00 $4,250.00 $0.00 0.00% Truck Parts $7,500.00 $14,359.56 $12,500.00 $12,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Gas - Diesel Fuel - Oil $11,000.00 $18,985.44 $12,000.00 $13,000.00 $1,000.00 8.33% Natural Gas - Airport Parkway $55,000.00 $70,130.06 $60,000.00 $65,000.00 $5,000.00 8.33% Natural Gas - Bartlett Bay $6,000.00 $8,222.74 $6,000.00 $6,500.00 $500.00 8.33% Telephone and Alarms $6,500.00 $7,053.85 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 0.00% software dues $4,000.00 $4,232.37 $20,000.00 $39,607.80 $19,607.80 98.04% Discharge Permits $15,000.00 $20,795.01 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Marathon cost share-WW $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,031.39 $22,031.39 0.00% Workers Comp Insurance $37,101.47 $47,471.67 $22,127.75 $18,729.67 -$3,398.08 -15.36% Property Insurance $60,640.99 $66,757.60 $70,040.34 $61,598.06 -$8,442.29 -12.05% Unemployment Insurance $820.00 $0.00 $902.00 $933.57 $31.57 3.50% Safety Items $5,000.00 $12,746.82 $5,000.00 $5,500.00 $500.00 10.00% Billing Payment to CWD $66,135.00 $66,135.00 $69,342.00 $73,000.00 $3,658.00 5.28% Soil/Sludge Management $120,000.00 $164,344.26 $135,000.00 $140,000.00 $5,000.00 3.70% Landfill Fees $2,000.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% HVAC Maintenance $17,500.00 $37,907.13 $35,000.00 $38,000.00 $3,000.00 8.57% Auditing/Actuary/Pension $6,214.00 $6,214.00 $4,246.55 $3,773.86 -$472.69 -11.13% Engineering/Consulting $17,500.00 $51,156.89 $15,000.00 $18,000.00 $3,000.00 20.00% Landfill Engineering $15,000.00 $14,908.82 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Administrative Services $150,336.00 $150,336.00 $149,344.05 $145,281.42 -$4,062.63 -2.72% Burlington Sewer Lines $0.00 $1,767.38 $5,000.00 $2,000.00 -$3,000.00 -60.00% Travel & Training $6,000.00 $4,898.13 $6,000.00 $6,500.00 $500.00 8.33% Utilities-Pumping Station $85,000.00 $102,332.05 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Utilities--L/Fill Station $1,500.00 $824.03 $0.00 $900.00 $900.00 0.00% Electric-Airport Parkway $190,000.00 $225,300.16 $200,000.00 $210,000.00 $10,000.00 5.00% Electric-Bartlett Bay $120,000.00 $144,616.12 $145,000.00 $150,000.00 $5,000.00 3.45% Building Improvements $5,000.00 $8,317.86 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $5,000.00 200.00% Pumps Replacements $50,000.00 $52,250.44 $50,000.00 $55,000.00 $5,000.00 10.00% Pump Repairs $40,000.00 $33,254.78 $40,000.00 $43,000.00 $3,000.00 7.50% Page 1 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 Payment to Stormwater for GIS $1,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12,635.00 $12,635.00 0.00% Sewer blockage Removal $50,000.00 $33,254.78 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $1,643,897.46 $2,141,343.01 $1,810,852.69 $2,073,640.76 $262,788.07 14.51% Capital Budget Replacement-Vehicles $40,000.00 $39,345.82 $220,000.00 $290,000.00 $70,000.00 31.82% Airport Parkway Bond Payment $965,647.23 $969,731.16 $965,647.23 $970,000.00 $4,352.77 0.45% Bartlett Bay Upgrades $400,000.00 $200,371.36 $400,000.00 $600,000.00 $200,000.00 50.00% Capital Projects - CIP $260,000.00 $397,214.36 $0.00 $350,000.00 $350,000.00 0.00% Hadley Sewer Bond Payment $173,235.58 $111,786.68 $111,786.54 $112,000.00 $213.46 0.19% Payment to SW for Hadley Loan $73,000.00 $73,648.00 $73,000.00 $73,648.00 $648.00 0.89% Total Capital $1,871,882.81 $1,792,097.38 $1,770,433.77 $2,395,648.00 $625,214.23 35.31% 35.31% Total Waste Water $4,894,246.85 $5,278,980.82 $5,074,576.74 $5,974,084.79 $899,508.05 17.73% WATER DEPARTMENT CWD Labor $422,034.00 $305,988.82 $434,995.00 $350,845.00 -$84,150.00 -19.35% Office Salaries $234,835.00 $233,353.02 $223,540.00 $242,940.00 $19,400.00 8.68% CWD OT $10,000.00 $12,257.97 $10,000.00 $13,000.00 $3,000.00 30.00% Emergency On-Call $2,800.00 $2,845.00 $2,329.00 $2,800.00 $471.00 20.22% Administrative Services $63,500.00 $65,250.00 $16,000.00 $49,003.28 $33,003.28 206.27% Total Wages and Benefits $733,169.00 $619,694.81 $686,864.00 $658,588.28 -$28,275.72 -4.12% General Operating Budget Miscellaneous $1,000.00 $1,118.83 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 100.00% Auditing Services-Water $2,100.00 $2,272.71 $2,272.71 0.00% software $12,685.00 $12,685.00 0.00% Water Supply Permit Fees $33,100.00 $33,543.94 $33,175.00 $33,175.00 $0.00 0.00% Insurance $5,000.00 $5,727.00 $5,000.00 $5,175.00 $175.00 3.50% Building Rent $26,360.00 $26,279.52 $20,550.00 $20,975.00 $425.00 2.07% Water Purchase $1,586,110.00 $1,604,741.87 $1,654,800.00 $1,793,000.00 $138,200.00 8.35% Public Outreach $4,000.00 $2,584.80 $3,000.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 16.67% Professional Services $117,070.00 $110,568.00 $155,275.00 $147,725.00 -$7,550.00 -4.86% Equipment Rental $115,362.00 $141,520.10 $106,730.00 $158,920.00 $52,190.00 48.90% Computer Services $6,400.00 $5,941.57 $7,600.00 $7,000.00 -$600.00 -7.89% System Improvements $60,000.00 $6,511.18 $75,000.00 $84,000.00 $9,000.00 12.00% Materials $96,900.00 $118,268.89 $114,550.00 $120,500.00 $5,950.00 5.19% ROW Permit fees $7,500.00 $0.00 $7,500.00 $0.00 -$7,500.00 -100.00% Total General Operating Budget $2,058,802.00 $2,058,905.70 $2,184,180.00 $2,390,927.71 $206,747.71 9.47% Capital Budget Debt Service $105,355.00 $105,353.62 $103,995.00 $96,969.00 -$7,026.00 -6.76% Capital Projects $520,031.00 $520,031.00 0.00% Xfer to Reserve Fund $71,000.00 $100,223.85 $81,000.00 $60,000.00 -$21,000.00 -25.93% Total Capital $176,355.00 $205,577.47 $184,995.00 $677,000.00 $492,005.00 265.96% $492,005.00 265.96% Total WATER DEPARTMENT $2,968,326.00 $2,884,177.98 $3,056,039.00 $3,726,515.99 $670,476.99 21.94% STORMWATER Wages and Benefits Salaries-Permanent $535,755.79 $482,229.07 $545,117.10 $458,034.55 -$87,082.55 -15.98% Payment to Highway-Rent $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $78,215.00 $0.00 0.00% Salaries-Overtime $23,000.00 $20,849.37 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Payment to Sick bank Fund $6,250.00 $6,250.00 $5,392.16 $5,900.62 $508.46 9.43% Payroll Service and Testing to GF $1,825.00 $1,825.00 $1,347.31 $1,480.74 $133.43 9.90% FICA/Medicare $42,744.82 $40,786.80 $43,460.96 $36,799.14 -$6,661.81 -15.33% Nontaxable Fringe Benefit $4,200.00 $300.00 $7,238.00 $6,387.00 -$851.00 -11.76% Vision Plan $711.61 $374.76 $582.94 $631.39 $48.46 8.31% Disability Long Short Term $5,566.44 $5,415.33 $4,878.93 $4,574.64 -$304.29 -6.24% Group Health Plan $144,151.53 $220,147.07 $153,953.83 $113,897.30 -$40,056.54 -26.02% Marathon cost share-SW $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $25,178.73 $25,178.73 0.00% Health Insurance FICA $1,119.96 $0.00 $2,080.03 $459.00 -$1,621.03 -77.93% Group Life Insurance $1,417.89 $1,705.82 $2,360.28 $1,906.98 -$453.30 -19.21% Group Dental Insurance $6,630.42 $3,679.32 $5,930.59 $5,718.61 -$211.98 -3.57% Pension $77,649.74 $77,649.74 $93,238.50 $88,872.21 -$4,366.29 -4.68% ICMA Match $26,603.23 $21,564.28 $27,189.96 $23,002.64 -$4,187.32 -15.40% Pension Note Payment $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $26,910.00 $0.00 0.00% Total Wages and Benefits $982,751.42 $987,901.56 $1,020,895.58 $900,968.55 -$119,927.04 -11.75% General Operating Budget Office Supplies $1,000.00 $1,557.60 $1,000.00 $1,500.00 $500.00 50.00% Page 2 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 Small Equipment/Tools $2,500.00 $2,550.45 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 50.00% Uniforms/Supplies $6,000.00 $4,538.30 $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Parts $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Gasoline $2,500.00 $1,961.54 $2,250.00 $2,500.00 $250.00 11.11% Oil $300.00 $235.58 $250.00 $275.00 $25.00 10.00% Diesel Fuel $4,000.00 $7,236.59 $4,500.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 66.67% Permit Requirement-Educat $8,500.00 $6,300.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Telephone $2,000.00 $1,735.46 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Postage $50.00 $87.05 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Membership/Dues/ CDL $300.00 $258.00 $300.00 $600.00 $300.00 100.00% Discharge Permits Renewal $18,000.00 $16,395.20 $18,000.00 $24,000.00 $6,000.00 33.33% Workers Comp Insurance $23,921.76 $30,608.10 $19,554.75 $16,551.80 -$3,002.96 -15.36% Property Insurance $14,023.76 $15,437.36 $16,197.44 $14,245.09 -$1,952.35 -12.05% Unemployment Insurance $820.00 $0.00 $902.00 $933.57 $31.57 3.50% GIS-Fees/Software $50,000.00 $75,059.49 $50,000.00 $75,000.00 $25,000.00 50.00% Sediment & Debris Disposal $500.00 $185.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0.00 0.00% Water Quality Monitoring $30,000.00 $12,187.33 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Building/Grounds Maint $250.00 $0.00 $200.00 $200.00 $0.00 0.00% Vehicle Maintenance $5,500.00 $17,525.54 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 200.00% Storm System Maint Materi $55,000.00 $29,256.39 $55,000.00 $100,000.00 $45,000.00 81.82% Printing $100.00 $30.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 0.00% Legal Services $5,000.00 $4,824.75 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 0.00% To GF-Audit/Actuary $3,555.00 $3,555.00 $6,180.66 $4,287.21 -$1,893.45 -30.64% Engineering-Watershed $60,000.00 $9,801.26 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 -$5,000.00 -12.50% Billing Payment CWD $66,135.00 $66,135.00 $69,342.00 $73,000.00 $3,658.00 5.28% Office Equipment Maintena $2,000.00 $2,249.78 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $0.00 0.00% Equipment Rental $500.00 $0.00 $250.00 $250.00 $0.00 0.00% Administrative Services $134,392.00 $134,761.75 $102,103.95 $66,746.24 -$35,357.71 -34.63% Conference/Training Expen $4,000.00 $1,349.38 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $0.00 0.00% S/W Bldg Utilities $3,000.00 $3,401.95 $3,250.00 $3,500.00 $250.00 7.69% Stormwater Pumps Electric $300.00 $150.96 $300.00 $300.00 $0.00 0.00% Office Furniture/Equipmen $2,500.00 $1,360.70 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Reimbursement to Highway-Benefits $18,773.00 $18,773.00 $33,420.18 $33,289.64 -$130.54 -0.39% Flow Restoration Plan Analysis $7,500.00 $0.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Total General Operating Budget $532,920.52 $469,508.51 $497,300.99 $544,978.55 $47,677.56 9.59% Capital Budget Vehicles/Equipment $200,000.00 $56,704.01 $421,000.00 $745,000.00 $324,000.00 76.96% Stormwater capital projects $4,303,957.00 $3,759,548.89 $2,481,000.00 $2,005,000.00 -$476,000.00 -19.19% Total Capital $4,503,957.00 $3,816,252.90 $2,902,000.00 $2,750,000.00 -$152,000.00 -5.24% Total Stormwater $6,019,628.94 $5,273,662.97 $4,420,196.58 $4,195,947.10 -$224,249.48 -5.07% REVENUES SEWER Grant-FEMA Reimbursement $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Sewer User Fees $3,900,000.00 $3,753,234.34 $3,783,418.00 $4,113,150.00 $329,732.00 8.72% Sewer Septage Revenue $20,000.00 $3,098.00 $25,000.00 $23,000.00 -$2,000.00 -8.00% Hookup Fees $200,000.00 $853,672.54 $500,000.00 $582,800.00 $82,800.00 16.56% Environmental Impact $0.00 $6,477.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Colchester Airport PKW payment $742,310.00 $742,310.00 $742,310.00 $742,310.00 $0.00 0.00% General Fund Note Repayment $0.00 $12,005.00 $12,004.68 $0.00 -$12,004.68 -100.00% Miscellaneous Revenue $11,434.00 $11,577.07 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Reserve Fund Transfer in $502,824.79 $502,824.79 0.00% $4,873,744.00 $5,382,373.95 $5,072,732.68 $5,974,084.79 $901,352.11 17.77% WATER Water Sales $2,545,250.00 $2,503,861.79 $2,620,616.00 $2,859,211.00 $238,595.00 9.10% Services $63,000.00 $61,151.49 $62,500.00 $59,700.00 -$2,800.00 -4.48% Connection Fees $97,000.00 $129,723.85 $113,000.00 $168,000.00 $55,000.00 48.67% Investment Interest $3,000.00 $1,825.54 $1,700.00 $6,000.00 $4,300.00 252.94% Miscellaneous Income $147,726.00 $147,958.23 $157,234.00 $37,882.00 -$119,352.00 -75.91% SB WW & SW Dept $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $140,000.00 $140,000.00 0.00% Grants $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $174,000.00 $174,000.00 0.00% Transfers In $112,350.00 $112,350.00 $100,989.00 $281,722.99 $180,733.99 178.96% $2,968,326.00 $2,956,870.90 $3,056,039.00 $3,726,515.99 $670,476.99 21.94% Page 3 Proposed FY24 Budget - 11/28/2022 ACCOUNT 2022 2022 2023 2024 2023 vs 2024 2023 vs 2024 STORMWATER Intergovernmental Revenue/Grants $2,920,000.00 $2,423,344.76 $826,506.98 $1,189,000.00 $362,493.02 43.86% S/W User Fees - Water Bill $2,528,629.00 $2,341,267.10 $2,707,767.59 $2,779,678.00 $71,910.41 2.66% Payment for GIS services $38,000.00 $34,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% pmt from other towns $0.00 $27,513.89 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 0.00% Land owner , ARRA, SAD payment $0.00 $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 -$100,000.00 -100.00% Miscellaneous Revenue $60,000.00 $215,596.73 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 0.00% GIS Reim from WW, Water, HW and P&Z $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50,543.00 $50,543.00 0.00% Reserve Transfer In $400,000.00 $0.00 $635,778.00 $33,726.10 -$602,051.90 -94.70% Hadley Sewer- from sewer fund $73,000.00 $73,648.00 $73,000.00 $73,000.00 $0.00 0.00% $6,019,629.00 $5,115,370.48 $4,413,052.57 $4,195,947.10 -$217,105.47 -4.92% Page 4 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.southburlingtonvt.gov To: Jessie Baker, City Manager South Burlington City Council From: Martha Machar, Finance Director Erica Quallen, Deputy Director of Capital Projects Subject: Draft FY 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program – Public Hearing Date: January 11, 2023 Background: The draft presented is the proposed amendment to replace the existing FY 2023-2032 CIP in its entirety as the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program. Capital Improvement Program History A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a tool use to improve coordination in the timing of major projects, plan for capital replacement and future major maintenance costs, and reduce fluctuations in the tax rate. The attached draft CIP reflects the following potential capital expenditures: 1)Forecasted big ticket costs related to maintaining South Burlington’scurrent level of service through refreshing, rebuilding and replacing existing capital equipment and infrastructure such as repaving roadways, replacing vehicles, emergency apparatus, and routine upgrades to Cityutility infrastructure. 2) Estimated spending related to building public infrastructure that will resultin a new downtown –City Center– including those projects eligible for TIF District financing such as new roadways, streetscapes and bridges. 3)Projects (generally related to transportation and parks) that are included inimpact fee ordinances, funded through specific voter authorizations suchas Penny for Paths or Open Space, requested by committees or thecommunity, or shown in long range plans or studies that improve the level of service, respond to growth or changes in service demands such as connecting recreation paths on Dorset Street and expanding recreationfields. A CIP is a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future projects and costs consistent with current City priorities and fiscal outlook. The CIP incorporates Council priorities; committee recommendations which are solicited annually; adopted plans and ongoing projects; and equipment and facility maintenance, replacement and upgrade needs. As a financial planning tool, the CIP responds to the estimated fiscal capacity for each year going forward. It is not a static document and changes from year to year. The first year (FY24) of the FY2024-34 CIP will be incorporated into the City’s 2023-2024 budget for approval in March. Attachments: •Resolution Amending the Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2033. •(link to online document) Draft Capital Improvement Program forFY2024-2033 Recommendation Consider approving the attached resolution to amend the City’s Capital Improvement Program FY 2024-2033 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I.GENERAL FUND General Fund Capital Improvement Program Overview of Costs and Funding Sources Overviews of Costs and Funding Types by Department CIP Projects (Expenditures) by Department Administration Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements City Center .Energy Projects Fire and Ambulance Department Highways IT Library Open Space Projects Physical Plant Police Department Recreation and Parks II.SEWER FUND III.STORMWATER FUND IV.WATER FUND V.DEBT REPAYMENTS A program is not a budget, but a road map to guide budget preparation based on an estimate of future projects and costs consistent with City priorities and fiscal outlook. The Capital Improvement Program is prepared yearly during the budget process but is adopted after the approval of the budget. A summary of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for FY24-33 is included in the annual budget book. A Capital Improvement Program is a tool used to improve coordination in the timing of major projects, plan for capital replacement and major maintenance costs, and reduce fluctuations in the tax rate. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 1 I. GENERAL FUND A.General Fund Capital Improvement Program Overview of Costs and Funding Sources B.Overviews of Costs and Funding Types by Department C.CIP Projects (Expenditures) by Department a.Administration b.Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements c.City Center d.Fire and Ambulance Department e.Highways f.IT g.Library h.Open Space Projects i.Physical Plant j.Police Department k.Recreation and Parks PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 2 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW: SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Construction 5,919 18,072 10,834 10,010 15,755 6,530 1,683 1,468 1,968 1,968 74,207 Anticipated Debt Repayment - 333 333 333 569 2,027 1,994 1,960 1,927 1,894 11,370 Furniture & Equipment 262 154 238 179 219 622 207 226 136 111 2,354 HVAC 60 60 140 53 24 54 15 22 22 22 472 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 241 5 10 10 10 - - - 35 - 311 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 2,044 1,324 2,700 448 287 122 12 112 87 102 7,238 To Indoor Recreation Reserve Fund - 125 400 700 800 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,300 7,925 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 870 1,973 1,831 1,639 1,069 1,376 1,184 1,149 1,273 1,204 13,568 Weatherization 12 40 45 23 3 2 5 5 5 5 145 Transfer to CIP Reserve Fund 800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8,540 Total Estimated CIP Costs:10,208 22,946 17,391 14,255 19,596 12,593 7,060 7,002 7,613 7,466 126,130 - Funding Sources: General Fund 2,812 4,328 5,084 5,922 5,993 5,094 4,777 4,693 5,087 4,882 48,916 Secured Grants 2,419 7,100 1,964 - - - - - - - 11,238 Anticipated Grants 11 493 829 1,133 1,901 604 152 202 387 577 6,289 Anticipated Debts - 3,485 1,500 5,200 10,000 4,200 - - - - 24,385 CIP Reserve Fund 170 - - - 229 1,643 1,611 1,578 1,546 1,514 8,291 City Center Debt Proceeds - 318 - - - - - - - - 318 Developer Contributions - - - - - - - - - - - Donations (In-Kind or Financial)- 100 9 - - - - - - - 109 Energy Revolving Fund 67 491 661 419 421 417 385 370 371 371 3,970 Fuel Pump Reserve Fund - - - - - - - - - - - General Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - Highway Impact Fee 90 230 1,500 20 150 110 - - 25 - 2,125 Open Space Debt Proceeds 150 60 - - - - - - - - 210 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds 215 230 415 385 395 225 85 110 150 75 2,285 Police Impact Fee - - - - - - - - - - - Public Facility Impact Fee - - - - 7 51 50 49 48 47 252 Recreation Impact Fee 350 210 260 50 500 250 - - - - 1,620 Secured/Existing Debts - - - - - - - - - - - TIF District Financing Proceeds 3,925 5,901 5,145 1,076 - - - - - - 16,047 TIF District Revenues (Increment)- - - - - - - - - - - Other - - 25 50 - - - - - - 75 Total Estimated CIP Funding:10,208 22,946 17,391 14,255 19,596 12,593 7,060 7,002 7,613 7,466 126,130 This page totals all General Fund capital expenditure (CE) costs by summed by cost types and funding sources annually. Information reflected on this page includes bond payments for prior capital projects. The City makes cash payments for maintenance and replacement in lieu of debt where possible in order to preserve debt capacity to undertake larger City priorities, i.e. the envisioned City Center. The General Fund has reserve fund related to capital projects: City Center Reserve Fund, for City Center expenditures. Costs below fall into three categories: project related (studies, property rights, construction, furniture & equipment), debt (payment on financing) and funding CIP reserve funds. NOTE that this is a program of planned expenditures and revenues and all costs are estimated and time tables are tenative and PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 3 DEPARTMENTAL/SERVICE AREA CAPITAL EXPENDITURES BY COSTS & FUNDING SOURCEPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-20224 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT CIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW: The City Manager's Office has several ongoing initiatives requiring capital investment. The largest of these, the Recreation Center, has been studied since the early 2000's, with a concept developed in 2019. The Public Art Committee has been in existence since 2015, and since 2019, some funds have been dedicated to expanding public art outside of City Center (which has art built into each project budget automatically). The solar array located on the City's closed landfill is coming up on the option to purchase period. Revenues from this landfill have been used to create a revolving loan fund, now invested in municipal projects throughout the City. Purchase may zero out new revenues for 14 years +/- depending upon how the City addresses all potential project revenue streams. Department:Administration Contact:Ilona Blanchard SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 2 82 1,702 202 202 102 2 2 2 2 2,300 Construction 3 3,415 13 5,015 9,818 4,120 18 18 18 18 22,456 Furniture & Equipment - - - - - - - - - 0 - To Indoor Recreation Reserve Fund - 125 400 700 800 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1300 7,925 Anticipated Debt Repayment - 333 333 333 569 2,027 1,994 1,960 1,927 1894 11,370 - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Costs:5 3,955 2,448 6,250 11,389 7,249 3,114 3,180 3,247 3,214 44,051 Funding Sources: General Fund 5 137 415 717 820 1,022 1,120 1,220 1,320 1320 8,096 Secured Grants - - - - - - - - - - - Anticipated Grants - - - - - - - - - - - Energy Revolving Fund - 333 533 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 3,197 Anticipated Debts - 3,485 1,500 5,200 10,000 4,200 - - - - 24,385 Public Facility Impact Fee - - - - 7 51 50 49 48 47 252 CIP Reserve Fund - - - - 229 1,643 1,611 1,578 1,546 1514 8,121 - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Funding:5 3,955 2,448 6,250 11,389 7,249 3,114 3,180 3,247 3,214 44,051 PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 5 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT CIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Department:Bicycle/Pedestrian Contact:Erica Quallen SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 140 - 205 20 35 10 10 110 75 - 605 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 50 5 10 10 10 - - - 35 - 120 Construction 545 675 650 1,275 1,400 725 225 - 450 400 6,345 - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Costs:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070 Funding Sources: General Fund - - - - - - - - - - - Secured Grants 500 250 100 - - - - - - - 850 Anticipated Grants - - 250 900 900 400 150 - 385 325 3,310 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds 145 200 415 385 395 225 85 110 150 75 2,185 Recreation Impact Fee - - - - - - - - - - - Highway Impact Fee 90 230 100 20 150 110 - - 25 - 725 Developer Contributions - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Funding:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070 The FY24 - 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian CIP is primarily funded through Penny for Paths, State, and Federal funding. Penny for Paths brings in between $380,000 and $410,000 annually and is used to undertake smaller internal projects and provide the match for larger grants. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 6 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:City CenterContact:Ilona BlanchardSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 1,807 1,152 673 76 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,708 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition191 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 191 Construction3,204 11,867 8,216 1,000 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 24,287 Transfer to CIP Reserve Fund800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8608,540 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:6,002 13,879 9,749 1,936 860 860 860 860 860 860 36,726 Funding Sources:General Fund800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8,540 Secured Grants1,277 6,800 1,864 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9,941 Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ 480 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 480 Highway Impact Fee‐ ‐ 1,400 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,400 Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds3,925 5,901 5,145 1,076 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,047 City Center Debt Proceeds‐ 318 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 318 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:6,002 13,879 9,749 1,936 860 860 860 860 860 860 36,726 The City has an approved TIF District in the vicinity of Dorset Street, Williston Road and Hinesburg Road. Since 2012, the City has undertaken projects in City Center using this State economic development tool that uses future municipal and state taxes on new development in City Center to fund public projects. New tax revenue since 2012 is considered increment. Each of these public infrastructure projects are funded in some part using Tax Increment Financing. Other funding includes federal and state grants, donations, impact fees, and reserve funds. A new public library, city hall and senior center, a street and park have been completed. Four additional projects are planned: a bridge over I‐89, a connection to City Center Park, Garden Street/Williston Road Intersections and Williston Road Streetscape.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-20227 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:Fire Department and AmbulanceContact:Steve LockeSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 400 492 556 635 583 706 706 538 618 5465,780 Furniture & Equipment30 20 20 ‐ 25 500 20 20 20 20675 Construction‐ 65 65 500 175 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 805 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:430 577 641 1,135 783 1,206 726 558 638 566 7,260 Funding Sources:General Fund165 577 641 1,135 783 1,206 726 558 638 5666,995 Secured Grants265 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 265 Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:430 577 641 1,135 783 1,206 726 558 638 566 7,260 The priority for capital funding for the Fire Department is the replacement of apparatus including both fire trucks and ambulances. This plan also supports updates to both fire stations as well as a training site. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-20228 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCE CIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Department:Highway Contact:Tom DiPietro SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 10 10 45 100 50 10 - - 10 100 335 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - - - - - - - - - 0 - Construction 1,494 1,460 1,360 1,685 3,710 1,350 1,440 1,450 1,500 1550 16,999 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 305 868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 400 4,762 - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Costs:1,809 2,338 2,270 2,484 3,950 1,795 1,675 1,815 1,910 2,050 22,096 Funding Sources: General Fund 1,395 2,013 2,245 2,234 2,950 1,595 1,675 1,615 1,910 1800 19,676 Secured Grants 245 - - - - - - - - 0 - Anticipated Grants - 295 - 200 1,000 200 - 200 - 250 2,145 Energy Revolving Fund - 30 - - - - - - - 0 30 Developer Contributions - - - - - - - - - 0 - CIP Reserve Fund 170 - - - - - - - - 0 170 Other - - 25 50 - - - - - 0 75 - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Funding:1,809 2,338 2,270 2,484 3,950 1,795 1,675 1,815 1,910 2,050 22,096 The Highway Division maintains the City’s public infrastructure including: roads, sidewalks, traffic signals, street lights, wastewater collection system, street signs, and pavement markings. The highway division also maintains the City's fleet and equipment. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 9 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:ITContact:Mike MottSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment 77 45 73 129 39 72 47 156 46 41725 Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:77 45 73 129 39 72 47 156 46 41 725 Funding Sources:General Fund77 45 73 129 39 72 47 156 46 41 725 Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:77 45 73 129 39 72 47 156 46 41 725 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ The IT department is focusing on the integration of the PD with City IT infrastructure at 180 Market St. This will be more efficient as far as IT labor and will be more cost effective when purchasing hardware and software licensing in the future. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202210 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:LibraryContact:Jennifer MurraySUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment ‐ ‐ 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 9 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:‐ 160 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 169 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ 100 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 109 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:‐ 160 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 169 PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202211 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT 12 CIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW Department:Open Space Contact:Erica Quallen SUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 25 5 - - - - - - - - 30 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - - - - - - - - - - - Construction 365 185 - - - - - - - - 550 - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Costs:390 190 - - - - - - - - 580 Funding Sources: General Fund - - - - - - - - - - - Secured Grants 100 50 - - - - - - - - 150 Anticipated Grants - - - - - - - - - - - Open Space Debt Proceeds 150 60 - - - - - - - - 210 Recreation Impact Fee 70 50 - - - - - - - - 120 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds 70 30 - - - - - - - - 100 - - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Funding:390 190 - - - - - - - - 580 The Open Space CIP includes projects which strive to improve passive and active recreational and natural areas in collaboration with the Recreation & Parks Department. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 12 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:Physical PlantContact:Greg YandowSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC 60 60 140 53 24 54 15 22 22 22472 Furniture & Equipment55 ‐ 20 ‐ 20 ‐ 30 ‐ 20 0145 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ 125 125 75 50 20 25 25 30 30505 Weatherization12 40 45 23 3 2 5 5 5 5145 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:127 225 330 151 97 76 75 52 77 57 1,267 Funding Sources:General Fund34 84 149 53 39 20 43 35 60 40557 Secured Grants32 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 032 Anticipated Grants11 63 74 33 1 4 2 2 2 2194 Energy Revolving Fund50 78 107 65 57 52 30 15 15 15484 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:127 225 330 151 97 76 75 52 77 57 1,267 Aging infastructure. Replacement of HVAC heat pumps, doors, windows, roofing, etc.. Adding electrical charging stations around the city.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202213 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:Police DepartmentContact:Shawn BurkeSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 165 198 205 208 211 215 218 221 225 2282,094 Furniture & Equipment88 65 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 553 Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:253 263 255 258 261 265.0 268 271 275 278 2,647 Funding Sources:General Fund237 243 235 237 240 244 246 249 253 255 2,439 Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Police Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Energy Revolving Fund17 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 23 209 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:253 263 255 258 261 265.0 268 271 275 278 2,648 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ The FY24 ‐ 33 Police Department CIP is almost entirely equipment replacement. Projections have been made to take in to account the normal life cycle of the more expensive equipment utilized in police operations. Funds are designated for anticipated building repairs and improvements.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202214 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMOVERVIEW OF EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENTCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:Recreation & ParksContact:Holly ReesSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 308 440 495 535 652 335 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,765 Furniture & Equipment12 24 66 ‐ 85 ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 247 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal60 75 75 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ 130 80 22 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 267 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:380 669 716 607 772 335 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,539 Funding Sources:General Fund100 404 431 557 262 75 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,889 Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants‐ 75 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ 30 ‐ ‐ 10 10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Recreation Impact Fee280 160 260 50 500 250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:380 669 716 607 772 335 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,539 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ The Recreation and Parks CIP proposal has been built over the next ten years to achieve three goals. 1) To catch up on years of unidentified and/or deferrred maintenance that were presented to City Council in the FY23 budget process 2) to plan for routine maintenace/replacement needed within the parks system 3) to add inventory to the current parks system to meet the needs of our growing population. The proposal is heavy in the onset years in FY24‐FY26 with the anticipation of significant funding through ARPA dollars; as this correleates with the needs and desires identified in the community survey. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202215 ADMINISTRATIONPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202216 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW Department:Administration Contact:Ilona Blanchard Major Department Updates: SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Projects: Recreation Center 0 80 1700 5200 10000 4200 21,180 Public Art 5 12 15 17 20 22 20 20 20 20 171 Landfill Solar Array Purchase 0 3405 3,405 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:5 3,497 1,715 5,217 10,020 4,222 20 20 20 20 24,756 The City Manager's Office has several ongoing initiatives requiring capital investment. The largest of these, the Recreation Center, has been studied since the early 2000's, with a concept developed in 2019. The Public Art Commitee has been in existance since 2015, and since 2019, some funds have been dedicated to expanding public art outside of City Center (which has art built into each project budget automatically). The solar array located on the City's closed landfill is coming up on the option to purchase period. Revenues from this landfill have been used to create a revolving loan fund, now invested in municipal projects throughout the City. Purchase may zero out new revenues for 14 years +/- depending upon how the City addresses all potential project revenue streams. Zero funds are proposed to be transfered to a reserve fund for the Recreation Center. The Landfill Solar Array has been added so that it may be considered and studied as a revenue opportunity. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 17 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT PROJECT:Recreation Center JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Ilona Blanchard FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 80 1700 200 200 100 2,280 Construction 5000 9800 4100 18,900 Furniture & Equipment - To Indoor Recreation Reserve Fund 125 400 700 800 1000 1100 1200 1300 1300 7,925 Anticipated Debt Repayment 236 1694 1661 1627 1594 1561 8,373 - - - - - Total Estimated Costs:0 205 2100 5900 11036 6894 2761 2827 2894 2861 37,478 Funding Sources: General Fund 125 400 700 800 1000 1100 1200 1300 1300 7,925 Secured Grants - Anticipated Grants - Energy Revolving Fund 200 200 Anticipated Debts 80 1500 5200 10000 4200 20,980 Public Facility Impact Fee 7 51 50 49 48 47 252 CIP Reserve Fund 229 1643 1611 1578 1546 1514 8,121 - - - - - - - Total Estimated Funding:-205 2,100 5,900 11,036 6,894 2,761 2,827 2,894 2,861 37,478 FINANCIALS COMMENT: GF transfer to the Reserve Fund assumes no Impact Fee or capital campaign and at FY30 the annual contribution would be 2.75 cents Add'l staff for customer service, custodial/maintenance, programming. Estimated Revenue Per Year:would be used to operate facilility STATUS: Architect under contract, concept developed for Veteran's Memorial Park DESCRIPTION: Includes multi-use courts, 1/4 turf field, support spaces limited to zero indoor space exists for most residents Estimated Annual Operating Cost:would be mainly covered by operational revenues PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 18 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Public ArtJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: AdministrationCONTACT:Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 220 Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment31013 15 18 20 18 18 18 18151 To Indoor Recreation Reserve Fund‐ Debt Repayment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 12 15 17 20 22 20 20 20 20 171 Funding Sources:General Fund5 12 15 17 20 22 20 20 20 20171 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Public Facility Impact Fee‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 12 15 17 20 22 20 20 20 20 171 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: The City has an established Public Art Selection Committee and criteria for selection of artDESCRIPTION:Fund permanent art installations throughout the CityCreate new means of connections, understanding and identityEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202219 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT PROJECT:Landfill Solar Array Purchase JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Administration CONTACT:Ilona Blanchard FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal - Construction 3,405 3,405 Furniture & Equipment - To Indoor Recreation Reserve Fund - Anticipated Debt Repayment 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 2,998 - - - - - Total Estimated Costs:-3,738 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 6,403 Funding Sources: General Fund - Secured Grants - Anticipated Grants - Energy Revolving Fund 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 2,998 Anticipated Debts 3,405 3,405 Public Facility Impact Fee - CIP Reserve Fund - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated Funding:-3,738 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 333 6,403 FINANCIALS COMMENT: Debt Repayment based on projected debt and will be re-evaluated in FY24 for final determination.Mowing, inspection, any maintenance to be contracted to third party; inverter replacement Estimated Revenue Per Year:$300,000 +; revenues fund Energy Reserve Fund for efficiency/energy projects STATUS: City has first opportunity to purchase in October 2024; Initial lifespan of facility in 25 years, opened in 2017 DESCRIPTION: Purchase solar array on closed landfill Estimated Annual Operating Cost: PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 20 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202221 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Bicycle/PedestrianContact:Erica QuallenMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Dorset Street Shared Use Path510000000000510 Spear Street Shared Use Path1005003500000000950 Dorset Street and Songbird Road Cros5200000000025 Spear Street and Pheasant Way Cross 5150000000020 Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive and5150000000020 Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 100300275000000575 Queen City Park Road Shared Use Pat008051035500000945 Kimball Ave Shared Use Path00600340 4750000875 Shelburne Road Shared Use Path000000060160200420 Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 2000000050400200650 Allen Road Shared Use Path00000260235000495 Hinesburg Road Shared Use Path0075520 750000001,345 Swift Street Shared Use Path Connect 208000000000100 Mary Street Sidewalk905000000000140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:735 680 865 1,305 1,445 735 235 110 560 400 7,070 The FY24 ‐ 33 Bicycle and Pedestrian CIP projects reflect the needs identified by the City and include recommendations from the South BurlingtonBicycle and Pedestrian Committee. Most projects undergo a scoping study, design, and construction phase with consultant teams. Smaller projects, such as individual crosswalk installations, are typically completed in‐house. New projects which have not been included in previous bike/ped CIPs include the Swift Street Shared Use Path and Mary Street Sidewalk.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202222 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset Street Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 1010 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction500500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:510 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 510 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants500500 Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds1010 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:510 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 510 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Project is undergoing ROW phase and negotiations. Design to be complete in FY23, potential construction to begin in FY23, and finalize construction in FY24.DESCRIPTION: Construct 10' shared use path on Dorset St between Old Cross Rd and Sadie Lane.Improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity by closing an existing gap in the Dorset St shared use pathEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202223 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Spear Street Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 5050 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition5050 Construction500 350 850 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:100 500 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 950 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants250 100 350 Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100100 150 350 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee150 100 250 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:100 500 350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 950 Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Conceptual design is complete. Final design and ROW will continue through the remainder of FY23 and FY24 for construction in FY25.DESCRIPTION: Construct 8‐10' shared use path along Spear St between Swift St and UVM Forsetry buildingClose gap between Swift St shared use path and shared use path at UVM forestry building to improve bicycle and pedestrian access in a frequently used area.Winter snow removal, regular restriping of crosswalk at UVM Forestry Building, and periodic repavingFINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but connects gap in path network which is already being plowed.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202224 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset Street and Songbird Road CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction2020 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds52025 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct crosswalk across Dorset St at Songbird RoadThis is a high priority crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists who use Songbird Road as a connection between Spear St and the Dorst St shared use path.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202225 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Spear Street and Pheasant Way CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction1515 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds51520 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202226 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hinesburg Road and Dubois Drive and Butler Drive CrosswalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 55 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 1515 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds51520 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:5 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Being studied as part of a multi‐site crosswalk assessment through CCRPC's FY23 UPWP. Final design and construction to occur in FY24/FY25.DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Restriping of crosswalks, periodic updates to RRFBsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202227 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 1JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction300 275 575 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 300 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 575 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants200 100 300 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100 175 275 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 300 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 575 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with plowingEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Final design complete since July 2020 with most recent cost estimate in 2022. Temporary construction agreements have been signed by property owners. Construction was stalled due to increased cost estimate from retaining walls.DESCRIPTION: Construct 5' sidewalk from end of existing sidewalk north of Kirby Road to Berard Drive.Continue expanding pedestrian access along Airport Pkwy through a phased approach. Airport Pkwy connects low‐income and senior housing to other parts of South Burlington.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal and periodic repairsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202228 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Queen City Park Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal7010 5 85 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition1010 Construction500 350 850 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 80 510 355 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 945 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants50 400 250 700 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds30 110 105 245 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 80 510 355 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 945 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Staff workload increase with plowing new path where no pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure currently exists. Potential for maintenance agreement with Burlington where they own the Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: CCRPC Scoping study completed in 2022 with preferred alternative of shared use path. Final design and construction to occur between FY26 ‐ FY28.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct approximately 2,500' of 10' shared use path on the south side of Queen City Park Road between Central Ave and Shelburne Road (excluding rail Improve current bicycle and pedestrian conditions which force all users to share the road. Implement preferred alternative from Scoping Study.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202229 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Kimball Ave Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 60 3090 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition1010 Construction300 475 775 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 60 ‐ 340 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 875 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants150 250 400 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds60140 125 325 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee50 100 150 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 60 ‐ 340 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 875 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Scoping Study completed in 2022. Design not yet started.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct 10' shared use path between end of O'Brien Development path to existing shared use path west of Community Drive. Includes Potash Brook crossing.Pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the vicinity are intermittent and inconsistent.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202230 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Shelburne Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal60 60 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition10 10 Construction150 200350 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 160 200 420 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants85 125210 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds60 75 75210 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 160 200 420 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Replace existing 5' sidewalk with 10' shared use path on the east side of Shelburne Road from Imperial Drive to McIntosh Ave.Improves safety for bicyclists not comfortable riding on Shelburne Rd between neighborhoods and in the vicinity of Orchard School.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202231 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Pkwy Sidewalk Phase 2JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal50 75 125 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition25 25 Construction300 200500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 400 200 650 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants300 200500 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds50 75 125 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee25 25 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 400 200 650 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with plowingEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION:Construct 5' sidewalk from Berard Drive to the existing sidewalk on Lime Kiln Road.This continues the Phase 1 sidewalk project and fully closes the gap in pedestrian infrastructure along Airport Parkway between Berard Drive and Lime Kiln Road.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal and periodic repairsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202232 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Allen Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal10 10 20 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction250 225 475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ 495 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants150 150 300 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds100 85 185 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee10 10 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 260 235 ‐ ‐ ‐ 495 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Not startedDESCRIPTION:Install 1700' of new shared use path from Shelburne Road to Farm Stand Apartments. Replace 400' of sidewalk with shared use path from Farm Stand Apartments to existing shared use path.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202233 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hinesburg Road Shared Use PathJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 75 10 85 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition10 10 Construction500 750 1,250 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 75 520 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,345 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants400 500 900 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds75 100 150 325 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee20 100 120 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 75 520 750 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,345 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Change to workload by requiring large plow for path, rather than sidewalk but in the vicinity of currently paved pathsEstimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Scope, design, and replace existing 5' sidewalk with 10' shared use path on Hinesburg Rd between Williston Rd and Kennedy DrImprove pedestrian and bicyle safety on Hinesburg Rd and make connection between future shared use path on Williston Rd and existing shared use path on Kennedy DrEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202234 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Swift Street Shared Use Path ConnectionJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 2020 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition55 Construction7575 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:20 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds205070 Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee3030 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:20 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 100 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor increase to staff workload with additional path to plow, but near existing path which already gets plowed.Estimated Revenue Per Year:N/ASTATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION: Design and construct approximately 300' of shared use path to close the gap between the Spear Meadows and existing Swift Street shared use pathsUpon completion of the path in the Spear Meadows development, there will be a gap between this path and the existing path on Swift Street that needs to be closed to improve functionality of the path network.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Winter snow removal, periodic repavingPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202235 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMBICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Mary Street SidewalkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Bicycle/PedestrianCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 4545 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction455095 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:90 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Penny for Path Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ Highway Impact Fee9050140 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:90 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 140 FINANCIALS COMMENT:This project is impact fee eligible as it is in City Center and expands transportation capacity.Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Survey is complete and alignment alternatives have been developed.DESCRIPTION: Complete design and construct sidewalk from behind Allard Square to the existing sidewalk on Mary StreetMary Street has sidewalk at each end, but not in the middle. This street connects Williston Road and Market Street.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202236 CITY CENTERPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202237 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:City CenterContact:Ilona BlanchardMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Garden Street 2622 3050 5067000000010,739 Williston Road Streetscape1041 1081000000002,122 Walk Bike Bridge over I‐891037 8086 3822 107600000014,021 City Center Park502802000000001,304 Transfer to CIP Reserve Fund8008608608608608608608608608608,540 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:6,002 13,879 9,749 1,936 860 860 860 860 860 860 36,726 The City Center Initiative has several remaining Tax Increment Financing District projects to complete as approved by the State Vermont Economic Progress Council. All projects are funded to some degree with TIF District financing. This economic development tool allows the City to use 75% of the increase in property tax growth each year (new revenes) to service debt approved by the voters. Of these projects, two are substantially complete, and four remain to be constructed: Garden Street Williston Road Streetscape, the Walk Bike Bridge over I‐89, and Phase II of City Center Park. updated figures related to the East West Crossing ‐ Walk Bike Bridge over I‐89 RAISE grant, and updated debt schedules for the current year ‐ which have interest rates above 4%.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202238 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Garden StreetJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:PROGRAM: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 542 250 450 1,242 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction2,080 2,800 4,617 9,497 Other‐ Debt Repayment‐ To City Center Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:2,622 3,050 5,067 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,739 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Highway Impact Fee14001,400 Secured/Existing Debts‐ Anticipated Debts‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds2,622 3,050 3,667 9,339 City Center Debt Proceeds‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:2,622 3,050 5,067 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10,739 STATUS: 75% Design (Construction Documents) complete for Phase I & 2DESCRIPTION: Phase I ‐ south of Williston RD. Phase I ‐ Williston Road IntersectionsSupport Development and Transportation Alternatives in City CenterEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Street lights, stormwater fee, plowing, salt, tree maintenance, landscaping, artFINANCIALS COMMENT:100% TIF eligible. Eligible for grant funding on Williston Road. Phase I TIF debt authorized March 2021. All TIF debt must be incurred prior to March 31, 2024.Plowing, tree maintenance, focus area plantingsEstimated Revenue Per Year:See TIF District Plan; revenue from growth in property tax basePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202239 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Williston Road StreetscapeJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:PROGRAM: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 168 108 276 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction873 973 1,846 Other‐ Debt Repayment‐ To City Center Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:1,041 1,081 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,122 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants600600 Anticipated Grants‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Anticipated Debts‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds441 763 1,204 City Center Debt Proceeds318 318 TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:1,041 1,081 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,122 STATUS: In 60% designDESCRIPTION: Shared use path and landscape strip south side; Dorset St to Midas DrIncrease capacity, safety, mobility and transit accessability, active lifestyleEstimated Annual Operating Cost:new street lights, plowing wider rec path (was sidewalk)FINANCIALS COMMENT:$800,000 Federal Alt Trans Grant FY 2018. Eligible for 50% TIF District Financing for streetscape on both sides of street. Grant eligible. improve space for snow storage.Estimated Revenue Per Year:See TIF District Plan; revenue from growth in property tax basePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202240 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Walk Bike Bridge over I‐89JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:PROGRAM: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 847 689 223 761,835 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 191191 Construction 7397 3599 100011,995 Other‐ Debt Repayment‐ To City Center Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:1,037 8,086 3,822 1,076 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,021 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants677 6800 18649,341 Anticipated Grants480 480 Highway Impact Fee‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Anticipated Debts‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds360 1,286 1,478 1,076 4,200 City Center Debt Proceeds‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:1,037 8,086 3,822 1,076 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 14,021 STATUS: In design (30%); RAISE grant secured, DESCRIPTION: Bridge over I‐89 with rec paths to Staples Plaza, CVS, U‐Mall and Quarry Hill.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Bridge/wall inspection, plowing & salting, stormwater, lights, plantingsFINANCIALS COMMENT:Project is 30% TIF eligible. City has RAISE grant (Federal) in the amount of $9.769M. This requires 67% match; difference to be sought in grants.Estimated Revenue Per Year: See TIF District Plan; revenue from growth in property tax basePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202241 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:City Center ParkJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:PROGRAM: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 251 105356 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction251697948 Other‐ Debt Repayment‐ To City Center Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:502 802 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,304 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Anticipated Debts‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds502 802 1,304 City Center Debt Proceeds‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:502 802 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,304 STATUS: Phase I complete; Phase II at 50% design; easement across private property acquired.DESCRIPTION:Phase I ‐ Develop parcel as a park; Phase II ‐ Boardwalk ConnectionCreate north south connections and recreation area to serve City CenterEstimated Annual Operating Cost:snow plowing, playground surface mulching, landscaping, lightingFINANCIALS COMMENT:Opportunity for some funds to be reprogrammed from prior TIF Debt; costs are 95% TIF District Financing eligible.Estimated Revenue Per Year:See TIF District Plan; revenue from growth in property tax basePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202242 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMCITY CENTER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Transfer to CIP Reserve FundJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: none; reduces fluctuations in the tax rateDEPARTMENT: Community DevelopmentCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Transfer to CIP Reserve Fund 800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8608,540 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8,540 Funding Sources:General Fund800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8,540 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Highway Impact Fee‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Anticipated Debts‐ TIF District Financing Proceeds‐ City Center Debt Proceeds‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:800 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 860 8,540 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Creates a sinking fund to service debt for the City share of TIF District projects (the portion not eligible for tax increment financing)Estimated Revenue Per Year: N/ASTATUS: See Debt section for expenditures from CIP Reserve FundDESCRIPTION:Reserve funds for City Center Capital ProjectsEstablished by Council ResolutionEstimated Annual Operating Cost: N/APROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202243 FIRE AND AMBULANCE DEPARTMENTPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202244 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Fire Department and AmbulanceContact:Steve LockeMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Vehicle ‐ Fire 135 135 135 338 479 479 479 344 344 3443,212 Vehicle ‐ Ambulance2652423462171042272271211211211,991 Vehicle ‐ Administrative05575600007315381497 Thermal Imaging Cameras30202000020202020150 Breathing Apparatus000005000000500 Fire Training Site065650000000130 Ambulance Loading System0600000000060 Station Renovations00050010000000600 Rescue Watercraft0002000000020 Station 2 Ramp Repair0000750000075 EMS Training Mannequin0000250000025 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:430 577 641 1,135 783 1,206 726 558 638 566 7,260 Ths plan includes replacing a fire truck when it has reached 15 years in service and an ambulance when it has reached 9 years. It also includes a plan to replace aging thermal imaging cameras, breathing apparatus, as well as our rescue boat. Finallly, the plan provides funding for constructing a fire training site, repairing the front ramp at Station 2, a loading system for the ambulance and a training mannequin. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202245 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Vehicle ‐ FireJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 135 135 135 338 479 479 479 344 344 3443,212 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:135 135 135 338 479 479 479 344 344 344 3,212 Funding Sources:General Fund135135 135 338 479 479 479 344 344 3443,212 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:135 135 135 338 479 479 479 344 344 344 3,212 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replacement schedule and cost projects for fire apparatus. This plan includes a fleet of two engines, one ladder and one rescue truck Need a reliable fleet to maintain service levels expected. Lifecycle factors include maintenance costs, reliability, mileage, condition, age and technical obsolescenceEstimated Annual Operating Cost:$90,000 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Required to deliver servicesEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202246 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Vehicle ‐ AmbulanceJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 265 242 346 217 104 227 227 121 121 1211,991 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:265 242 346 217 104 227 227 121 121 121 1,991 Funding Sources:General Fund0242 346 217 104 227 227 121 121 1211,726 Secured Grants265265 Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:265 242 346 217 104 227 227 121 121 121 1,991 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Three ambulance rotation. Allows to frontline ambulance and one in reserve. Need a reliable fleet to maintain service levels expected. Lifecycle factors include maintenance costs, reliability, mileage, condition, age and technical obsolescenceEstimated Annual Operating Cost:$20,000 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Required to deliver servicesEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202247 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Vehicle ‐ AdministrativeJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 55 75 60 73 153 81 497 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 55 75 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 153 81 497 Funding Sources:General Fund557560 73 153 81 497 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 55 75 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 153 81 497 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replacement schedule for small administrative vehicles used for command and control, prevention and towing of trailers as well as snow removal ‐ 6 vehicles total, 2 new vehicles in CIP: 1 deputy, 1 electrical inspectorEstimated Annual Operating Cost:$10,000 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202248 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Thermal Imaging CamerasJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment 30 20 20 20 20 20 20150 Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:30 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 20 20 20 150 Funding Sources:General Fund302020 20 20 20 20150 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:30 20 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 20 20 20 150 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replacement of thermal imaging camerasThermal imaging cameras are a safety tool for our staff and many of our units are reaching end of life. This plan replaces two in FY24 and then one per year going forward. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:0FINANCIALS COMMENT:Firefighter SafetyEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202249 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Breathing ApparatusJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment500 500 Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 Funding Sources:General Fund500 500 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Self‐contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacementRequired replacement at 15 years old to follow national standardsEstimated Annual Operating Cost:$10,000 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Required for firefightingEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202250 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fire Training SiteJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction 65 65 130 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 65 65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 130 Funding Sources:General Fund6565 130 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 65 65 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 130 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Construct a training site for firefighters to practice skills.The Department currently does not have a training center. This site would allow a dedicated space to train on several skills including search, hoseline advancement, ladders, ventilation, etc. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:0FINANCIALS COMMENT:Increase training opportunities and ensure proficiencyEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202251 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Ambulance Loading SystemJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 6060 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 Funding Sources:General Fund6060 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Retrofit ambulance with a powerload lift system and new cot. We are one of very few agencies that do not use the powerload system to place patients into the ambulance. New ambulance will come with this system, but this will retrofit our other ambulance. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:$2,500 FINANCIALS COMMENT:saftey of staff and reduced chance of injury to personnel. Estimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202252 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Station RenovationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction500 100 600 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ 500 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 600 Funding Sources:General Fund500 100 600 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ 500 100 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 600 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Remodel living and sleeping areas in the fire stationsUpdate living areas to create space for gender diversity in the department and remodel old infastuctureEstimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:ModernizationEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202253 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Rescue WatercraftJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements20 20 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 Funding Sources:General Fund20 20 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ 20 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replace boat, motor and trailerHave an obvious community risk that requires having quick deployment of a boat to save livesEstimated Annual Operating Cost:0FINANCIALS COMMENT:Needed capacity in order to ensure we can respond to know risk. Estimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202254 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Station 2 Ramp RepairJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction75 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75 Funding Sources:General Fund75 75 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 75 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Repair ramp where it meets the streetSteep angle of approach to the street damages the fire truckEstimated Annual Operating Cost:0FINANCIALS COMMENT:Reduces risk of damaging apparatus as it leaves the fire station.Estimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202255 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMFIRE DEPARTMENT AND AMBULANCE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:EMS Training MannequinJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment25 25 Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 Funding Sources:General Fund25 25 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 25 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Training mannequin for EMS skills verificationNeed mannequin to train personnel and validate skillsEstimated Annual Operating Cost:0FINANCIALS COMMENT:Enhanced training opportunities for the staffEstimated Revenue Per Year:0PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202256 HIGHWAY DEPARTMENTPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202257 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW Department:Highway Contact:Tom DiPietro Major Department Updates: SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Projects: Public Works Facility Expansion and Charging Stations330 175 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 505 Salt Shed Replacement 0 0 0 0 0 10 40 0 0 0 50 Fleet 305 868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 400 4,762 Paving 800 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 12,950 Ash Tree Replacement 50 110 160 160 160 0 0 0 0 0 640 Dorset and Aspen Traffic Signal 163 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 163 Dorset and Blue Mall Traffic Signal 161 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 Fuel System Replacement 0 0 25 275 0 0 0 0 0 0 300 Airport Parkway and Lime Kiln Intersection Improvements0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 100 110 Williston Road Signal Replacement 0 0 20 100 2300 0 0 0 0 0 2,420 Spear Street Restriping 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:1,809 2,338 2,270 2,484 3,950 1,795 1,675 1,815 1,910 2,050 22,096 The highway division is proposing multiple capital projects in FY24. This includes expansion of the Public Works facility, fleet purchases, paving, ash tree replacement to address the imminent threat posed by the Emerald Ash Borer, and upgrade of traffic signals at two intersections on Dorset Street. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 58 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Public Works Facility Expansion and Charging StationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 10 1020 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction320165485 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:330 175 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 505 Funding Sources:General Fund5050 Secured Grants160160 Anticipated Grants9595 Energy Revolving Fund3030 Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund170170 Other‐ Total Estimated Funding:330 175 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 505 FINANCIALS COMMENT:We do not anticipate that this project will increase the burden on staff resources.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Hiring an engineer to prepare a site design in FY23. Construction in future fiscal years. There was $200,000 allocated to this project in FY22. Anything not spent in FY23 will be carried forward. Assumes that EV charging stations will be installed in FY25. A refined cost estimate for this work will be available in late FY23.DESCRIPTION: Add a garage bay off the south end of the public works building for indoor equipment storage. Add a shed roof off of the equipment barn for outdoor equipment storage. Add electric vehicle charging stations at DPW so that fleet can be electrified.Project is needed to house our expanding fleet and protect equipment from the elements. If the DPW is going to move forward with items in the Climate Action Plan we will need electric vehicle charging stations.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Increases in electrical utility costs will be offset by reduction in gas/diesel fuel use. Maintenance of the charging stations will be ~$4,000 / year so a line item increase (or creation) will be necessary.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202259 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Salt Shed ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal10 10 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction40 40 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 40 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 Funding Sources:General Fund10 40 50 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 40 ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: The city's salt storage shed is aging and will need replacementDESCRIPTION: Replacement of the existing salt shed at the South Burlington Public Works facilityShed requires regular replacement and maintenance.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202260 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:FleetJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 305 868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 4004,762 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:305 868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 400 4,762 Funding Sources:General Fund220.5868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 4004,678 Secured Grants84.585 Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:305 868 865 699 190 435 235 365 400 400 4,762 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Newer equipment will require less maintenance and staff time to repairEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: On‐going.DESCRIPTION: Replacement and purchase of highway department fleet. Includes plow trucks, trailers, mowers, tree equipment, etc.Vehicles have a set lifespan and need to be replacedEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Newer equipment will require less maintenance.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202261 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:PavingJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 800 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1,500 155012,950 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:800 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 12,950 Funding Sources:General Fund800950 1,200 1,050 1,300 1,150 1,400 1,250 1,500 135011,950 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants200200 200 200 2001,000 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:800 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,450 1,500 1,550 12,950 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Part of existing budgetEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Annual paving work managed by the department of public works. Includes any engineering or assessment work needed.DESCRIPTION: Annual paving programNormal road deterioration requires regular maintenance and replacementEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Part of existing budgetPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202262 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Ash Tree ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 50 110 160 160 160 640 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:50 110 160 160 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 640 Funding Sources:General Fund50110 160 160 160 640 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:50 110 160 160 160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 640 FINANCIALS COMMENT:The City arborist will manage removal and planting contracts.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Replacement program began in FY21 and will continue until all 770 ash trees are replaced.DESCRIPTION: Remove and replace Ash trees in the City ROW that are vulnerable to the Emerald Ash Borer with other species.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202263 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset and Aspen Traffic SignalJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 163163 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:163 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 163 Funding Sources:General Fund163 163 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ Total Estimated Funding:163 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 163 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Engineering design was completed in FY23, but this intersection was not part of the construction project at that time.DESCRIPTION: Replace the traffic signal and pedestrian infrastructure at Dorset Street and Aspen Drive with new equipment that matches what was installed along other intersections on the street.The signal and pedestrian infrastructure at this intersection is old and in need of replacement to match new hardware installed at other intersections on Dorset.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202264 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset and Blue Mall Traffic SignalJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction 161161 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:161 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 161 Funding Sources:General Fund161 161 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ Total Estimated Funding:161 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 161 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Engineering design was completed in FY23, but this intersection was not part of the construction project at that time. Redevelopment at the University Mall will likely impact this project.DESCRIPTION: Replace the traffic signal and pedestrian infrastructure at Dorset Street and Blue Mall intersection with new equipment that matches what was installed along other intersections on the street.The signal and pedestrian infrastructure at this intersection is old and in need of replacement to match new hardware installed at other intersections on Dorset. Nearby redevelopment may impact this intersection.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202265 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fuel System ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 25 25 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction275 275 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 25 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 Funding Sources:General Fund177 177 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other25 98 123 ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 25 275 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 300 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not startedDESCRIPTION: Replace the City's gasoline and diesel fueling station used by City staff and located at the department of public works.The fueling station and tanks will need age related replacementEstimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202266 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Parkway and Lime Kiln Intersection ImprovementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal10 100110 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 100 110 Funding Sources:General Fund10 5060 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants5050 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 100 110 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Minor additional maintenance for new bike/ped facilitiesEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not startedDESCRIPTION: Reconstruction of the intersection at Airport Parkway and Lime Kiln Road to improve function and safety. Add bike and pedestrian elements.Intersection needs improvement and bike/ped facilities are not currently available.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202267 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMHIGHWAY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Williston Road Signal ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: HighwayCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 20 100 50 170 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Construction2,250 2,250 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 20 100 2,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,420 Funding Sources:General Fund20 100 1,300 1,420 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants1,000 1,000 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Developer Contributions‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 20 100 2,300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,420 FINANCIALS COMMENT:New signals would reduce staff callouts..Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not startedDESCRIPTION: Replacement of traffic signals and improvement of bike/ped accessibility at signalized intersections on Williston Road between Dorset Street and Kennedy Drive.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Additional software licenses/subscriptions will be necessary.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202268 PROJECT:Spear Street Restriping JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Highway CONTACT:Tom DiPietro FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal - Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - Construction 35 35 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements - - - - - - - Total Estimated Costs:- 35 - - - - - - - - 35 Funding Sources: General Fund 35 35 Secured Grants - Anticipated Grants - Energy Revolving Fund - Developer Contributions - CIP Reserve Fund - Other - - - - - - Total Estimated Funding:- 35 - - - - - - - - 35 FINANCIALS COMMENT:NA Estimated Revenue Per Year:NA STATUS: Previous CIPs (pre-FY24) included installation of pavement to widen Spear street in order to accommodate bike lanes. Based on current conditions, it was determined that not all of Spear Street needs additional pavement to accommodate bike lines. This project was revised in the FY24 CIP to allow for creation of bike lanes through modifications to line striping and lane widths. DESCRIPTION: Restripe Spear Street from Swift Street to Shelburne Town Line to narrow lanes to 10', ensure center line is centered in pavement, and widen shoulders through re- striping. Improved safety for bicyclists on Spear Street through narrowed lanes (traffic calming) and widened shoulders.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NA PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 69 IT DEPARTMENTPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202270 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMIT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:ITContact:Mike MottMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:IT Hardware 26 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23218 IT Servers451947 18 12 45 19 47 18 12282 IT Software666 90 6 6 6 87 6 6225 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:77 45 73 129 39 72 47 156 46 41 725 This year we've requested a spare network switch so we can bring City Hall or PD network back up quickly in the case of hardware failure. We've also requested Veeam Office 365 licensing, which allows us to backup Office 365 data to an on‐premise server that we control. These are per user licenses and are cheaper in 3 year blocks. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202271 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMIT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:IT HardwareJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: ITCONTACT: Mike MottFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment 26 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23218 Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:26 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 218 Funding Sources:General Fund262020 21 21 21 22 22 22 23218 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:26 20 20 21 21 21 22 22 22 23 218 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Purchase computers for new employees, and replace and upgrade computers that have reached End of Life. Includes all departments except Library and Police Department. ‐ FY24 includes a "hot spare" network switch that would allow us to quickly bring the network back up in a location in the case of a hardware failure. Cost to keep up with hardware replacement schedule. Hardware has a limited lifetimeEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202272 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMIT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:IT ServersJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: ITCONTACT: Mike MottFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment 45 19 47 18 12 45 19 47 18 12282 Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:45 19 47 18 12 45 19 47 18 12 282 Funding Sources:General Fund451947 18 12 45 19 47 18 12282 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:45 19 47 18 12 45 19 47 18 12 282 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: No Increases requested this year. FY24, FY26, SAN, storage area network, all data lives on it have two, 5 year replacement schedules.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202273 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMIT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:IT SoftwareJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: ITCONTACT: Mike MottFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment 6 6 6 90 66687 6 6225 Sofware Licensing‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:6 6 6 90 6 6 6 87 6 6 225 Funding Sources:General Fund66690 66687 6 6225 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:6 6 6 90 6 6 6 87 6 6 225 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Veeam licensing for cloud data backups. This is licensed on a per user basis and is cheaper if we buy in 3Y blocks.This backs up Office 365 cloud data onto a physical server that we own. This provides ownership over our data as it stands anything on Office 365 is directly in Microsoft's control. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202274 PUBLIC LIBRARYPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202275 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMLIBRARY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:LibraryContact:Jennifer MurrayMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Book Van0900000000169 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures: 0‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 169 1601609PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202276 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMLIBRARY EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Book VanJUSTIFICATION: Estimated Annual Operating Cost: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT: LibraryCONTACT: Jennifer MurrayFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Furniture & Equipment 0 9 9 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements160160 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 160 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 169 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants6060 Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)1009 109 Total Estimated Funding:‐ 160 9 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 169 Estimated Revenue Per Year:$0 STATUS: The Library has created a plan, with input from Rec, with quotes (2022) to jumpstart the project. The van is specially designed and would take 9‐12 months to build. DESCRIPTION: A van with removable carts shared by Rec and Lib to get materials into the community.The Book Van has been included in the Board's long term plans and has been included in the CIP for several years. It is essential to equity, allowing us to reach out to diverse communities who may not be able to get to the libray or the senior center. The Library would target daycare centers, senior living, immigrant communities, special events. Rec would use in the summer to take fitness and recreation materials to various parks and events. FINANCIALS COMMENT:The Book/Rec Van would be a small but meaningful ARPA investment. The Library's Foundation would also solicit inkind and monetary grants. This project may also be concrete enough to benefit from a crowdfunding campaign which will engage residents at smaller amounts. We will work with the Friends of the Libray to collect book donations and buy/lease some popular titles. Rec already owns the materials they would be using.It also includes an auxiliary battery bank charged off of alternator so can have some power when van isn’t on instead of a gas generator, in keeping with our Climate Action plan. The emphasis on mobile service and underserved populations during COVID, plus the collaboration between two departments, make this a very realistic project. This vehicle needs staff to operate and reach as many locations as is needed. I suggest a full time Specialist as they will work independently. Estimated $70K w benefits. We have storage space allocated for collections and desk space for the employee. Donations will cover much of the ongoing materials costs for Library. There will of course be ongoing gas and maintenance required, but not in FY24.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202277 OPEN SPACE PROJECTSPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202278 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OPEN SPACE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT CIP PROJECTS OVERVIEW Department:Open Space Contact:Erica Quallen Major Department Updates: SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Projects: Red Rocks 70 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 Wheeler Homestead and Nature Area 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80 Hubbard Recreation and Nature Area 240 130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 370 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:390 190 - - - - - - - - 580 The FY24 - 33 Open Space CIP seeks to fund the completion of in-progress improvements at Red Rocks Natural Area and the Wheeler Homestead and Natural Areas. These projects have been underway for multiple years and have been working to improve trails, natural areas, and environmental concerns. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 79 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OPEN SPACE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT PROJECT:Red Rocks JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Open Space CONTACT:Erica Quallen FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 10 10 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - Construction 60 60 120 - - - - - - - Total Estimated Costs: 70 60 - - - - - - - - 130 Funding Sources: General Fund - Secured Grants - Anticipated Grants - Open Space Debt Proceeds 70 60 130 Recreation Impact Fee - Penny for Path Debt Proceeds - - - - - Total Estimated Funding: 70 60 - - - - - - - - 130 STATUS: Ongoing invasive plant removal (operational budget item). ACT 250 Permitting is underway for trails and erosion work. Parking area and parking access study and design not started.DESCRIPTION: Make improvements to the Park in accordance with Management Plan. OSNAP Priority list identifies park access and parking redesign, accessibility improvements, erosion repairs, and trail improvements. Red Rocks needs major upgrades to its trail systems, corrections to erosion issues both on trails and on the beach, and access offerings. Projects originally identfied as part of the Open Space Task Force priority list. Estimated Annual Operating Cost: FINANCIALS COMMENT: Funded by Open Space Fund as approved in the 2016 Open Space and Natural Area Enhancement Plan Estimated Revenue Per Year: PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 80 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OPEN SPACE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT PROJECT:Wheeler Homestead and Nature Area JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Open Space CONTACT:Erica Quallen FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal - Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - Construction 80 80 - - - - - - - Total Estimated Costs: 80 -- - - - - - - -80 Funding Sources: General Fund - Secured Grants - Anticipated Grants - Open Space Debt Proceeds 80 80 Recreation Impact Fee - Penny for Path Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - Total Estimated Funding: 80 -- - - - - - - - 80 STATUS: Ongoing invasive plant removal (operational budget item). DESCRIPTION: Make improvements to the Park in accordance with Management Plan. OSNAP Priority list identifies accessiblity improvements to tree house access, stormwater retention treatment, and wayfinding. Estimated Annual Operating Cost: FINANCIALS COMMENT: Estimated Revenue Per Year: PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 81 FY 24 - 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OPEN SPACE EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECT PROJECT:Hubbard Recreation and Nature Area JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts: DEPARTMENT:Open Space CONTACT:Erica Quallen FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33 Total: Estimated Costs: Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 15 5 20 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition - Construction 225 125 350 - - - - - - - Total Estimated Costs:240 130 - - - - - - - - 370 Funding Sources: General Fund - Secured Grants 100 50 150 Anticipated Grants - Open Space Debt Proceeds - Recreation Impact Fee 70 50 120 Penny for Path Debt Proceeds 70 30 100 - - - - - Total Estimated Funding:240 130 - - - - - - - - 370 FINANCIALS COMMENT: Estimated Revenue Per Year: STATUS: Preliminary design underwar for recreation path, parking lot, viewing area, and stormwater improvements. DESCRIPTION: Complete design and construct recreation path across Hubbard RNA property and include parking lot and viewing area. Stormwater treatment to be designed as part of this project. Project was included in the Master Plan effort for this open space area and are noted on the Open Space Task Force Priority project list.Estimated Annual Operating Cost: PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022 82 PHYSICAL PLANT DEPARTMENTPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202283 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Physical PlantContact:Greg YandowMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Wheeler House 25 50 130 23333333246 Fire Station #110101010111112141414116 Fire Station #2575101313125555130 DPW 353555302030305255270 Charging Stations012512575502025253030505 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:127 225 330 151 97 76 75 52 77 57 1,267 PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202284 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Wheeler HouseJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Physical PlantCONTACT: Greg YandowFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC 20 20 100 3 3 3 3 3 3 3161 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Weatherization53030 20 85 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:25 50 130 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 246 Funding Sources:General Fund122865 3 3 3 3 3 3 3126 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants3215 5 25 Energy Revolving Fund102050 15 95 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:25 50 130 23 3 3 3 3 3 3 246 Status: On going improvenents to heating plant and weatherizing of buildingDESCRIPTION:FY24 ‐ FY25 weatherization to also include makeup air in basement, and wall insulation. Change from oil, end of working life on boiler, to alternative energy source in FY26Lower carbon footprint energy efficiencyEstimated Annual Operating Cost:3kFINANCIALS COMMENT:Will lower carbon footprint by at least 30% Estimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202285 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fire Station #1JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Physical PlantCONTACT: Greg YandowFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 14 14 14116 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Weatherization‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:10 10 10 10 11 11 12 14 14 14 116 Funding Sources:General Fund1044 4 5 5 5 7 7 758 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants111 1 1 1 2 2 2 214 Energy Revolving Fund55 5 5 5 5 5 5 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:11 10 10 10 11 11 12 14 14 14 117 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Total of 8 HVAC units, replace 1/year. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:Increase of man hours Estimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202286 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fire Station #2JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Physical PlantCONTACT: Greg YandowFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC10 10 10 30 Furniture & Equipment5555 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Weatherization2510 3 3 2 5 5 5 545 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:57 5 10 13 13 12 5 5 5 5 130 Funding Sources:General Fund06 6 5 17 Secured Grants3232 Anticipated Grants527 Energy Revolving Fund20310 7 7 7 5 5 5 574 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:57 5 10 13 13 12 5 5 5 5 130 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: FY24, obsolete generator replacement. FY27‐FY29, heat pumps, could be operating costs. Doors need work and cables, could be operatingEstimated Annual Operating Cost:2K doors maintenance program, 1,200 on Generator maintenance programFINANCIALS COMMENT:Increase of manhoursEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202287 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:DPW JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Physical PlantCONTACT: Greg YandowFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC 30 30 30 30 30 5 5 5165 Furniture & Equipment20 20 30 20 90 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Weatherization555 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:35 35 55 30 20 30 30 5 25 5 270 Funding Sources:General Fund121240 20 5 7 10 20 126 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants333 2 3 14 Energy Revolving Fund202012 8 15 20 20 5 5 5130 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:35 35 55 30 20 30 30 5 25 5 270 STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replace or repair heat pumps Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:increase in manhoursEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202288 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPHYSICAL PLANT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Charging StationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Physical PlantCONTACT: Greg YandowFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:HVAC‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 125 125 75 50 20 25 25 30 30 505 Weatherization‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 125 125 75 50 20 25 25 30 30 505 Funding Sources:General Fund404020 20 25 25 30 30 230 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants555525 135 Energy Revolving Fund303030 30 20 140 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 125 125 75 50 20 25 25 30 30 505 Charge point monitors for us and charges us a 3% fee on grossDESCRIPTION: Starting to gather information and study areas to install chargers. Police and Fire to startEstimated Annual Operating Cost:5KFINANCIALS COMMENT:increase of man hours monitoring of stations throughout the cityEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202289 POLICE DEPARTMANTPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202290 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPOLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Police DepartmentContact:Shawn BurkeMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Cruiser Replacement 220 198 205 208 211 215 218 221 225 2282,149 Firearm Replacement 38150000000053 Police Station Stewardship 50505050505050505050500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:308 263 255 258 261 265 268 271 275 278 2,702 The POLICE DEPARTMENT overview includes expeditures for debt, fleet replacement, friearm replacement, building stewardship, and radio replacement.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202291 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPOLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Cruiser ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Police DepartmentCONTACT: Shawn BurkeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 165 198 205 208 211 215 218 221 225 2282,094 Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction‐ Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:165 198 205 208 211 215 218 221 225 228 2,094 Funding Sources:General Fund148.5 178.2 184.5 187.2 189.9 193.5 196.2 198.9 202.5 205.21,884.6 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Energy Revolving Fund16.5 19.8 20.5 20.8 21.1 21.5 21.8 22.1 22.5 22.8209.4 ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:165 198 205 208 211 215 218 221 225 228 2,094 STATUS: Ongoing replacement function.DESCRIPTION: Routine fleet replacementThe Department maintains a fleet of 25 vehicles to carry out police services in the City. The department has acquired an average of two new vehicles over the last three fiscal years, the department had requested three new vehicles in each fiscal year. The department is requesting to replace two front line patrol vehicles and two administrative vehicles in FY24, the budget number is factored on hybrid technology and full upfit of emergency equipment. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:The annual vehicle repair budget line has had to increase 20% FY18 – FY23. While some of this increase is certainly related to inflation, much of the increase can be attributed to maintaining an aging fleet.Fleet mintenance costsEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202292 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPOLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Firearm Replacement JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Police DepartmentCONTACT: Shawn BurkeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment 38 1553 Construction‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:38 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 Funding Sources:General Fund38 15 53 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:38 15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 53 STATUS: Proposed, taken out of the FY 23 CIP.DESCRIPTION: Replace department issued pistols, holsters, duty belts. FY 25 replacement schedule of department owned long guns.This project will allow the department to transition all officers to 9mm pistols. Currently officers carry one of two different caliber pistols, 45ACP or 40 caliber, depending on their size and shooting ability. The FBI has researched pistols extensively, most recently in 2018. The data was conclusive that officers shoot the 9mm platform more accurately, 9mm ammunition is less expensive, contemporary 9mm ammunition is an effective caliber in terms of ballistics, and that the smaller size of the 9mm pistol frame allow for a standard pistol to be carried. This project will also provide each officer with a new nylon style duty belt improving ergonomics related to equipment carryEstimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:The department would trade in our current pistol inventory which will likely generate $10,000 in revenue. Standardized pistol platform for all officersEstimated Revenue Per Year: $10,000 project trade in value of existing pistolsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202293 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMPOLICE DEPARTMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Police Station Stewardship JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Police DepartmentCONTACT: Shawn BurkeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Construction 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50500 Other‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 500 Funding Sources:General Fund505050 50 50 50 50 50 50 50500 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 500 STATUS: OngoingDESCRIPTION: Special fund to maintain, repair, and replace building systems and components as needed. Regular maintenance and timely replcement of system components reduce the risk of emergency repair or complete system replcement.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:Reduce the likelihood of unanticipated, unbudgeted expensesEstimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202294 RECREATION AND PARKSPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202295 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:Recreation & ParksContact:Holly ReesMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:South Village Rec Space 200000000000200 Jaycee Park Improvements 0 0 0 50 625 3000000975 Bleacher Replacement 12 14 16000000042 Playground Replacements 0 0 50 0 0 0 60 0 0 0110 Red Rocks Facility Replacement 0 200 200 200000000600 Dug Out Replacements 35 35 35 35 35 350000210 Parks Master Plan 0 75 750000000150 Dog Waste Stations 1500000000015 Additional Dog Park Creation 60 6000000000120 Park Signage 20 0 60000000080 Roof Replacement 1000000000010 Veterans Memorial 28 155 200 300 7700000760 Fleet 0 130 80 22 3500000267 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:380 669 716 607 772 335 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 3,539 Prioritization of this CIP is based on providing safe, reliable and quality access to our park amenties for the varied park users. Catching up on deferred maintenance takes priority over adding new inventory. We are currently reliant on decommissioned DPW trucks to support our daily out of office programs/events and the fragility of this situation should be addressed; thus the proposal of a stepped out fleet acquisition. The Parks Master Plan is situation ahead of any new planned facilities as the process/document will help us identify current gaps in the system as well as plan for future developemen that correlates with anticipated population and development growth. Once that document is adopted, it will provide a solid roadmap for any future outyears. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202296 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:South Village Rec SpaceJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 200200 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee200200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 200 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Agreed upon project through special collection of Rec Impact Feesweekly mowing in the growing season, winter parking lot plowingEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Land set aside, initial plan completed, developer has reached targets for installation DESCRIPTION:Develop a soccer field in South VillagePart of South Village ProjectEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202297 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Jaycee Park ImprovementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction540 300 840 Furniture & Equipment85 85 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal50 50 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ 50 625 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 975 Funding Sources:General Fund115 40 155 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund10 10 20 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee50 500 250575 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ 50 625 300‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 975FINANCIALS COMMENT:Can this be considered as a project for Rec Impact FeesFacility supports for cleaning and maintenance. Estimated Revenue Per Year:$25K in program rentals and $5K event rental STATUS: There is need for some consulting, public meeting, design and initial pricing for this first year of the community house facility DESCRIPTION: 1) Promised neighborhood amentiy when Obrien Center was torn down ($50K in FY27 for consulting, $500K in FY 28 & $250K in FY 29 for construction)2‐ Parking lot pavement $50K FY27 & $50K FY28)3‐ Playground Replacement($85K in FY 28)High Use Park; needs upgrades Estimated Annual Operating Cost:$15K for Cleaning Contract, $25K for utilities per Greg YandowPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202298 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Bleacher ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment 12 14 16 42 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:12 14 16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42 Funding Sources:General Fund121416 42 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:12 14 16 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 42 FINANCIALS COMMENT:noneEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: bleacher replacementDamage to the bleachers is safety issue for community and requires frequent repair from DPWEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-202299 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Playground ReplacementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment 50 60 110 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 Funding Sources:General Fund50 60 110 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ 110 FINANCIALS COMMENT:noneEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Need to replace aging playground and swing set amenties 1‐Symanski $50k for Playground ReplacementsEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022100 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Red Rocks Facility ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 200 200 200 600 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 200 200 200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 600 Funding Sources:General Fund150 200 200 550 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants5050 CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 200 200 200 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 600 FINANCIALS COMMENT:ARPA potential Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Initial review of prefabricated structures DESCRIPTION: New Bath House at Red RocksDesperate need of replacement; bathrooms are minimally functional and repairs costly. Not a welcoming facility. Needs to have functionality replicated due to LWCF initial funding. Recommending a prefab replacement. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:minimal utilities from May‐October for lights and water ‐ same as current impactsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022101 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dug Out ReplacementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 35 35 35 35 35 35 210 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:35 35 35 35 35 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 210 Funding Sources:General Fund353535 35 35 35 210 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:35 35 35 35 35 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 210 FINANCIALS COMMENT:ARPA funding?Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Estimate based on professional bid to do the work. Needs to be contracted out. Staff do not have capacity to take on this projectDESCRIPTION:Needed replacement of aging facilitiesWater damage and rotting boards require a redesign and rebuild of these amenties Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022102 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Parks Master PlanJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 75 75 150 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 75 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150 Funding Sources:General Fund5050 100 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants2525 50 CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 75 75 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150 FINANCIALS COMMENT:ARPA Potential We can ask for a build out of operational expenses for increased inventory as part of this projectEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: This has been a long recommneded project by the Rec and Park Committee. Due to the CAP and Comp Plan in FY 24, it was proposed that the project be planned for in FY25.DESCRIPTION: Assess current recreation parks system and plan for future growthIt has long been desired to our pakrs system take an accounting of our current assets and plan for additional needs that the gap analyis showed. In addition, it is essential that we prepare for the future, highlighing desired parks, lands and ammenties to provie for our current and future communityEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022103 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dog Waste StationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 1515 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15 Funding Sources:General Fund1515 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 15 FINANCIALS COMMENT:ARPA potentialTo be determined: Volunteer Group Proposed to keep stations filled weeklyEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Official proposal to support this project has been submitted by CCAD to city councilDESCRIPTION: Increase number of dog mutt mitt station and waste recepticalsThe CCAD is recommending a significant inventory increase in the installation and maintenance of dog pot and mutt mitt stations around the city parks, pathways and trails.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022104 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Additional Dog Park CreationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 5050 Furniture & Equipment1010 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal6060 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:60 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 120 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee6060120 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:60 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 120 FINANCIALS COMMENT:ARPA PotentialEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Currently finishing the wheeler dog park which gives the city two. Still need one in the gateway section of the city and one in the city center area.DESCRIPTION: Installation of two additional dog parks ( goal of one in each city quadrant) Supporting City Council directed committee work Scoping and Consuling in FY24 with constuction in FY25Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022105 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Park SignageJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 20 60 80 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:20 ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee2060 80 ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:20 ‐ 60 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 80 FINANCIALS COMMENT:One the parks ammenties are installed, they then fall under the DPW parks division inventory for regular maintenance. Tom is tracking impacts and need for additional staff to support both Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Working with Paul Connor and Tom Dipietro to verify what signage is needed and financial responsibility of fabrication and installationDESCRIPTION: Parks Signage for O'Brien Hillside and Rye Meadows in FY24 and larger O'Brien project in FY26need to be compliant with city branding as these two private developed parks are deeded to the city for perpetual care, maintenance and public use. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022106 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Roof ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 1010 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 Funding Sources:General Fund1010 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:10 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 10 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Awaiting quotes from Adam Cate/Andrew NoonanEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Replacement of pavilion roofs at Jaycee and Red Rocks In need of shingle replacement Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022107 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Veterans MemorialJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 28 155 200 300 77 760 Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:28 155 200 300 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 760 Funding Sources:General Fund285580 300 77 540 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee100 120 220 Total Estimated Funding:28 155 200 300 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 760 FINANCIALS COMMENT:$100K for additioanl soccer field creation could be Impact Fee? All project between now and FY26 could be ARPA funded.Minimal impacts to owing, lining, manicuring and renting additioanl soccer field Estimated Revenue Per Year:A soccer field will generate between $5K ‐$7K annuallySTATUS: DESCRIPTION: 1‐ Recrowing Each of the Soccer Areas‐$50K/field (4 fields)2‐ Creation of additional field $100K3‐ Bandshell beam replacement and Lighting Installation $45K4 ‐Basketball Court Renovation $50K5‐ Replacing/Upgrading Irrigation to all sport fields $100k6‐ Paving‐ South Parking Area from Bathrooms to Entry way $100K 7‐Creation of Storage $120K8‐ Electric Mower $20K9‐ Baseball field backstop replacements $25KFields are in desperate need of repair to support continued safe play and to help with drainageEstimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022108 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMRECREATION AND PARKS EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:FleetJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Recreation & ParksCONTACT: Holly ReesFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction‐ Furniture & Equipment‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 130 80 22 35 267 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 130 80 22 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 267 Funding Sources:General Fund10022 35 157 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Donations (In‐Kind or Financial)‐ Energy Revolving Fund3030 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ Recreation Impact Fee80 80 ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 130 80 22 35 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 267 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Driver needs for Senior Bus $10‐$15K annual for Staffing. Would look to start a volunteer program for scheduling of the bus. Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Need to replace aging fleet and add to existing inventory1‐ Electic Pick Up Truck @ $65K FY242‐ Electric SUV @$65K FY253‐ Senior Bus @ $80K FY264‐Utility Trailer Replacement @ $22K FY275‐Replacement ATV at Red Rocks $35K FY28Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Fuel, Insurance, Driver costsPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022109 II. SEWER FUNDPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022110 FY 24 ‐ 33 OVERVIEW OF ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCESCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:SewerContact:Tom DiPietroSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 1,155 1,082 1,082 3,239 3,303 3,303 3,574 3,793 3,793 387728,201 Construction300 210 215 220 ‐ 240 ‐ 250 250 2501,935 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal650 680 410 ‐ 90 260 400 20 20 952,625 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements290 109 55 84 296 ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ 0914 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:2,395 2,081 1,762 3,543 3,689 3,803 3,974 4,143 4,063 4,222 33,675 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund1,653 1,339 1,020 2,801 2,947 3,061 3,232 3,401 3,321 348026,255 Energy Revolving Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Developer Contributions742 742 742 742 742 742 742 742 742 7427,420 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:2,395 2,081 1,762 3,543 3,689 3,803 3,974 4,143 4,063 4,222 33,675 The Sewer division operates the City’s two wastewater treatment facilities; Airport Parkway and Bartlett Bay. Sewer divsion staff also perform lab analysis of each facility’s treated effluent to ensure permit compliance. The division also maintain three dozen sewer pump stations and miles of pressurized sewer pipe.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022111 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:SewerContact:Tom DiPietroMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Airport Parkway 2011 Upgrade 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 9709,700 Hadley Road Pump Station1121121121121121121121121121121,120 Bartlett Bay 2025 Upgrade600600200 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 1604 160412,628 Airport Parkway Solids Handling1010101421421421421421421421,024 Commerce Ave Force Main Phase 10151564646464646464478 Commerce Ave Force Main Phase 215000000202084139 Queen City Park Pump Stations1515153473473473473473473472,474 Williston Road Pump Station040400646464646464464 Pump Station Refurbishment0210215220024002502502501,635 Twin Oaks Pump Station310000000000310 Lane Press Pump Station0030003097979797448 Hinesburg Road Pump Station0000400220219219219917 Dorset Street Force Main Reconstruction 00500018097979797618 Bartlett Bay Solids Force Main0050000180000230 Airport Parkway Outfall0000505077777777408 Swift and Shelburne Road Gravity Sewer Im0000000005555 EV Charging Stations0000000004040 Fleet2901095584296008000914 Payment to SW for Kennedy Drive Pond 3 7300000000073 ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:2,395 2,081 1,762 3,543 3,689 3,803 3,974 4,143 4,063 4,222 33,675 The sewer divisions proposed FY24 CIP includes bond payments for past capital projects (treatment facility and pump station upgrades), engineering of an upgrade to the Bartlett Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), engineering for improved solids handling at the Airport Parkway WWTF, engineering of force main improvements, engineering for pump station improvements, construction of pump station improvements, andPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022112 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Parkway 2011 UpgradeJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 9709,700 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 9,700 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund2282282282282282282282282282282,280 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions7427427427427427427427427427427,420 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 970 9,700 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Last payment occurs in FY33. Colchester makes an annual payment of ~$742,310.NAEstimated Revenue Per Year:NASTATUS: The Airport parkway wastewater treatment facility underwent a planned upgrade in 2011. This is the ongoing debt payment associated with the loan taken for this work. This payment goes until FY33.DESCRIPTION:Upgrade to the Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility.Planned 20 year upgrade of the Airport Parkway wastewater treatment facility.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NAPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022113 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hadley Road Pump StationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 1121,120 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 112 1,120 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund1121121121121121121121121121121,120 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Last loan payment occurs in FY41NAEstimated Revenue Per Year:NASTATUS: Project is complete. This represents the on‐going debt payment, which ends in FY41.DESCRIPTION: Construction of a pump station at the end of Proctor AvenueProject collected wastewater from locations in South Burlington north of swift street and sent them to a new pump station. This pump station sends the collected wastewater to the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NATotal Estimated Funding1121121121121121121121121121121,120PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022114 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Bartlett Bay 2025 UpgradeJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 11,228 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal600600 200 1,400 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:600 600 200 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 12,628 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund600600 200 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 1,604 12,628 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:TBD by future engineering work. The Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment plan is currently run by a single operator. Anticipate the need to add one additional staff person once the facility is upgraded.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NASTATUS: Project is completing preliminary engineering in FY23. Assumes an approved $25M bond vote in FY23, constrtuction in FY24 through FY26 and the first payment on the bond to occur in FY27.DESCRIPTION: Planned 20 year upgrade of the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility.Planned 20 year upgrade of the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment facility.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:TBD by future engineering work.Total Estimated Funding6006002001,6041,6041,6041,6041,6041,6041,60412,268PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022115 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Parkway Solids HandlingJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment142 142 142 142 142 142 142 994 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal101010 30 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:10 10 10 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 1,024 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund101010 142 142 142 142 142 142 142 1,024 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project is completing preliminary engineering in FY23. Anticipates a $2.2M bond vote in FY23, construction in FY24 through FY26, and the first bond payment made in FY27. This project is tied to the Bartlett Bay WWTF upgrade project, which is moving forward on the same schedule.DESCRIPTION:Design and construction of an additional clarifier at the Airport Parkway WWTF. This clarifier was value engineered out in the 2011 upgrade.Current solids loading at Airport Parkway, including those solids coming from the Bartlett Bay WWTF, necessitate construction of this additional capacity.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Increase in electricity cost.Total Estimated Funding101010142421421421421421421,024PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022116 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Commerce Avenue Force Main ‐ Phase 1JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment64 64 64 64 64 64 64 448 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal1515 30 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 15 15 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 478 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund1515 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 478 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ 15 15 64 64 64 64 64 64 64 478 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Completion of this project will reduce City labor costs and overtime associated with responding to emergency repair situationsEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project is under design. Assumes a positive bond vote for $1M in FY25 with a first payment made in FY27.DESCRIPTION:Replacement of the force main in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park from the pump station to the intersection with Lime Kiln Road.This force main fails 1 to 2 times annually and has reached the end of its useful life. Replacement will stop expensive repairs.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Completion of this project will reduce material and contractor costs associated with responding to emergency repair situations.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022117 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Commerce Avenue Force Main ‐ Phase 2JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment84 84 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 1520 20 55 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:15 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 20 20 84 139 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund1520 20 84 139 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Completion of this project will reduce City labor costs and overtime associated with responding to emergency repair situationsEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project is under design. Assumes a positive bond vote for $1.3M in FY31 with a first payment made in FY33.DESCRIPTION: Replacement of the force main in the Ethan Allen Industrial Park from Lime Kiln Road intersection to the Airport Parkway WWTF.The first half of this force main suffers breaks 1 to 2 times annually and will be replaced before phase 2. Replacement has been aligned with the anticipated reconstruction of the Lime Kiln and Airport Parkway intersection.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Completion of this project will reduce material and contractor costs associated with responding to emergency repair situations.Total Estimated Funding15202084139PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022118 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Queen City Park Pump StationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment347 347 347 347 347 347 347 2,429 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal151515 45 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:15 15 15 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 2,474 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund151515 347 347 347 347 347 347 347 2,474 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure reduces labor related to maintenance and overtime call‐outs.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project is completing preliminary engineering in FY23. This anticipates a $5.4M bond vote in FY23 with construction between FY24 and FY26, and a first bond payment made in FY27. This project is tied to the Bartlett Bay WWTF upgrade.DESCRIPTION: There are three pump stations in the Queen Park Neighborhood and one additional pump station near the Bartlett Bay wastewater treatment plant that need age related upgrades.These facilities have reached the end of their design life and are showing signs of failure.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:New pump stations and force mains will reduce the emergency repairs that we have recently experienced.Total Estimated Funding15815153473473473473473473472,474PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022119 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Williston Road Pump StationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment64 64 64 64 64 64 384 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal4040 80 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 40 40 ‐ 64 64 64 64 64 64 464 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund4040 64 64 64 64 64 64 464 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure reduces labor related to maintenance and overtime call‐outs.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not started. Assumes preliminary engineering is completed in FY25, a positive bond vote for $1M in FY26, and a first bond payment in FY28.DESCRIPTION: Williston Road Pump Station was built in 1977. The pump station collects flow from a large drainage area across the City, including areas of growth near City Center. This pump station has no storage, which will be necessary as flows increase.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Funding4040646464646464464PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022120 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Pump Station RefurbishmentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction 0 210 215 220 240 250 250 2501,635 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ 210 215 220 ‐ 240 ‐ 250 250 250 1,635 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund02102152202402502502501,635 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Costs already built into existing wastewater line items.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Work to identify, design, and upgrade existing pump stations is on‐going.DESCRIPTION: The City owns 32 pump stations. The large pump station refurbishment/reconstruction projects have their own CIP project sheet. The smaller pump stations also require upgrade / replacement and they are captured within this line item.Aging infrastructure needs to be replaced to maintain permit compliance and prevent environmental impacts from WW discharges.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Costs already built into existing wastewater line items.Total Estimated Funding2102152202402502502501,635PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022121 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Twin Oaks Pump StationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction 300300 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 1010 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:310 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 310 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund310310 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure reduces labor related to maintenance and overtime call‐outs.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project had a final design completed in FY22.DESCRIPTION: The Twin Oaks pump station was built in 1972 and serves the Twin Oaks and Grandview Condominiums located off of Kennedy Drive. This is in need of an age related upgrade.It is an older pump station design that relies on a metal storage structure which is showing signs of corrosionEstimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Funding:310310PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022122 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Lane Press Pump StationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment97 97 97 97 388 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal30 30 60 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 30 ‐ ‐ 30 97 97 97 97 448 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund30 30 97 97 97 97 448 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ 30 ‐ ‐ 30 97 97 97 97 448 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure reduces labor related to maintenance and overtime call‐outs.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not started. This project assumes a scoping study and limited design in FY26, a successful $1.5M bond vote in FY29, and a first bond payment in FY30.DESCRIPTION: The Lane Press pump station and force main have limited capacity. Development from the Dorset Street area has increased, requiring an increase in size of the existing force main, which runs under I‐89..The upgrade is necessary to handle increased flows.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022123 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hinesburg Road Pump StationJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment219 219 219 657 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal40 220 260 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 ‐ 220 219 219 219 917 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund40 220 219 219 219 917 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Repair and replacement of aging infrastructure reduces labor related to maintenance and overtime call‐outs.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: No started. This project assumes a scoping study in FY28, a successful bond vote for $3.4M in FY30, and a first bond payment in FY31.DESCRIPTION:The Hinesburg Road pump station is the City's largest pump station and requires regular maintenance and repair to operate properly. Regular maintenance of aging infrastructure ensures proper operation, permit compliance, and reduces the risk of discharge to the environment.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Fundings:40220219219219917PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022124 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Dorset Street Force Main ReconstructionJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment97 97 97 97388 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal50 180 230 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ 180 97 97 97 97 618 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund50 180 97 97 97 97 618 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not started. This project assumes a scoping study in FY26, a successful bond vote for $1.5M in FY29, and a first bond payment in FY30. This project will anticipate and precede the Bartlett Bay Solids Force Main project.DESCRIPTION: The existing force main serving properties adjacent to Dorset Street is constrained due to the size of the current force main. This force main will need replacement and upsizing.Increasing population and wastewater volume will require this upgrade. This project would also serve the City's ability to pump solids from the Bartlett Bay WWTF to Airport Parkway WWTF.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Fundings:5018097979797618PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022125 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Bartlett Bay Solids Force MainJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 50 180 230 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ 180 ‐ ‐ ‐ 230 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund50 180 230 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:Pumping solids to the Airport Parkway plant will significantly reduce the amount of labor and vehicle time involved with the current practice, which is to truck these materials between the wastewater treatment plants.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Not started. This project would require the Dorset Street Force Main upgrade to precede it. It anticipates a scoping study in FY26 and additional engineering in FY30. A construction cost and/or bond will be determined at a future time.DESCRIPTION: Wastewater staff currently trucks solids from the Bartlett Bay WWTF to the Airport Parkway WWTF. This project proposes to construct a force main that would pump these materials between the two plants.Construction of a force main would reduce the labor and fuel needed to transport these materials. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:TBD by future engineering study.Total Estimated Funding50180230PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022126 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Airport Parkway OutfallJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment77 77 77 77308 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal50 50 100 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 50 77 77 77 77 408 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund50 50 77 77 77 77408 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Preliminary engineering design has been completed to show this project with or without a micro‐hydro turbine. Costs included here do not include the turbine because the City has currently reached its limit for electric power that can be sent to the grid. The project assumes final engineering in FY28, a successful $1.2M bond vote in FY29 and a first bond payment in FY30.DESCRIPTION:Repairs to the Airport Parkway outfall pipe are necessary. The pipe has suffered two major leaks in the past decade. It was constructed in 1968 and is reaching the end of its useful life. The project contemplates installation of a micro‐hydro turbine to generate electrical power.The outfall pipe is near the end of its useful life and needs repair/replacement.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Funding:505077777777408PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022127 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Swift and Shelburne Road Gravity Sewer ImprovementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal5555 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 55 55 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund5555 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ FINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: Project scoping was completed in FY23.DESCRIPTION: The existing gravity line on Swift street reaches capacity when the Hadley Road and corrections facility pump stations run during large storm events. A section of the gravity pipe on Swift Street needs to be upsized.Reduce the potential for wastewater discharges to the environment.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneTotal Estimated Funding5555PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022128 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:EV Charging StationsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal4040 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 40 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund4040 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 40 FINANCIALS COMMENT:None anticipated.Estimated Revenue Per Year:None.STATUS: Not started.DESCRIPTION:In order to reduce our reliance of fossil fuels we will need to design and construct electric vehicle charging stations that can be used by wastewater fleet.Reducing emissions from our vehicles is a goal of the City.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:TBD by future engineering study.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022129 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:FleetJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 290 109 55 84 296 ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ 0914 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:290 109 55 84 296 ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ ‐ 914 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund29010955 84 296 ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ 0914 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:290 109 55 84 296 ‐ ‐ 80 ‐ ‐ 914 FINANCIALS COMMENT:No impact on staffing.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NoneSTATUS: On goingDESCRIPTION: Replacement of existing vehicles used by the wastewater department.In order to operate our wastewater system we need reliable vehicles.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:Replacement of aging vehicles with new reduces maintenance costs.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022130 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDWASTEWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Payment to SW for Kennedy Drive Pond 3JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: SewerCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 7373 Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Anticipated Debts‐ Wastewater Enterprise Fund7373 Energy Revolving Fund‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:73 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 73 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Last year of payment is FY24.Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Project complete.DESCRIPTION:Repaying loan that wastewater received for a stormwater project. The loan was 100% forgiven. Payments to stormwater were spread out over 3 years.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022131 III.STORMWATER FUNDPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022132 FY 24 ‐ 33 OVERVIEW OF ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCESCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:StormwaterContact:Dave WheelerSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 1,159 2,039 2,634 3,068 2,373 5,764 2,354 796 1,638 2221,847 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition77 70 20 80 50 70 50 30 70 0517 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal769 290 390 365 355 475 285 390 140 03,459 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements745 433 220 84 315 ‐ 220 245 ‐ 02,262 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:2,750 2,832 3,264 3,597 3,093 6,309 2,909 1,461 1,848 22 28,085 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 050 Secured Grants1,044 ‐ 284 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 01,328 Anticipated Grants145 1,085 881 1,352 1,191 1,981 1,228 476 814 59,158 Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 0‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds1,561 1,592 1,732 1,239 1,706 1,888 1,443 986 1,036 1713,200 Developer Contributions‐ 156 316 1,005 196 2,439 239 ‐ ‐ 04,351 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:2,750 2,833 3,263 3,596 3,093 6,308 2,910 1,462 1,850 22 28,087 The City's Stormwater Utility is currently in the process of designing and constructing a large number of stormwater treatment practices throughout the City's stormwater impaired watersheds, in order to comply with the Flow Restoration Plans. This work requires large investments in capital improvement projects, utilizing a combination of Stormwater Utility funds and grant money. To date, the Stormwater Utility has secured approximatly $12M in grant funding to implement the necessary Stormwater Treatment Practices. The final implementation deadline for these stormwater treatment practies is 2032. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022133 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:StormwaterContact:Dave WheelerMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Flow Restoration Plan Projects 1915 2367 2576 2823 2758 6289 2669 1194 1826024,417 Bartlett Bay Road Culvert75154500000000540 Butler Farms Culverts000670000000670 MRGP Outfalls15171820202020222222196 Fleet745433220843150220245002,262 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:2,750 2,832 3,264 3,597 3,093 6,309 2,909 1,461 1,848 22 28,085 The Stormwater Utility is focused on the implementation of stormwater treatment practices throughout our impaired watersheds, in order to meet the permit requirements of the Flow Restoration Plans. To date, this work has been funded with a combination of Stormwater Utility fees and matching funds provided by various grant agencies. Additionally, the City continues to replace undersized culverts with larger diameter culverts in order to prevent localized flooding. PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022134 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Flow Restoration Plan ProjectsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: StormwaterCONTACT: Dave WheelerFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 1,144 2,022 2,186 2,398 2,353 5,744 2,334 774 1,616 20,571 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition 77 70 20 80 50 70 50 30 70 517 Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 694 275 370 345 355 475 285 390 140 3,329 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:1,915 2,367 2,576 2,823 2,758 6,289 2,669 1,194 1,826 ‐ 24,417 Funding Sources:General Fund ‐ ‐ 50 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 50 Secured Grants1,044 ‐ 284 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,328 Anticipated Grants140 1,080 726 897 1,186 1,976 1,223 471 809 8,508 Secured/Existing Debts‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds731 1,132 1,199 920 1,376 1,873 1,208 724 1,019 10,182 Developer Contributions‐ 156 316 1,005 196 2,439 239 ‐ ‐ 4,351 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:1,915 2,368 2,575 2,822 2,758 6,288 2,670 1,195 1,828 ‐ 24,419 STATUS: There are approximatly 20 stormwater treatment practices currently in design with additoinal projects in the conceptual phase. DESCRIPTION: Stormwater Projects necessary for permit compliance FRP ComplianceEstimated Annual Operating Cost:Maintenance costs will increase as the City builds more systems. FINANCIALS COMMENT:It is assumed that grant funding will be available to assist with the implementation of these projects.Significant operational impacts in total.Estimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022135 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Bartlett Bay Road CulvertJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: StormwaterCONTACT: Dave WheelerFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction430 430 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal751520 110 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:75 15 450 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 540 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants150 150 Secured/Existing Debts‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds7515 300 390 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:75 15 450 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 540 STATUS: Preliminary Engineering for this project was completed in FY16. Final Engineering to take place in FY24, along with securing grants to cover some portion of construction. DESCRIPTION: Replacement of existing culvert on Bartlett Bay RoadCulvert is currently undersized, resulting in flooding during medium to large storm eventsEstimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneFINANCIALS COMMENT:No grants currently securedNoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022136 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Butler Farms CulvertsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: StormwaterCONTACT: Dave WheelerFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction650 650 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal20 20 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ 670 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 670 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants450 450 Secured/Existing Debts‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds220 220 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ 670 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 670 STATUS: Project is currently at final design. Waiting for funding through a grant program to move to construction. DESCRIPTION: Replacement of two culverts in the Butler Farms neighborhood Culverts are not sized to meet the City's current 25‐year storm standard and near the end of their useful life Estimated Annual Operating Cost:None FINANCIALS COMMENT:This project will not move forward without grant funding. NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022137 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:MRGP OutfallsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: StormwaterCONTACT: Dave WheelerFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction 15 17 18 20 20 20 20 22 22 22196 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:15 17 18 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 196 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants5.00 55 5 5 5 5 5 5 550 Secured/Existing Debts‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds10.00 12.00 13.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 17.00 17.00 17.00 146 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:15 17 18 20 20 20 20 22 22 22 196 STATUS: Ongoing DESCRIPTION: Repair of eroded outfalls in CityMS4 Permit RequirementEstimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:The majority of this work could be done by municipal staffEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022138 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDSTORMWATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fleet JUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: StormwaterCONTACT: Dave WheelerFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Construction‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements 745 433 220 84 315 ‐ 220 245 2,262 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:745 433 220 84 315 ‐ 220 245 ‐ ‐ 2,262 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Secured/Existing Debts‐ Stormwater Enterprise Funds745 433 220 84 315 ‐ 220 245 2,262 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:745 433 220 84 315 ‐ 220 245 ‐ ‐ 2,262 STATUS: On‐going. DESCRIPTION: Replacement and purchase of stormwater department fleet. Includes street sweepers, vactor truck, trucks, mowers, etc. Vehicles have a set lifespan and need to be replaced. Estimated Annual Operating Cost:New equipment will require less maintenance. FINANCIALS COMMENT:Newer equipment will require less maintenance and staff time to repair and also prevent down‐time. Estimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022139 IV. WATER FUNDPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022140 FY 24 ‐ 33 OVERVIEW OF ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCESCIP DEPARTMENT OVERVIEWDepartment:WaterContact:Tom DiPietroSUMMARY FINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 97 98 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 382 3,251 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal419 292 ‐ 20 30 440 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,501 Construction101 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 85 826 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:617 465 462 482 492 902 762 462 467 467 5,578 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants174 174 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 348 Developer Contributions‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund443 291 462 482 492 902 762 462 467 467 5,230 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:617 465 462 482 492 902 762 462 467 467 5,578 The Water division operates the City’s drinking water system, including pipes, hydrants, valves, and related infrastructure. Division staff maintains compliance with federal and state drinking water regulation. Contracted employees from the Champlain Water District serve as the City's water department.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022141 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTCIP PROJECTS OVERVIEWDepartment:WaterContact:Tom DiPietroMajor Department Updates:SUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:High Service Storage Tank 200 59 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 3212827University Mall Flow Control Valve 26 0 29 29 29 29 29 29 29 29258National Guard Ave PRV Vault 0 0 0 20 0 40 300 0 0 0360High Service 2 Bypass0000304000000430AMR and Meter Replacement 75 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 85800Hydraulic, Infrastructure, and Asset Management Study0400000000040University Mall South Entrance Water Line2603232323232323232282Lead Service Line Replacement Project19319300000000386Water System Storage and Distribution System Improve979800000000195000000000000Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:617465462482492902762462467467 5578The Water division's proposed FY24 CIP includes engineering related to additional water storage in the high service area, engineering for large valve replacement behind the University Mall, meter replacements, extension of water line through the University Mall property into City Center, lead service line inventory adn replacement, and payment of debt from a previous water storage expansion project.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022142 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:High Service Storage TankJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment321 321 321 321 321 321 321 3212,568 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal20059259 Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:200593213213213213213213213212,827 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund200593213213213213213213213212,827 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:20059321321321321321321321321 2,827 STATUS: Preliminary engineering will be completed in FY23. Final engineering will take place in FY24/FY25. Construction will take place in FY25/FY26. This schedule anticipates a successful bond vote for $5.0M in FY24 with the first bond payment due in FY26.DESCRIPTION:Construction of a new tank to store drinking water for the high service water distribution system. Additional water storage is necessary to meet regulatory requirements and accommodate future growth.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:None. The tank will be transferred to CWD upon construction.FINANCIALS COMMENT:Figures based on 90% PER from November 2022None. The tank will be transferred to CWD upon construction.Estimated Revenue Per Year:Will allow us to sell additional water allocations.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022143 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:University Mall Flow Control ValveJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 231.2 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal2626.0 Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:26‐ 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 257.2 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund2628.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9 257.2 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ STATUS: Preliminary engineering will be completed in FY23. Final engineering will take place in FY24. This schedule anticipates a successful bond vote for $450,000 in FY24 with the first bond payment due in FY26.DESCRIPTION:This interconnection between the CWD transmission main and the City of South Burlington's water distribution system will enhance fire and domestic flows to City Center and the surrounding high service distribution area.This project will provide fire protection and drinking water to City Center and the surrounding area. It will also allow us to draw water from the CWD main instead of the Burlington system when water pressure drops.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:None.FINANCIALS COMMENT:Figures based on 90% PER from September 2022.None.Estimated Revenue Per Year:None.Total Estimated Funding:2628.928.928.928.928.928.928.928.9257.2PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022144 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:National Guard Ave PRV VaultJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 20 40 300360 Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ 20‐ 40300‐ ‐ ‐ 360 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund2040300360 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ STATUS: Not started. Will do a feasibility and need study in FY27.DESCRIPTION:Construct a new interconnect between the CWD 24" transmission main with an accompanying pressure reducing valve vault.Reduces the City's dependence on aging infrastructure within the Air Guard property. We currently rely on this infrastructure to supply water to residents off of National Guard Road.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:Total Estimated Funding2040300360PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022145 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:High Service 2 BypassJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal30 400430Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30400‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 430Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund30400430‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 30400‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 430STATUS: Not Started.DESCRIPTION:Construct an emergency bypass onto the CWD transmission main near Farrell Street.Properties located west of Farrell street are provided water through a single distribution main. This project when provide redundancy in case of failure.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneFINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022146 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:AMR and Meter ReplacementJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Construction 75 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 85800Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:75 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 85800Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund 75 75 80 80 80 80 80 80 85 85800‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ STATUS: Project is on‐going.DESCRIPTION:Ongoing program to replace aging meters and upgrade to radio meter reading system.Residential meter life expectancy is typically 25 years and requires replacement. The radio meter reading equipment reduces the staff time needed to read meters and improves data accuracy.Estimated Annual Operating Cost: No. Costs are already built in to line items.FINANCIALS COMMENT:Project reduces staff labor during meter reading.Estimated Revenue Per Year:The project improves the accuracy of meter reading and reduces the amount of unbilled water delivered to customers.Total Estimated Funding75758080808080808585800PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022147 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Hydraulic, Infrastructure, and Asset Management StudyJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 4040 Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:040 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund4040 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:040 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022148 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:University Mall South Entrance Water LineJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32257 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Construction2626 Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:26 03232323232323232283 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund263232323232323232283 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:26 03232323232323232283 STATUS: Preliminary engineering will be completed in FY23. Final engineering will take place in FY24. This schedule anticipates a successful bond vote for $500,000 in FY24 with the first bond payment due in FY26.DESCRIPTION:Extention of a water line from the west end of Garden Street (at Dorset) to the existing City owned water line that flows through the University Mall property. This extention will loop the existing water line, provide redundancy, and improve fire and domestic flow into City center and the high service area.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneFINANCIALS COMMENT:NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022149 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Lead Service Line Replacement ProjectJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment‐ Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal 193 193386 Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:193193‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 386 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants173.7 173.7347 Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund19.3 19.339 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:193193‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 386 STATUS: Engineering work will begin in FY23.DESCRIPTION:Complete an investigation to determine if there are any lead service lines in South Burlington.Identification and removal of lead service lines is important to protect public health. This work is also required by existing regulation.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022150 FY 24 ‐ 33 ENTERPRISE FUNDDRINKING WATER EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Water System Storage and Distribution System ImprovementsJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: WaterCONTACT: Tom DiPietroFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:Debt Repayment 97 98195 Land/ROW/Easement Acquisition‐ Studies, Design, Eng, Inspection, GC, Legal‐ Construction‐ Vehicles & Fleet Improvements‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:97 98‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 195 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ Developer Contributions‐ Drinking Water Enterprise Fund9798195 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:9798‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 195 STATUS: Payment on existing debt for previous investment in water storage and distribution system.DESCRIPTION: Payments started circa 2010Estimated Annual Operating Cost:NoneFINANCIALS COMMENT:Last payment occurs in FY25NoneEstimated Revenue Per Year:NonePROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022151 V. DEBT REPAYMENTSPROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022152 OVERVIEW OF GENERAL FUNDDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES TOTALED BY EXPENDITURE COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCEDEBT REPAYMENT OVERVIEWFY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Debt Repayment 1,052 1,269 1,676 1,664 1,685 3,190 3,172 3,152 3,132 311123,103 Debt Repayment1,861 1,852 1,741 1,709 1,363 1,332 1,298 1,263 876 85914,154 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Costs:2,913 3,121 3,417 3,373 3,048 4,522 4,470 4,415 4,008 3,970 37,257 Funding Sources:General Fund306 281 197 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 978 Secured Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Anticipated Grants‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)1,052 1,269 1,676 1,664 1,685 3,190 3,172 3,152 3,132 311123,103 Open Space Debt Proceeds125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 CIP Reserve Fund960 976 962 950 940 927 911 894 876 8599,255 Police Impact Fee110 110 97 80 68 45 27 9 ‐ ‐ 546 Local Options Tax (General Fund)360 360 360 360 355 360 360 360 ‐ ‐ 2,875 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Funding:2,913 3,121 3,417 3,373 3,048 4,522 4,470 4,415 4,008 3,970 37,257 The City maintains a long term debt schedule to track debt and debt payments. Debt issued for projects is serviced through a variety of funding sources: General Fund, Reserve funds, sales taxes on rooms, meals and sales, and tax increment financing revenues generated from the City Center TIF District. See individual pages for funding sources.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022153 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTDEBT REPAYMENT OVERVIEWSUMMARY CIP EXPENDITURES (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Projects:Garden Street Debt Repayment 274 408 408 408 408 1305 1305 1305 1305 13058,431 Williston Road Streetscape Debt Repayme40858483832032032022012001,384 Market Street Debt Repayment3663593533463383313233143062973,333 Public Library and City Hall Debt Repayme 1053 1043 1444 1431 1453 1435 1413 1389 1363 133613,360 Fire Department Communications Debt Re205201197194000000797 Open Space Debt Repayment 125 125 125 125000000500 Police Station Debt Repayment 490 473 457 440 423 405 387 369 0 03,444 City Center Park Debt Repayment 159 172 170 168 165 270 267 264 261 2592,155 I‐89 Walk Bike Bridge Debt Repayment 120 179 179 179 179 572 572 572 5725723,696 Multi‐Project Debt Repayment 81 7700000000158 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated CIP Expenditures:2,913 3,122 3,417 3,374 3,049 4,521 4,470 4,415 4,008 3,969 37,258 The City maintains a long term debt schedule to track debt and debt payments. Debt issued for projects is serviced through a variety of funding sources: General Fund, Reserve funds, sales taxes on rooms, meals and sales, and tax increment financing revenues generated from the City Center TIF District. See individual pages for funding sources.PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022154 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Garden Street Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development DirectorFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment 274 408 408 408 408 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 8,431 Debt Repayment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:274 408 408 408 408 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 8,431 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment) 274 408 408 408 408 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 8,431 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:274 408 408 408 408 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 1,305 8,431 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Anticipated debtEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022155 GENERAL FUNDDEBT REPAYMENT PROJECTS OVERVIEW BY EXPENDITUREPROJECT:Williston Road Streetscape Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development DirectorFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment 37 55 55 55 55 177 177 177 177 1771,142 Debt Repayment 3 29 29 28 27 27 26 25 24 24242 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:40 85 84 83 83 203 203 202 201 200 1,384 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment) 37 55 55 55 55 177 177 177 177 1771,142 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund 3 29 29 28 27 27 26 25 24 24242 Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:40 85 84 83 83 203 203 202 201 200 1,384 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Anticipated debtEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022156 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Market Street Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development DirectorFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment 366 359 353 346 338 331 323 314 3062973,333 Debt Repayment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:366 359 353 346 338 331 323 314 306 297 3,333 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment) 366 359 353 346 338 331 323 314 306 2973,333 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:366 359 353 346 338 331 323 314 306 297 3,333 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Existing debtEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022157 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Public Library and City Hall Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development DirectorFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment 96 96 511 508 540 535 528 520 511 5014,344 Debt Repayment957947 933 922 913 900 885 869 852 8359,015 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:1,053 1,043 1,444 1,431 1,453 1,435 1,413 1,389 1,363 1,336 13,359 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)9696 511 508 540 535 528 520 511 5014,344 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund957947 933 922 913 900 885 869 852 8359,015 Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:1,053 1,043 1,444 1,431 1,453 1,435 1,413 1,389 1,363 1,336 13,359 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Existing DebtEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022158 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Fire Department Communications Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Fire Department and AmbulanceCONTACT: Steve LockeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment‐ Debt Repayment 205 201 197 194 797 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:205 201 197 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 797 Funding Sources:General Fund205201 197 194 797 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:205 201 197 194 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 797 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022159 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Open Space Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Open SpaceCONTACT: Erica QuallenFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment‐ Debt Repayment 125 125 125 125 500 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds125125 125 125 500 CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:125 125 125 125 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 500 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022160 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Police Station Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: Police DepartmentCONTACT: Shawn BurkeFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment‐ Debt Repayment 490 473 457 440 423 405 387 369 3,444 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:490 473 457 440 423 405 387 369 ‐ ‐ 3,444 Funding Sources:General Fund20323 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee11011097 80 68 45 27 9 546 Local Options Tax (General Fund)3603603603603553603603602,875 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:490 473 457 440 423 405 387 369 ‐ ‐ 3,444 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: Project completed in 2010. Debt repayment until FY31DESCRIPTION: Bond payment on the purchase and construction of 19 Gregory Drive.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022161 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:City Center Park Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development DirectorFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment 159 172 170 168 165 270 267 264 2612592,156 Debt Repayment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:159 172 170 168 165 270 267 264 261 259 2,156 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)1591721701681652702672642612592,156 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:159 172 170 168 165 270 267 264 261 259 2,156 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Existing and anticipated debtEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022162 GENERAL FUND ‐ OPEN SPACECAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITUREPROJECT:I‐89 Walk Bike Bridge Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: City CenterCONTACT: Ilona BlanchardFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Debt Repayment 120 179 179 179 179 572 572 572 572 572 3,693 Debt Repayment‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:120 179 179 179 179 572 572 572 572 572 3,693 Funding Sources:General Fund‐ Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)120 179 179 179 179 572 572 572 572 572 3,693 Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:120 179 179 179 179 572 572 572 572 572 3,693 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Anticipated DebtsEstimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION:Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022163 FY 24 ‐ 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMDEBT REPAYMENT EXPENDITURES AND FUNDING SOURCES BY PROJECTPROJECT:Multi‐Project Debt RepaymentJUSTIFICATION: Operational Impacts:DEPARTMENT: MultipleCONTACT: MultipleFINANCIALS (in $1,000)FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29 FY30 FY31 FY32 FY33Total:Estimated Costs:TIF District Serviced Debt Repayment‐ Debt Repayment 81 77158 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Costs:81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 158 Funding Sources:General Fund8177158 Secured Grants‐ Anticipated Grants‐ TIF District Revenues (Increment)‐ Open Space Debt Proceeds‐ CIP Reserve Fund‐ Police Impact Fee‐ Local Options Tax (General Fund)‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Total Estimated Funding:81 77 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 158 FINANCIALS COMMENT:Estimated Revenue Per Year:STATUS: DESCRIPTION: Taken out 2004 for Fire Station Improvements, Kennedy Drive Reconstruction, Lime Kiln Road Bridge and Dorset Street Fire Station Renovation.Estimated Annual Operating Cost:PROPOSED FY24 CIP BUDGET-Updated 1-3-2022164 R – 2023 – 1 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEARS 2024-2033 WHEREAS, the City’s Capital Improvement Program was first adopted October 4, 1993, and amended in 1999, 2001, 2006, 2013, 2014, 2015 (July), 2015 (December), 2017 (January), 2017 (December), 2018 (December), 2019 (December), 2021 (January), and 2022 (January); and, WHEREAS, on June 18, 2012, the Council adopted a policy that requires that the City Manager prepare a capital improvement program update annually for review by the City Council; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with 24 V.S.A. §4443, a properly warned hearing was held on January 17, 2023 and a copy of the proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program was provided to the Planning Commission and City Clerk; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Fiscal Year 2024-2033 Capital Improvement Program has been made available to the public online and in the City Clerk’s Office. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends the Capital Improvement Program by striking the FY 2023-2032 amendment in its entirety, and replaces it with the City’s Fiscal Year 2024-2034 Capital Improvement Program. APPROVED this 17th day of January, 2023. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota R – 2023 – 2 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND WARNING THE FY 2024 CITY BUDGET AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS INCLUDING THE USE OF AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT (ARPA) FUNDS WHEREAS, pursuant to the City’s Charter, the South Burlington City Manager prepared and submitted the FY 2024 annual budget to the South Burlington City Council with the stated purpose of maintaining current service levels for municipal operations, ensuring a sustainable fund balance for future councils, and to maintain investment in capital; and, WHEREAS, included in the annual budget are certain capital improvement expenditures that are eligible for funding with ARPA funds the City received to help offset impacts caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; and, WHEREAS, at its regularly warned meetings through December and January, the Council and public reviewed the City budget through individual department budget presentations; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the City’s Charter and applicable provisions of state law, a properly warned public hearing on the FY 2024 budget was held on January 17, 2023 for further public comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to its authority under 24A V.S.A. §13-1302(c), the City Council does hereby adopt and warn for public vote by austalian ballot at the City’s annual meeting the City’s FY 2024 Budget, totaling $55,286,721.89 including the General Fund and all enterprise funds, and shall forward copies of the proposed budget to each member of the Steering Committee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the voters approve the proposed budget, the following eligible capital improvement expenditures shall be funded through the use of ARPA funds: Ambulance; Public works garage bay expansion and charging stations; Public Works fleet replacement; Replacing generator at Fire Station #2; and all previous Council approved uses of ARPA funds. APPROVED this 17th day of January, 2023. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota WARNING CITY OF SOUTH BURLINGTON ANNUAL CITY MEETING MARCH 7, 2023 The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are hereby notified and warned to meet at their respective polling places at the Chamberlin School on White Street, the Frederick H. Tuttle Middle School on Dorset Street, the Orchard School on Baldwin Avenue, and Kevin Dorn Senior Center in City Hall on Market Street on Tuesday, March 7, 2023 at 7 o’clock in the forenoon, at which time the polls will open until 7 o’clock in the evening, at which time the polls will close, to vote by Australian Ballot on the following Articles: ARTICLE I ELECTION OF CITY OFFICERS AND CITY COUNCILORS To elect all City Officers and City Councilors required by law. ARTICLE II ANNUAL CITY BUDGET Shall the City adopt the City Council’s proposed budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 totaling Fifty Five Million Two Hundred Eighty Six Thousand Seven Hundred Twenty One and Eighty Nine Cents ($55,286,721.89) of which, excluding previously voter-approved levies, it is estimated Nineteen Million Three Hundred Eighty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Ninety Eight and Ninety Two Cents ($19,388,298.92) will be raised by local property taxes? ARTICLE III BARTLETT BAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND 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? ARTICLE IV CITY CENTER TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT BOND 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 ($15,086,430.00) 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 (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. The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are further warned and notified that a public information meeting/public hearing will be held to provide information and answer questions on Articles I, II, III, and IV on Monday, March 6, 2023, commencing at six-thirty o’clock in the evening (6:30 p.m.) in person, online and by phone. In-Person: City Hall Auditorium, 180 Market Street GoToMeeting Online Meeting Link (computer, tablet or smartphone): https://meet.goto.com/SouthBurlingtonVT/citycouncilmeeting03-06-2023 Dial in by Telephone: +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 645-719-013 POLLING PLACES FOR VOTING ON THESE ARTICLES ARE THE CHAMBERLIN SCHOOL ON WHITE STREET, THE FREDERICK H. TUTTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL ON DORSET STREET, THE ORCHARD SCHOOL ON BALDWIN AVENUE, AND THE KEVIN DORN SENIOR CENTER IN CITY HALL ON MARKET STREET. VOTERS ARE TO GO TO THE POLLING PLACE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE DISTRICT. The legal voters of the City of South Burlington are further notified that voter qualification, registration and absentee voting relative to said annual meeting shall be in accordance with the Vermont Statutes Annotated. Dated at South Burlington, Vermont, this 17th day of January, 2023. ______________________ ______________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair ______________________ _______________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Thomas Chittenden _______________________ Matt Cota Received and recorded this ___ day of January, 2023. __________________________________________ Donna Kinville, City Clerk 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov MEMORANDUM TO: Jessie Baker, City Manager South Burlington City Council FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning Kelsey Peterson, City Planner SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Schedule and Outreach DATE: January 17, 2023 City Council meeting Work on the Comprehensive Plan is moving along! The current Plan, adopted in 2016, will expire in early February 2024, and as such staff and the Planning Commission are working to complete updates to the Plan well in advance of that timeline. In general terms, here is the schedule for remaining work on the Plan: • February – March: Public Outreach Meetings • February – May: Feedback from Committees on Sections • February – June: Planning Commission Review of Sections • Mid-June: Full Draft Compiled • June – August: Planning Commission Review of Full Draft, including all meetings open to public • Mid-August: Planning Commission moves Full Draft to Public Hearings • August – October: Public Hearings at Planning Commission, move to City Council • October – November: City Council moves Full Draft to Public Hearings • By December: Adoption of 2024 Comprehensive Plan by City Council Outreach meetings & online poll: The next phase of the work will be heavy on community engagement. As discussed with the Commission last summer, we’ve engaged a professional facilitator to gather community feedback at a series of 11 community meetings through March and April. We have scheduled four geographic meetings: Northwest, Central/Kennedy, Southeast, and Southwest. We have also scheduled seven topic meetings: Economy, Energy & Climate, Recreation & Culture, Environment, Transportation, and Community Services. The first six listed have a closely-related City policy committee; only Community Services does not. We have set the public meeting schedule for the topic area meetings being held primarily during the regular meeting times of the relevant policy committees and the geographically focused meetings to be held on several Thursdays. Enclosed with this memo is an event schedule flyer with the full schedule, to be published in upcoming publications. All of this will be started by an online poll to the community to gather some initial feedback and draw attention to the work. 2 After the public meetings, the policy committees have between a week and a few weeks to get their feedback to Staff, reflecting both their opinions and their takeaways from the public meetings. Those deadlines fall with enough time for Staff to incorporate them into draft section(s) relevant to those areas that are included in a Planning Commission packet in advance of a Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission will then review and discuss the draft sections, provide feedback to staff, and brainstorm possible measurable objectives. The Committees will then have additional time, either a meeting or two meetings, to provide additional feedback to staff, including their suggestions for measurable objectives. •Listening Session for comments from public •Hosted by Committee and/or Staff and professionally facilitated Public Meeting •Approximately 1-2 weeks from Public Meeting •Committee writes and provides feedback on topic area, incorporating input from meeting •Staff drafts section incorporating Committee feedback and public input Committee Feedback •Approximately 1-2 weeks from Committee Feedback •Initial review of draft section, including any desired edits •Discussion of any additional policies or statments to be included in the narrative Planning Commission Review •Likely at March and/or April Committee meetings •Committee will receive draft section for review •Discussion of possible measurable objectives for topic area and/or City overall Additional Committee Feedback •March or April, depending on topic •Review of updated draft section(s); Review of possible measurable objectives Second Planning Commission Review •Staff compiles and coordinates full draft •Provided to Planning Commission by mid-June Full Draft Community Conversation Calendar Thursday, Feb. 2 | #1 How we serve the community Tuesday, Feb. 7 | #2 Jobs, business, and the economy Hosted by Economic Development Committee Wednesday, Feb. 8 | #3 Energy & Climate Change Hosted by Energy Committee Thursday, Feb. 9 | #4 Northwest Neighborhoods Monday, Feb. 13 | #5 Recreation & Culture Hosted by Recreation & Parks & Common Area for Dogs Cmtes Thursday, Feb. 16 | #6 Central Neighborhoods Wednesday, Mar. 1 | #7 Ecology, Environment, Agriculture Hosted by Natural Resources & Conservation Committee Wednesday, Mar. 8 | #8 Transportation & Mobility Hosted by Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee Thursday, Mar. 9 | #9 Southeast Neighborhoods Wednesday, Mar. 15 | #10 Housing & Shelter Hosted by Affordable Housing Committee Thursday, Mar. 16 | #11 Southwest Neighborhoods We invite all members of our community: residents, employees, property & business owners, and visitors, to join us for our professionally facilitated community conservations series. Help shape South Burlington’s future. All meetings will held both in person at 180 Market Street and online, from 7:00 pm to ~8:30 pm. For more information and about the 2024 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan, visit www.southburlingtonvt.gov or contact Kelsey Peterson, City Planner, at kpeterson@southburlingtonvt.gov or (802) 923-5549 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sbvt.gov MEMORANDUM TO: South Burlington City Council FROM: Kelsey Peterson, City Planner SUBJECT: Auclair Conservation FOR: January 17, 2023, City Council meeting The Vermont Land Trust and Bread & Butter Farm are continuing to work on closing the conservation easements on the former Auclair farm property located near the intersection of Hinesburg Road and Cheesefactory Road. The project involving approximately 375 total acres includes permanent conservation of approximately 362 acres of farmland, woodland, and wetlands, supports agriculture (including Bread & Butter Farm and its educational mission) and recreational opportunities for South Burlington, and creates a new network of public recreation paths. It has been divided into three Parcels: Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcel C. Please see the attached map for the locations of these three parcels The conservation of the three Parcels has continued on three timelines. As noted in the map, Parcel A is 191 acres and was conserved in 2020. The conservation easement on Parcel C is 67 acres and should be closed on in January 2023, but we have no further updates on if that has happened. VLT will acquire the Parcel C land after closing on the easement. These transactions require no further City funding. Parcel B is approximately 104 acres of land to be conserved and approximately 13 acres of excluded area. Vermont Land Trust is scheduled to close on a conservation easement on Parcel B in February or March 2023. Originally, it was intended that an entity called an “Agrarian Commons” that would acquire the underlying land concurrent with the closing of the easement, but that entity has not yet been created. The underlying land will remain held by Dirt Capital, an intermediary funder, until a new entity is established or Bread & Butter Farm works out another way to acquire the land outright. The City of South Burlington committed to providing $915,000 from the City’s Open Space Fund to fund conservation of the Auclair farm parcels, primarily as a funding match and/or other leverage to obtain other grant funding, including from the federal government. Of that, approximately $605,000 has already been released. The City Council has approved the remaining $309,033 toward the acquisition of the conservation easement on Parcel B. The City Council needs to act to release those remaining funds to enable the acquisition of the conservation easement on Parcel B with a likely closing in February or March 2023. This will enable the closing of the conservation easement; it does not transfer the underlying land. It continues to be the intention of VLT and Bread & Butter Farm that the Parcel B land will go to an agricultural entity. VLT and Bread & Butter continue to work with other partners to determine how to structure such an entity (likely a new Agrarian Commons model) and to transfer the land from Dirt Capital to the new entity. It would protect the interests of the City of South Burlington to require a simple Right of First Refusal on the excluded area (approximately 13 acres not covered by the conservation easement). This provides another 2 stopgap because the property will remain in the hands of a funder, not a local nonprofit and/or agricultural entity. It would not apply to transfers from Dirt Capital to an Agrarian Commons or Bread & Butter Farm, or similar entity, but it would apply to any transfer to another party. This provides a backstop for the City to ensure that land related to the land conserved with the contribution of City funds is not sold in the future to a private enterprise if an agricultural entity does not materialize and the acquisition of the underlying parcel does not occur. VLT and City Staff have also worked to write a Memorandum memorializing what the City’s contribution has accomplished. This includes description of the conservation, recreation, and educational goals that have been enabled by the City funds. It also describes the intention that the land move into local non-profit ownership and the City be involved in the governance of a new entity. The Memorandum has also been attached to this memo. Proposed Action: • Allocate the remaining $309,033 from the City’s Open Space Fund toward the VLT acquisition of the conservation easement on Parcel B conditional on the execution of an acceptable Right of First Refusal on the so-called “excluded area” of 13.41 acres of Parcel B • Approve the Memorandum documenting the conservation, agricultural, recreational, and other public benefit outcomes of the City’s total approximately $915,000 funding Municipal Land IState LandVLT Conserved Land 1:15,000Subject Parcels Proposed Public Trail Proposed Bike Path Auclair/Bread & Butter Conservation Project Conservation Overview City of South Burlington, VT VermontLand Trust MEMORANDUM Conservation of the Auclair Farm has been a longstanding goal of the City of South Burlington, the Vermont Land Trust (VLT), and Bread & Butter Farm (BBF). To support the conservation process, the City has committed $915,000 from its Open Space/Conservation Fund towards the initial acquisition of three farmland parcels from the Auclair family and the acquisition of permanent conservation easements on these parcels. Through its contribution, the City of South Burlington has enabled numerous and significant public benefit outcomes: Supporting the permanent conservation of 362 acres of productive farmland, woodland, and significant natural communities in an area with significant areas of conserved land protected by private landowners, City of South Burlington, Town of Shelburne, VLT, Natural Conservancy, and University of Vermont. Direct contribution to the land and easement acquisition on 104 acres (Parcel B). Indirect contribution to land and easement acquisitions on 67 acres (Parcel C) and 191 acres (Parcel A). Crucial financial match to leverage an additional $2.2 million in conservation funds from state, federal, and private sources. Providing special protections for a diverse array of wetland and riparian habits, including a large, state-significant occurrence of Clayplain Forest, a rare natural community in Vermont. Actively restoring three (3) acres of wetland and riparian buffer through the planting of native trees and shrubs to promote clean water and wildlife habitat. Promoting local agriculture in South Burlington by supporting the future viability of Bread & Butter Farm and its educational and recreational resources for community members, with the further goal of promoting agriculture generally in this area. Supporting the purchase of an additional thirteen (13) acres of land on Parcel B for siting farm-related infrastructure, farm labor housing for BBF, and future farm operations, among other possible related uses. The City of South Burlington, VLT, and BBF further anticipate the financial contribution of the City to enable and result in additional public benefit outcomes in the near future: Establishing approximately four (4) miles of public trail corridors to be installed (Exact lengths and locations to be determined, but generally indicated on Exhibit A) and connected the City’s existing and planned trail system Establish a small public parking lot on the northern end of Parcel B to serve the trail system. VLT and BBF will continue to work with the City to explore opportunities for public use and community benefits on the thirteen (13) acres referenced above. Enriching the City’s agricultural future through supporting the goal of creating Vermont Agrarian Commons, a not-for-profit ownership model designed to promote affordable access to farmland and sustainable agricultural management, and/or perpetual agricultural ownership of the former Auclair Farm properties. The City will encourage the future establishment of the Agrarian Commons and have a seat at the table in governance of this planned entity, especially as it relates to the former Auclair Farm properties. For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.1©2023 SEI Dan Cappell, CAIA dcappell@seic.com OCIO partnership review Fourth Quarter 2022 January 17, 2023 City of South Burlington For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.2©2023 SEI Agenda •Executive Summary •Market & Economic Review •Portfolio Review •Q3 Core Property Commentary •Appendix For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.3©2023 SEI SEI’s OCIO support model: Extending our commitment beyond investments 1Optional service. 2As of 6/30/22. Custody services provided by SEI Private Trust Company, a federally chartered limited purpose savings association and an affiliate of SIMC. Client Portfolio Management •Portfolio management technology•Rebalancing to strategic targets•Daily processing (Automated trade calculations) Custody and Operations1 •Dedicated middle office with 20+ years average industry experience2 •Client and benefit payment websites •Q/Cs, call-backs as part of process •Detailed statements & reporting (including tax) Audit and Government Filing Support •Asset and transaction confirmations •ROA, 5500 support •SPTC SOC 1 report •Auditors: Website access and direct interaction by SEI Governance •Fiduciary education•IPS development and review Solutions •Investor dashboard •Administration capabilities •Performance reporting •Funded status monitoring Mitigate financial risk Time savings More integration and transparency Improved governance support For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.4©2023 SEI Please refer to the important disclosures accompanying your portfolio performance in this presentation for information on performance calculations. Executive summary Economic Point of View •In the New Year, we expect many of the same headwinds experienced in 2022: inflation rates exceeding the targets of major central banks; interest-rate increases potentially continuing through midyear; quantitative easing shifting to quantitative tightening; ongoing geopolitical tensions and, for many countries, stagnant or recessionary economies. •The Fed is expected to continue raising interest rates in 2023, with a year-end median prediction of 5.1%. The question is whether this forceful approach taken by the Fed this past year and, presumably, in the year ahead, will be sufficient to bring inflation down. On the other end of the spectrum, there are investors concerned with the Feds approach being overly forceful and putting undue strain on the economy that results in a deep economic contraction. •PE multiples contracted sharply in 2022. At the end of 2021, the forward PE multiple on U.S. equities was 22.5, well above the 10-year average of 18.1. At the end of 2022, the forward PE multiple had contracted to 17.1, representing a modest discount to its longer-term average. Portfolio Perspectives •In Q4, the City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Portfolio returned 7.15% with equities posting strong returns and outperforming the broad market. The Portfolio’s calendar year 2022 return was -11.65%. The Portfolio balance increased $2.2 million quarter-over-quarter to $40.0 million as of December 31, 2022. •Equity markets were choppy in Q4, but ultimately finished higher off of the lows experienced in Q3. In Q4,the value orientation in U.S. Equity Factor continued to be beneficial, materially outperforming the index. The bias towards quality within small cap equity was additive on a relative basis as well. •Fixed income markets posted a modest rebound off of Q3 lows as yields moved slightly lower. Despite the challenges in the current environment, all funds but one in the portfolio contributed on both an absolute and relative basis. Although 2022 was painful for bond investors, future returns are expected to benefit from significantly higher yields relative to the beginning of 2022. •The current portfolio is broadly diversified and is positioned to withstand the uptick in volatility which is likely to continue into 2023. Recent Actions •In October 2022, Pzena Investment Management and Jupiter Asset Management replaced Alliance Bernstein in the World Equity Ex US Fund for their more concentrated value approach For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.5©2023 SEI Source: SEI. Yield is representative of the SEC 30 Day Yield. Changing tides in bond yields Fund Yield as of 1/1/2022 Yield as of 1/1/2023 Core Fixed Income 1.66%4.32% Limited Duration 1.06%3.98% Opportunistic Income 2.52%6.61% High Yield 4.37%8.80% Emerging Markets Debt 4.61%6.69% For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.6©2023 SEI Market and economic review For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.7©2023 SEI Commodities = Bloomberg Commodity Index (USD), Inflation-Linked = Bloomberg 1-5 Year US TIPS Index (USD), Emerging Markets Debt = 50/50 JPM EMBI Global Div & JPM GBI EM Global Div, High Yield Bonds = ICE BofA US High Yield Constrained Index (USD), US Long-Duration Bonds = Bloomberg Long US Government/Credit Index (USD), US Investment-Grade Bonds = Bloomberg US Aggregate Bond Index (USD), Emerging Markets Equity = MSCI EFM (Emerging+Frontier Markets) Index (Net) (USD), World Equity x US = MSCI World ex-USA Index (Net) (USD), U.S. Small Cap = Russell 2000 Index (USD),U.S. Large Cap = Russell 1000 Index (USD). Sources: SEI, index providers. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. As of 12/31/2022. Market performance overview •A more stable interest rate environment allowed markets to find their footing in the last three months of 2022, undoing some of the damage done in the first nine months of the year. •Equity market returns were broadly positive. International and emerging market equities outperformed US stocks, thanks to improving sentiment toward Europe and Asia, reopening of economic activity in China, and a decline in the exchange rate of the US dollar. •Fixed income markets finally turned in a positive quarter, with investment- grade, high yield and emerging markets all faring well. This was a welcome respite from what proved to be a historically challenging calendar year for fixed income markets. •Commodity returns were positive overall. Industrial and precious metals led, the former helped by an end to China’s zero-COVID policies and more supportive government policies for its real estate sector. With the exception of natural gas, energy commodity performance bounced back from a challenging third quarter. Commodities were the only high-level public asset class that generated a positive return for the full year. -30%-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20% Commodities Inflation-Linked Emerging Markets Debt High Yield Bonds Long Duration Fixed Income Core Fixed Income Emerging Markets Equity World Equity x US U.S. Small Cap U.S. Large Cap Financial Markets Review One Year 2022 Q4 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.8©2023 SEI Sources: Bloomberg, Russell, Standard & Poor’s. US Large Cap = Russell 1000 Index, US Small Cap = Russell 2000 Index. Value and Growth represented by Russell 1000 Value Index and Russell 1000 Growth Index, respectively. Sectors represented by respective S&P 500 sector indexes. As of 12/31/2022. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. U.S. equity market review •U.S. equities declined for the full calendar year but staged a healthy rally from the start of the fourth quarter into early December before giving up some ground. •Value stocks continued their outperformance against growth in the quarter helping to widen their performance margin for the full year. •Energy stocks were the top sector performer in the quarter and the only sector to provide positive returns over the full year. Consumer discretionary and communications both fell over the quarter and the full year. -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% Dec '21 Mar '22 Jun '22 Sep '22 Dec '22Cumulative Total ReturnYTD Domestic Equity Market Returns U.S. Large Cap (-19.1%)U.S. Small Cap (-20.5%) 12.4%2.2%22.7%8.6%12.7%12.8%19.2%13.6%15.0%3.8%4.7% -10.2%-1.4%-7.6%-29.1% 65.4% 1.6% -0.6%-2.0%-5.5%-10.6%-12.3%-26.2%-28.2%-37.0%-39.9% -100% 0% 100% Value Growth Energy Utilities Cons. Staples Healthcare Industrials Financials Materials Real Estate Technology Cons. Disc. CommunicationsTotal ReturnU.S. Large Cap Sectors Fourth Quarter One Year For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.9©2023 SEI Source: Bloomberg, Russell, MSCI, SEI. U.S. = Russell 3000 Total Return Index, Developed (ex-US) = MSCI World ex-U.S Net Total Return Index, Emerging = MSCI Emerging Markets Net Total Return Index, Europe = MSCI Europe Net Total Return Index, Japan = MSCI Japan Net Total Return Index, Pacific ex-Japan = MSCI Pacific Ex Japan Net Total Return Index, EMEA = MSCI Emerging Markets Europe Middle East & Africa Net Total Return Index, Latin America = MSCI EM Latin America Net Total Return Index, Asia = MSCI EM Asia Net Total Return Index. All returns in USD. As of 12/31/2022. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. International equity market review •In contrast to the third quarter and similar to the second, countries and regions outside the US performed better overall. •Developed markets ex-US were especially strong. While Europe led the way, performance was solid across regions. •Emerging markets were led by Asia. China captured most of the headlines but the Philippines, Korea, Thailand and Malaysia also performed quite well. Despite strong performances from Colombia, Peru and Mexico, Latin America returns were more muted overall as a result of a lackluster quarter from Brazilian equities. -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% Dec '21 Mar '22 Jun '22 Sep '22 Dec '22Cumulative Total ReturnYTD International Equity Market Returns Developed (ex-U.S.) (-14.3%)Emerging Markets (-20.1%) 7.2%16.2%9.7%15.7%19.3%13.2%5.7%10.8%5.8% -19.2%-14.3%-20.1%-5.9%-15.1%-16.6% 8.9% -21.1%-28.3%U.S.Developed(ex-U.S.)Emerging Pacific ex-Japan Europe Japan Latin America Asia EMEA Broad Regions Developed Regions Emerging RegionsTotal ReturnRegional Performance FourthQuarter One Year For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.10©2023 SEI Sources: Bloomberg, JP Morgan, SEI. Option-adjusted spreads over US Treasurys US Investment Grade = Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate Index, US High Yield = Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Corporate High Yield Index, and Emerging Market Debt = JP Morgan EMBI Diversified Sovereign Index. As of 12/31/2022. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Fixed income review •A comparison of the US yield curve at the end of 2021 and 2022 provides a striking visual image of just how dramatically the inflation and interest rate outlooks shifted in 2022. •While the short end moved higher on additional Federal Reserve rate hikes, most of the yield curve held fairly steady during the fourth quarter. •The spread between 10-and 2-year yields inverted further, reinforcing concerns that a US recession may begin some time in 2023. •With Treasury yields stabilizing across most maturities, fixed income markets were able to find firmer footing versus the first nine months of the year. •Investment grade, high yield and emerging markets debt all provided healthy positive returns in Q4. •While spreads remained above their 10-year averages, they narrowed markedly from where they started the quarter. 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30Yield Maturity (Years) U.S. Yield Curve 12/31/2022 9/30/2022 12/31/2021 1.3% 4.7%4.5% 1.6% 5.5%5.6% 0.9% 2.8% 3.7% 1.2% 4.3% 3.6% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% US Investment Grade US High Yield Emerging Market DebtOption-Adjusted SpreadOption-Adjusted Spreads 12/31/2022 9/30/2022 12/31/21 10Y Average For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.11©2023 SEI Source: FactSet, SEI. Data as of 12/31/22 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Not enough workers anywhere •The U.S. is not the only country with a tight labor market. This chart compares the number of job vacancies per officially unemployed person for a selection of major economies. •While the U.S. has the tightest labor market in terms of the ratio of job vacancies per unemployed person (1.7 to 1.0), all the countries highlighted in the chart have experienced a significant increase in labor market challenges in recent years. •Both Canada and Germany have greater labor challenges now than they did before the pandemic. 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022RatioJob vacancies per unemployed person U.S.Japan Canada U.K.Germany For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.12©2023 SEI Source: Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, SEI. Data as of 12/31/22 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Comp romp •The U.S. remains the outlier when it comes to sustaining a rapid rise in wages. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publishes quarterly data on total labor compensation for the largest economies, which we highlight in the chart in this slide. •Year-over-year changes are highly variable, so we smooth out the fluctuations by taking a 12-month moving average and tracking the annualized percentage change over a three-year period. •Even when making these adjustments, it is clear that the U.S. is undergoing a much sharper compensation acceleration than the other five countries that we examine. •Both Canada and the U.K. have recorded rising wage inflation that has reached their highest levels since 2009. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Percentage change over three-year span, annualizedCompensation rates, total economy U.S.Canada U.K.Germany France Japan Four-quarter moving average For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.13©2023 SEI Source: FactSet, SEI. Data as of 12/31/22 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The Fed will pivot when the economy lands in a divot •Market-implied pricing of the federal-funds rate suggests that investors and traders think that the Fed will end its tightening cycle by mid-2023, peaking at 4.8% (now meaningfully below what the Fed it thinks will prove necessary). By year-end 2023, the market-implied funds rate is expected to be trimmed to 4.4%, with additional declines, to 3.25%, by year-end 2024. •We are in the camp of the Fed’s more hawkish FOMC members. If there is going to be a surprise, it may still be toward a somewhat higher federal funds in 2023, not a lower one. In our opinion, tight labor markets and a stubbornly resilient U.S. economy will keep inflation higher for longer. •Consensus expectations for a Fed pivot sooner rather than later are probably influenced by the sharp inversion of the 2-to-10-year yield curve spread, which we highlight in the accompanying chart. •Inflation is also a larger problem than it has been at any time in the past 40 years. It is our guess that a major reversal (steepening) in the yield-curve spread could occur sometime in the first half of 2023 (yields and prices move inversely). When that turn comes, the re-steepening of the curve should be sharp and dramatic. -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 Percentage points10-year minus 2-year Treasury yield spread U.S. Recessions Treasury Yield Curve For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.14©2023 SEI Source: FactSet, SEI. Data as of 12/31/22 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Policy rates surged in 2022, with more increases on the way •Other central banks also are grappling with how high rates must rise. The chart tracks the policy rates of the major central banks. •The Fed and the Bank of Canada have been mostly pushing up rates in lockstep with each other. •The Bank of England (BOE) has not been quite as aggressive despite the extremely high inflation rate facing the country. Meanwhile, the European Central Bank (ECB) only recently pushed its deposit facility rate up to 2%, less than half the level of the U.S. federal-funds funds rate. •Even Japan, which now has the only negative policy rate in the world, is finally shifting its policy stance from extreme monetary easing. The Bank of Japan (BoJ) modified its yield-curve control policy in December, raising the cap on the government’s 10-year bond from 0.25% to 0.50%. -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016201720182019202020212022Percent per annumCentral-bank policy rates U.S.Canada U.K.Australia Euro Area Japan For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.15©2023 SEI©2023 SEI The good news •Inflation has begun to ease globally as supply-chains normalize and excess demand for goods fades. •China has made a remarkable U-turn away from its zero-Covid policy, which should lead to a substantial acceleration in economic growth in 2023. •Energy prices took a tumble in the fourth quarter thanks to unseasonably warm weather in much of the Northern hemisphere, Europe’s success in filling up natural-gas storage facilities and investor expectations that recession will cut into demand. •Central banks will likely slow down the pace of policy-rate hikes now that interest-rate levels are much closer to inflation than had been the case at the start of 2022. •The extent of any additional deterioration in stock and bond prices from current levels should be tempered due to the price correction that has already occurred over the past year and the return of valuations to historical norms. The bad news •Services inflation remains sticky, driven by tight labor markets and strong wage increases, especially in the U.S., Canada and the U.K. •In the near-term, China will likely face a very difficult ramp-up in infections and deaths. •Energy prices are likely to continue to be quite volatile throughout the year as Europe prepares for the 2023-to-2024 heating season without Russian supplies. Chinese demand for fossil fuels also should recover as its economy rebounds. •Further rate hikes probably are needed, especially in the U.S., given the economy’s resiliency and high wage growth well in excess of productivity gains. A pivot to an easier Fed policy may take longer to materialize than investors apparently anticipate. •Longer-term shifts are underway that may exert a negative impact on corporate profit margins and add to inflation pressures, These include structurally higher borrowing costs, a focus on supply chain resiliency and higher tax regimes. Data as of 12/31/22 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Economic Outlook 2023 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.16©2023 SEI Portfolio review For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.17©2023 SEI City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Investment Policy Statement comparison As of:IMA 12/31/2022 Market Value Allocation Allocation U.S. Factor Allocation Fund $5,734,659 14.3%15.0% Large Cap Index Fund $4,942,671 12.4%13.0% Small Cap II Fund $1,136,467 2.8%3.0% World Equity Ex-US Fund $7,570,539 18.9%19.0% Emerging Markets Equity Fund $1,978,168 4.9%5.0% Equity $21,362,504 53.4%40.0% Core Fixed Income Fund $4,681,847 11.7%12.0% Limited Duration $2,722,829 6.8%7.0% Opportunistic Income Fund $1,944,993 4.9%5.0% High Yield Bond Fund $1,547,652 3.9%4.0% Emerging Markets Debt Fund $1,599,297 4.0%4.0% Fixed Income $12,496,618 31.2%32.0% Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund $1,898,270 4.7%5.0% Other $1,898,270 4.7%5.0% Core Property CIT $4,237,201 10.6%8.0% Real Estate $4,237,201 10.6%8.0% Government Fund $7 0.0%0.0% Cash & Equivalents $7 0.0%0.0% Total $39,994,600 100.0%100.0% For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.18©2023 SEI Important information: asset valuation and portfolio returns Inception date 8/31/2013. Historical Total Index can be provided upon request. The Portfolio Return and fund performance numbers are calculated using Gross Fund Performance, using a true time-weighted performance method (prior to 6/30/2012, the Modified Dietz method of calculation was used). Gross Fund Performance reflects the effective performance of the underlying mutual funds that are selected or recommended by SIMC to implement an institutional client’s investment strategy. Gross Fund Performance does not reflect the impact of fund level management fees,fund administration or shareholder servicing fees, all of which, if applicable, are used to offset the account level investment management fees the client pays to SIMC. Gross Fund Performance does reflect certain operational expenses charged by the funds and the reinvestment of dividends and other earnings. The inclusion of the fund level expenses that the client incurs but that are offset against the client’s account level investment management fees would reduce the Gross Fund Performance of the mutual funds. For additional information about how performance is calculated, please see your monthly performance report. If applicable, alternative, property and private assets performance and valuations may be reported on a monthly or quarterly lag. Alternative, property and private assets performance is calculated gross of investment management fees and net of administrative expenses and underlying fund expenses. However: Structured Credit Fund performance is calculated gross of investment management fees and net of administrative expenses; SEI Offshore Opportunity Fund II Ltd. Class A performance is calculated net of investment management and administrative expenses; and Energy Debt Fund performance is calculated net of management fees, performance fees, as applicable,and operating expenses. Net Portfolio Returns since 6/30/12 reflect the deduction of SIMC’s investment management fee and the impact that fee had on the client’s portfolio performance. Prior to 6/30/12, Net Portfolio Returns deduct a proxy annual fee for all periods to demonstrate the impact that SIMC’s investment management fee had on the portfolio performance. However, this is a hypothetical calculation, as it does not reflect the actual fees paid by the client during the period. Please see your client invoice for actual fees paid. For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.19©2023 SEI City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Portfolio summary —December 31, 2022 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.20©2023 SEI Return time periods less than 12 months are cumulative, over 12 months are annualized. City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Annualized investment returns —December 31, 2022 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.21©2023 SEI Return time periods less than 12 months are cumulative, over 12 months are annualized. City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Annualized investment returns —December 31, 2022 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.22©2023 SEI Return time periods less than 12 months are cumulative, over 12 months are annualized. City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Calendar year investment returns —December 31, 2022 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.23©2023 SEI Return time periods less than 12 months are cumulative, over 12 months are annualized. City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Calendar year investment returns —December 31, 2022 For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.24©2023 SEI Data as of 12/31/2022. Source: APX and SEI Data Warehouse. Manager and fund allocations are subject to change. City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Institutional investment strategies Total Equity World Equity Ex-US Fund Allspring Global Investments Pzena Investment Management Jupiter Asset Management Acadian Asset Management LLC JOHCM (USA) Inc. Macquarie Investment Management Lazard Asset Management LLC McKinley Capital Management, LLC Jupiter Asset Management Ltd Pzena US Equity Factor Allocation Fund SEI Investments Management Corporation SEI Investments Management Corporation SEI Investments Management Corporation SEI Investments Management Corporation Large Cap Index Fund SSGA Funds Management, Inc. Total Equity Emerging Markets Equity Fund RWC Asset Advisors (US) LLC Robeco Asset Management KBI Global Investors (North America) Ltd. JOHCM (USA) Inc. Causeway Capital Management LLC WCM Investment Management Small Cap II Fund Leeward Investments, LLC Los Angeles Capital Management LLC Easterly Investment Partners LLC Copeland Capital Management, LLC EAM Investors, LLC ArrowMark Partners Total Fixed Income Core Fixed Income Fund Allspring Global Investments Metropolitan West Asset Management LLC Western Asset Management Company Jennison Associates LLC MetLife Investment Management, LLC Limited Duration Fund MetLife Investment Management, LLC Metropolitan West Asset Management LLC Opportunistic Income Fund Manulife Investment Management (US) LLC Ares Management LLC Wellington Management Company LLP High Yield Bond Fund Brigade Capital Management, LP Benefit Street Partners LLC Ares Management LLC T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc. SEI Investments Management CorporationEmerging Markets Debt Fund Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC Ninety One Virtus Fixed Income Advisers, LLC Marathon Asset Management, L.P. Colchester Global Investors Limited Real Estate / Property SEI Core Property Fund CIT Cash/Cash Equivalents Daily Income TR Govt Portfolio A BlackRock Advisors, LLC Other Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund SSGA Funds Management, Inc. SEI Fixed Income Management For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.25©2023 SEI Core Property Fund For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.26©2022 SEI Sources: NCREIF ODCE Vacancy Rate is from the NCREIF ODCE Details spreadsheet and is calculated as 1 minus the Occupancy rate; NPI Net Operating Income Growth, Transaction Cap Rates, Current Value cap Rates, and NPI Price Index are from the NCREIF Trends Report and all but the Index figures are 4-quarter rolling averages. Data as of 9/30/2022 unless otherwise noted. U.S. property market landscape -12% -8% -4% 0% 4% 8% 12% 16% NPI Net Operating Income Growth 6% 7% 8% 9% NCREIF ODCE Vacancy Rate 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Transaction Cap Rates Current Value Cap Rates Current Pricing Environment 495 545 595 645 695 745 NPI Price Index For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.27©2022 SEI Source: NCREIF. NPI is a quarterly time series composite total rate of return measure of a very large pool of individual commercial real estate properties acquired in the private market for investment purposes only on an unlevered basis. The ODCE (Open-End Diversified Core Equity) is a Fund-level capitalization weighted, time-weighted return index and includes property investments at ownership share, cash balances and leverage. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Performance for periods of less than one year is cumulative; greater than one year is annualized. Data as of 9/30/2022 unless Nat'l Council of Real Estate Investment Fiduciaries otherwise noted. U.S. property market returns •The third quarter of 2022 was a slightly positive period for the U.S. property market but with underlying performance mixed with respect to sectors as well as income & capital growth. •Vacancy metrics declined slightly while net operating income (NOI) decreased as rent collections continued to normalize. While NOI growth continues to moderate, it’s doing so from elevated levels and continues to be a strong fundamental tailwind within an inflationary environment. •The broader rising interest rate environment, and within the commercial real estate market, cap rates, are acting as an offset to ongoing income growth. During Q3, the NCREIF Property Index (NPI) saw positive income return of 0.9% but was partially offset with a negative -0.4% capital growth. A similar trend is seen within the NCREIF Open End Diversified Core Equity (ODCE) market during Q3. •At a sector level, Multi-Family and Industrial continue to outperform in all time periods shown while Office and Retail continue to lag on a relative basis. Within an overall positive third quarter, we saw the Office market cross into negative territory, returning -0.7%. -0.7% 3.2%3.6% 1.2% 18.2% 11.1% 0.4% 6.6% 0.2%1.1% 34.6% 25.2% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 3Q22 1 Year 3 Year U.S. Core Property Market Sector Returns Office Multi-Family Retail Industrial 0.9%0.8%4.0%3.6%4.2%3.9%-0.4%-0.3% 11.8%18.0%5.6%8.3% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 24% NPI0.6%ODCE0.5%NPI16.1%ODCE22.1%NPI9.9%ODCE12.4% 3Q22 1 Year 3 Year U.S. Core Property Market Returns Income Return Capital Growth For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.28©2022 SEI Sources: SEI and NCREIF. Fund Allocation excludes cash. Performance for periods of less than one year is cumulative; greater than one year is annualized. Performance is gross of investment management fees and net of administrative expenses and underlying fund expenses.Clients implemented via collective investment trusts incur product-level fees, including trustee and administrative fees, which will affect performance. Data as of 9/30/2022 unless otherwise noted. Performance data quoted represents past performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor’s shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost, and current performance may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. For performance data current to the most recent month end, please call 1-800-DIAL-SEI. Core Property Fund: Performance review Contributors •The SEI Core Property Fund (CPF, the Fund) saw a positive return of 1.6% during Q3 2022. This outperformed both the NPI and the ODCE during the period. Income return was in line with the market while capital growth was what drove relative returns. •The Fund’s allocation to specialist managers were the primary driver of return during the quarter. Core, diversified managers were modest contributors while mangers focused on industrials & apartments saw relative outperformance. •The Fund’s overweight to industrial assets, as well as the non- core exposure to self storage, both contributed on a comparative basis. Detractors •The primary laggard within the portfolio was a specialist fund that focuses on assets outside the primary sectors. While the income return in this portfolio tends to be higher than other fund the appreciation is typically limited and in periods of large movement we would expect the manager to lag on a total return basis. 0.8%0.9%0.8% 3.8%4.0%3.6%4.2%4.2%3.9%0.8%-0.4%-0.3% 20.0% 11.8% 18.0% 9.9% 5.6%8.3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% CPF1.6%NPI0.6%ODCE0.5%CPF24.4%NPI16.1%ODCE22.1%CPF14.4%NPI9.9%ODCE12.4% 3Q22 1 Year 3 Year SEI Core Property Fund (CPF) Returns Income Return Capital Growth 15% 17% 9% 15% 13% 6% 17%8% CPF Underlying Manager Allocations MS Prime Property Fund (PPF) Heitman Americas Realty Trust (HART) DWS RREEF America REIT II (RREEF) Clarion Lion Properties Fund (LPF) Invesco Core Real Estate Fund (ICRE) Sentinel Real Estate Fund (SREF) Clarion Lion Industrial Trust (LIT) Harrison Street Core Property Fund(HSCPF) For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.29©2022 SEI Core Property Fund: Positioning and actions Positioning •The Fund currently maintains an overweight to the industrial and other non-core sectors at the expense of office and retail. •Fund-level leverage stands at 22.0% and occupancy was 94.6% for the quarter; both of these are higher than the corresponding ODCE figures by 0.5% and 1.2%, respectively. •We continue to focus on maintaining allocations to specialty sectors, which include Self-Storage, Senior Housing, Student Housing and Life Sciences. •The Fund remains well diversified through its eight underlying funds, which in total provide exposure to more than 1,500 individual property assets. Actions •There were no manager changes during the period and allocations across managers within the Fund remained relatively stable. •While we are not seeing signs of distress, we do see a significant decrease in transaction volume which further decreases the liquidity of the asset classes. Sources: SEI, NPI. Based on actual invested position of money drawn by Underlying Funds and excluding cash; “Other” includes predominantly self-storage, hotel and land. Diversification may not protect against market risk. Data as of 9/30/2022 unless otherwise noted. Past performance does not guarantee future results. 28.2% 41.9% 22.1% 7.7% 29.3% 41.7% 21.9% 7.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% East West South Midwest Geographic Allocation SEI CPF NPI 0.3% 13.9% 31.7% 26.2% 27.9% 14.6% 6.9% 38.1% 16.5% 23.9% 0%10%20%30%40% Other SpecialtySectors Retail Industrial Office Multi-Family Percent Allocation (%) Sector Allocation SEI CPF NPI For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.30©2023 SEI Appendix For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.31©2023 SEI City of South Burlington Defined Benefit Plan Fee summary Investment Management Fees Assets Prior Fee Schedule Current Fee Schedule First $25 million (Public Funds)0.65%0.62% Next $25 million (Public Funds)0.60%0.57% Over $50 million (Public Funds)0.50%0.47% Core Property (Real Estate)1.25%1.25% Other Services Assets Prior Fee Schedule Current Fee Schedule Trust and Custody Fee Included Included For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.32©2023 SEI Important information: SIMC This presentation is provided by SEI Investments Management Corporation (SIMC), a registered investment adviser and wholly owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company. The material included herein is based on the views of SIMC. Statements that are not factual in nature, including opinions, projections and estimates, assume certain economic conditions and industry developments and constitute only current opinions that are subject to change without notice. Nothing herein is intended to be a forecast of future events, or a guarantee of future results. This presentation should not be relied upon by the reader as research or investment advice (unless SIMC has otherwise separately entered into a written agreement for the provision of investment advice). There are risks involved with investing including loss of principal. There is no assurance that the objectives of any strategy or fund will be achieved or will be successful. No investment strategy, including diversification, can protect against market risk or loss. Current and future portfolio holdings are subject to risk. Past performance does not guarantee future results. For those SEI products which employ a multi-manager structure, SIMC is responsible for overseeing the sub-advisers and recommending their hiring, termination, and replacement. References to specific securities, if any, are provided solely to illustrate SIMC’s investment advisory services and do not constitute an offer or recommendation to buy, sell or hold such securities. Any presentation of gross mutual fund performance of underlying mutual fund investments or gross account level performance is only intended for one-on-one presentations with clients and may not be duplicated in any form by any means or redistributed without SIMC’s prior written consent. Through September 30, 2012, annual performance is calculated based on monthly return streams, geometrically linked. From September 30, 2012 onward, annual performance is based upon daily return streams, geometrically linked as of the specific month end. Performance results do not reflect the effect of certain account level advisory fees. The inclusion of such fees would reduce account level performance, particularly when compounded over a period of years. The following hypothetical illustration shows the compound effect fees have on investment return: For an account charged 1% with a stated annual return of 10%, the net total return before taxes would be reduced from 10% to 9%. A ten year investment of $100,000 at 10% would grow to $259,374, and at 9%, to $236,736 before taxes. For a complete description of all fees and expenses, please refer to SIMC’s Form ADV Part 2A, the investment management agreement between SIMC and each client, and quarterly client invoices. Certain economic and market information contained herein has been obtained from published sources prepared by other parties, which in certain cases have not been updated through the date hereof. While such sources are believed to be reliable, neither SEI nor its affiliates assumes any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of such information and such information has not been independently verified by SEI. Index returns are for illustrative purposes only and do not represent actual fund performance. Index performance returns do not reflect any management fees, transaction costs, or expenses, which would reduce returns. Indexes are unmanaged and one cannot invest directly in an index. For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.33©2023 SEI Important information: collective trust funds As identified in the presentation, certain funds are collective trust funds, not mutual funds. A collective trust fund is an investment fund that is maintained by a bank or trust company for the collective investment of qualified retirement plans and governmental plans, and that is exempt from SEC registration as an investment company under Section 3(c)(11) of the Investment Company Act of 1940. Collective trust funds eliminate many of the administrative costs associated with institutional and retail mutual funds. For more information on the collective trust funds, including fees and expenses, please read the disclosure document for the trust. There is no guarantee that the investment objective will be fulfilled. If the fund is a target date fund, the principal balance of the portfolio may be depleted prior to a portfolio’s target end-date and, therefore, distributions may end earlier than expected. This risk increases if the distribution amount chosen is a significant portion of the starting principal. The target date represents the respective date when an investor intends to retire. Principal of any target date fund is not guaranteed at any time, including the target date. The projected time periods do not take into account the payment of fees to the advisor out of the portfolio or any other additional distribution from the account. For those SEI collective trust funds that may be held in the account, the SEI collective trust fund is part of a Collective Investment Trust (the "Trust") operated by SEI Trust Company (“STC”). STC manages the Trust based on the advice of one or more third party managers, which may include SIMC. Additionally,STC serves as the trustee of the collective trust funds and maintains ultimate fiduciary authority over the management of, and the investments made, in the funds. STC is also a wholly owned subsidiary of SEI Investments Company. For existing institutional investor client use only. Not for public distribution. The information contained herein is confidential and proprietary to SEI and is not to be reproduced or made available in any form to any persons without the express prior written consent of SEI.34©2023 SEI Thank you. 1 City of South Burlington Retirement Income Plan July 1, 2022 Actuarial Valuation Review Erik Schait, ASA, EA, MAAA Actuarial Consultant 1 January 17, 2023 2 Actuarial Funding Methods Review of 2022 Recommended Plan Contribution Funded Status Assumptions Plan Assets Census Information Questions Agenda 3 Actuarial Funding Methods 4 Actuarial Funding Methods There are many different ways for valuing future liabilities. The primary difference in these methods is the method of attributing liability to the past and to the future. Two primary methods to review when discussing funding of public pension plans: •Unit Credit –This cost method does not reflect expected future pay increases. The liability today is based on the present value of benefits based on current compensation and service earned to date. This is the method used for single employer private pension plans. This method was used by the City of South Burlington prior to July 1, 2014. •Entry Age Normal -The benefit funded is based on projected compensation. In addition, liability is assigned to periods of time based on compensation. Ultimately, the annual liability for an employee is designed to be an even percentage of their compensation each year. This is the method mandated for use in GASB financials. 5 Present Value of Accrued Benefit (PVAB) –The present value of retirement benefits accrued to date. This is a unit credit (UC) funding method. Entry Age Normal (EAN) Liability –The liability used for funding to determine the recommended contributions and for financial statements under GASB. •All expected benefits are projected to assumed retirement date. •The present value of expected benefits is allocated to the past and future as a percentage of compensation. •Evenly attributes liability over the compensation of an employee. PVAB does not consider future compensation increases. However, it does represent the present value of benefits for employees, assuming they all terminated employment on 7/1/2022. EAN anticipates future compensation increases. EAN also leads to greater liability attributed to the past, but less accumulation of future liabilities. Ultimately, the liability of both will be the same for a participant, at their retirement date. Funded Status –PVAB(UC) vs. EAN 6 PVAB (UC) vs EAN UC EAN Approximate position of City Pension Plan For an Active Employee 7 Actuarial Terms: •Accrued Liability –Present value of benefits earned as of a certain date. •Normal Cost –Benefit attributed to be earned during the next year. The greater the liability assigned to the past, the lower future normal costs will be. Ultimately, the value of benefits is the same at retirement under all options. A funding valuation under the Unit Credit method would have less liability now, but an escalating annual cost in the future. PVAB (UC) vs EAN 8 The City of South Burlington started using the Entry Age Normal liabilities for calculating the annual recommended contribution effective July 1, 2014. Each recommended contribution since that date has been based on the Entry Age Normal Method. The change was made for several reasons: •The Entry Age Normal Method produces less volatile annual contributions •It helps to fund the plan now, for future liabilities. •The Entry Age Normal Method became mandatory for GASB financial reporting purposes. The liability on financial statements is required to be calculated under this method. Funding Method 9 The ultimate liability to the City under all funding methods is the same. The difference is the period of time those liabilities are assigned to. Both a Unit Credit method (Present value of accrued benefits) and the Entry Age Normal method are presented in this report. Both are valid ways of assessing the status of the plan. The Entry Age Normal liabilities are given additional weighting as the method for funding the plan over the long term. The present value of accrued benefits is a good measure of currently accrued benefits compared to assets, i.e.on a plan termination basis. Funding Method (cont.) 10 Review of 2022 Recommended Plan Contribution 11 Once liabilities are attributed to the past, they are compared to the current actuarial value (smoothed) assets, the plan’s current recommended contribution is then calculated as the sum of: 1.An amortization payment on any unfunded liability. The payment is based on a 20 year pay down of unfunded benefits. 2.The Normal Cost for benefits being earned in the current year. 3.Interest from the valuation date to the expected payment date. The expected employee contributions are subtracted from the total recommended contribution to arrive at the recommended City contribution. Funding Policy 12 Effective July 1, 2019 no new employees will participate in the plan. •Plan will slowly become more mature. •The remaining lifetime of the plan will no longer be indefinite and has an estimated date when all participants will be retired. •Opportune time to make changes to the funding policy to address this shift in plan characteristics. •The earlier a change is addressed, the easier the changes will be to incorporate. This method would amortize all unfunded liabilities by 2039. •This alternative method resulted in a recommended contribution of $1,175,950 for July 1, 2022. Alternative Funding Policy 13 Payment of current normal cost plus amortization of unfunded liability Current Year Actuarial Value 17 Years 20 YearsPublic Safety Group:$ 911,395 $ 871,578 Non-Public Safety Group:$ 264,555 $ 257,869 Total:$1,175,950 $1,129,447 Percent of payroll:21.30% 17.50% Prior Year Actuarial Value 18 Years 20 YearsPublic Safety Group:$ 839,908 $ 817,408 Non-Public Safety Group:$ 214,823 $ 211,975 Total:$1,054,731 $1,029,383 Percent of payroll:17.60% 17.20% *The City also makes an annual payment of $660,948 towards a loan used to fund plan. Recommended City Contribution Actuarial Value of Assets 14 EE Contributions, 303,986 Normal Cost, 513,662 Interest,89,327 Amortization Payment, 526,458 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Division of Recommended Contribution City Portion, $ 1,129,447 15 Funded Status 16 Funded Status –Actuarial Value Public Safety Non-Public Safety Total 32,108,286 10,155,976 42,264,262 32,400,809 10,326,753 42,727,562 99.10%98.35%98.92% 37,424,415 11,170,312 48,594,727 32,400,809 10,326,753 42,727,562 86.58%92.45%87.93% Present Value of Accrued Benefits (PVAB): Actuarial Value of Plan Assets: Funded Ratio: Entry Age Normal Liability: Actuarial Value of Plan Assets: Funded Ratio: 17 Funded Status –Market Value Public Safety Non-Public Safety Total 32,108,286 10,155,976 42,264,262 30,489,240 9,711,004 40,200,244 94.96%95.62%95.12% 37,424,415 11,170,312 48,594,727 30,489,240 9,711,004 40,200,244 81.47%86.94%82.73% Present Value of Accrued Benefits (PVAB): Market Value of Plan Assets: Funded Ratio: Entry Age Normal Liability: Market Value of Plan Assets: Funded Ratio: 18 Actual Asset Return of negative 10.72% vs. Assumed 7.25% (net loss) Participant experience (small net loss) Reasons for Results 19 95%91% 82%84%84%84%82% 99% 83% 50% 57% 107% 101% 106% 120% 109% 99%102%102%100%97% 113% 95% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 6/30/2009 6/30/2010 6/30/2011 6/30/2012 6/30/2013 6/30/2014 6/30/2015 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 6/30/2022 EAN PVAB Historical Funded Status EAN vs PVAB, Based on Market Value of Assets (1) $8.168 Million loan with local bank used to fund the plan during fiscal year end 6/30/11. (2) Large asset experience loss during 6/30/15 to 6/30/16. Updated mortality tables. (3) Positive asset experience offset by change in discount rate between 6/30/16 and 6/30/17. (1) (2)(3) 20 Comparison of Funded Ratios City of South Burlington -82.73% as of June 30, 2022. (7.25% discount rate) Average public plan -74.00% (decrease from 85%), as of June 30, 2022 by Milliman(1) VMERS –73.60% as of 6/30/2022, from 86.29% on 6/30/2021. (7.00% discount rate) VSTRS –54.81% as of 6/30/2022, from 58.83% on 6/30/2021. (7.00% discount rate) City of Burlington –80.10% as of June 30, 2021. (7.20% discount rate) City of St. Albans –61.80% as of June 30, 2021. (6.07% discount rate) (1) Data from 2022 Milliman public funding study. Based on Entry Age Normal Liabilities and Market Value 21 Assumptions 22 Assumptions Sensitivities Key Economic Assumptions Sensitivity of Liabilities to Assumption Discount Rate for Liabilities High Salary Growth Medium Inflation Low Key Demographic Assumptions Sensitivity of Liabilities to Assumption Retirement Medium Withdrawal Medium Mortality Low to Medium Disability Low Percentage Married Low Form of Payment Low 23 An in-depth analysis of assumptions are beyond the scope of this presentation. These items are periodically reviewed in depth to determine if changes should be made. Results reviewed for reasonability each year to determine if additional analysis should be accelerated. Last major change to mortality was effective July 1, 2016, in which the mortality assumption was updated to include generational mortality improvements. Mortality improvement projection is updated each year based on most recently available projection scales. Greater rates of mortality decrease liabilities. Actuarial Assumptions Review 24 Mortality assumption Public Safety -Pri-2012 Blue Collar Table projected with scale MP2021. Non -Public Safety -Pri-2012 Total Dataset projected with scale MP2021. Employee Turnover –unchanged (Scale T-3) Long-Term Rate of Return –unchanged at 7.25%. Median public rate was 7.00%(1). Assumed Retirement Age –Public Safety age 53, Non-Public Safety age 65. Plan Compensation –Public Safety unchanged at 5%; Non-Public Safety unchanged at 4%. (1) NASRA Issue Brief: Public Pension Plan Investment Return Assumptions -Updated March 2022 Actuarial Assumptions Review (cont.) 25 The Long Term Rate of Return (also the Discount Rate) was last changed effective July 1, 2017 based on input from investment providers, current market conditions, and desire of City to reflect the changing investment environment. Sensitivity of Entry Age Liability to Discount Rate EAN Liability Market Value Funded Position Current Discount Rate 48,594,728 40,200,244 8,394,484 Current Discount Rate + 1% 43,530,750 40,200,244 3,330,506 Current Discount Rate -1%54,671,041 40,200,244 14,470,797 Employee Turnover –is the rate at which employees leave employment prior to retirement age for reasons other than death or disability. Greater rates of termination will decrease liabilities. Actuarial Assumptions Review (cont.) 26 Plan Assets 27 Smoothed asset valuation method is used to mitigate large swings in contribution requirements. Both market value and smoothed value will be shown. Discretion may be used in making contributions to the plan. Smoothing Method: 1.Expected assets based on assumed rate of return, MINUS 2.Market Value of Assets 3.20% of the difference is between Market Value of assets and Expected assets (#2 -#1) 4.Adjust Expected assets by #3 5.Only recognizing 20% of gain or loss on assumed rate 6.Result must be within 80% -120% of market value Asset Valuation Method 28 Actuarial vs Market Value of Assets 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022Millions Year ended 6/30 Actuarial Value Market Value 29 Plan Experience: Assets Assumed rate of return: 7.25% Actual asset rate of return: -10.72% Prior year asset rate of return:26.60% 3-Year Average:6.25% 5-Year Average:6.26% 10-Year Average:7.39% 30 Plan Year Rate of Return Assumed Rate 6/30/2022 (10.72%)7.25% 6/30/2021 26.60%7.25% 6/30/2020 2.86%7.25% 6/30/2019 4.97%7.25% 6/30/2018 7.61%7.25% 6/30/2017 12.21% 7.25% 6/30/2016 (1.06%) 7.50% 6/30/2015 1.57%7.50% 6/30/2014 16.40%7.50% 6/30/2013 13.50%7.50% 6/30/2012 1.70%7.50% 6/30/2011 20.10%7.50% 6/30/2010 13.20% 7.50% Historical Rate of Return 31 Participant Census Information 32 Participant Count by Year and Status 48 45 52 55 59 62 64 68 67 75 79 82 89 93 22 27 39 38 44 43 45 45 51 44 46 44 47 52 129 128 112 105 105 110 112 116 115 104 95 92 78 68 - 50 100 150 200 250 6/30/09 6/30/10 6/30/11 6/30/12 6/30/13 6/30/14 6/30/15 6/30/16 6/30/17 6/30/18 6/30/19 6/30/20 6/30/21 6/30/22 Retirees Deferred Vested Actives 33 Participant Statistics NPS PS Average Service:16.70 14.04 Average Expected Future Service:8.04 8.96 Average Active Age:56.47 41.45 Average Retiree Age:75.65 63.82 Duration of Liabilities:9.98 12.71 Duration is a method of measuring the effects of interest rates on the plan liabilities. The smaller this number is, the less effect there will be from changing interest rates. For example, a duration of 9.98 implies that a 1% increase in interest rates would decrease the liability by 9.98%. Duration is also the weighted average of time of future benefit payments. 34 Questions? 180 Market Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.southburlingtonvt.gov TO: South Burlington City Council Jessie Baker, City Manager FROM: Martha Machar, Finance Director DATE: January 12, 2023 RE: Purchasing Policy-Update to Federal Procurement procedures ______________________________________________________________________________ Per the recommendation from the City’s annual auditor and the state auditor, find attached a draft updated purchasing policy. The updated sections of the policy are in red. These updates ensure the City’s purchasing policy meets the requirements of all federal regulations for federal grant awards. Noncomplaince with Federal regulations results in being denied federal grant awards. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) which provides uniform guidances for federal awards regularly make updates to rules and regulations to streamline guidance for the management of federal grant awards and to strengthen oversight of federal funds. The City’s purchasing policy was not updated to reflect current OMB’s Uniform Guidance issuance. With your approval of the attached updated purchasing policy, the City will be in compliance with all federal awards requirements. Sources: Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 2 CFR 200 VLCT Purchasing policy model PURCHASING POLICY PURCHASING I. PURPOSE. The purposes of this Purchasing Policy are to: obtain the highest quality goods and services for the City of South Burlington at the lowest possible price; to exercise financial control over the purchasing process; to clearly define authority for the purchasing function: allow fair and equal opportunity among qualified suppliers; and provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in public purchasing. II. RESPONSIBILITY. Primarily it is the responsibility of the Department Head to: manage his/her budget so that no expenditure line is over spent without corresponding revenue to match an over expenditure; and, obtain prior final approval from Deputy City Manager (DCM). If there is no corresponding or offsetting revenue then the Department Head must identify what expenditure line(s) will be under spent in a corresponding amount. III. PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION. All purchases that are $10,000 or more must have a City of South Burlington Purchase Order (PO) form which shall accompany the invoice to pay for each purchase. The City Charter section 904 “m” states, “The manager may, when advisable or proper, delegate to subordinate officers and employees of the city, any duties conferred upon him or her by this charter or by action of the council, and hold them responsible for the faithful discharge of such duties, but the city manager shall remain ultimately responsible to the council for all administrative actions under his or her jurisdiction”, and through this Policy the Manager so delegates authority to the DCM. All Purchase Orders, whether or not the cost crosses fiscal years, must have signed approval to expend for a single item, a series of items or an open Purchase Order as follows: a. All individual purchases, or anticipated aggregate purchases from same vendor of less than $10,000 must be approved by the Department Head. Individual purchases, or anticipated aggregate purchases from same vendor of $10,000 to $25,000 must be approved by the Department Head and DCM prior to actual purchase(s) being made. b. Individual purchases or anticipated aggregate purchases from the same vendor of more than $25,000 must be approved by the Department Head, DCM and CM prior to actual purchase(s) being made. c. The City Charter section 13-1307 states, “The manager and school superintendent, respectively, may at any time transfer an unencumbered appropriation balance or portion thereof between general classifications of expenditures within an office, department or agency under his jurisdiction. At the request of the manager or school superintendent and within the last three months of the budget year, the council and board of school directors, respectively, may by resolution transfer any unencumbered appropriation balance or portion thereof within the budgets from one department, office or agency under their jurisdiction, to another. IV. VENDOR SELECTION CRITERIA. Vendors will be selected on a competitive basis. However, it is recognized that the lowest price is not always in the best interest of the City and other factors should be taken into consideration. Purchases shall be awarded to the lowest, best qualified, responsive and responsible vendor. In determining the “lowest, best qualified, responsive and responsible vendor”, in addition to price, the following shall be considered: a. The substantial performance of the bidder in meeting the specifications and other terms and conditions of the solicitation. b. The ability, capacity and skill of the vendor to perform the contract or provide the material or service required, and to c. Do so promptly or within the timeline specified. d. The experience, financial resources and performance under previous contracts of the vendor. e. The quality, availability, and adaptability of the service or product being purchased and the ability of the vendor to f. Provide future maintenance and supply parts, if necessary. g. Each City department shall maintain project files to document the performance of every vendor, contractor and h. Consultant used by that department to aid in making future basis of bid award recommendations. V. SELECTION PROCESS. When making any purchase the vendor selection process for each Fiscal Year is: a. When purchases from a vendor will total less than $10,000 (single or aggregate), the Department Head can determine the vendor. b. When purchases from a vendor will total $10,000 to $25,000 the Department Head must solicit and document quotes, (can be from catalogs) from at least two vendors unless: i. The CM has approved a sole source vendor or other exception as noted in this Policy; ii. The vendor has been re-qualified through a retainer selection process for specialized professional construction services; iii. The purchase is for something for which there can be no competition (tax repayment, being on city payroll, postal service, etc.); or, iv. In the case of an emergency. c. When purchases from a vendor total more than $25,000, Department Head must follow the bid process as defined in the vendor bid process unless the CM has approved a sole source vendor or other exception as noted in this Policy, the vendor has been pre-qualified through a retainer selection process for specialized professional or construction services, or in the case of an emergency need. d. All vendor solicitations, and in particular those subject to grant approval, must incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product or service to be procured. Such description must not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. The description may include a statement of the qualitative nature of the material, product or service to be procured and when necessary, must set forth those minimum essential characteristics and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its intended use. Detailed product specification should be avoided if at all possible. When it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a “brand name or equivalent” description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirement of procurement. The specific features of the named brand which must be met by the offers must be clearly stated; and identify all requirements which the offerors must fulfill and all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals. PURCHASE ORDERS After following the Vendor Selection process all non-exception purchases must be made following the procedures and criteria set forth in this Policy. The appropriate department will complete the PO, signed by that Department Head and submit to the staff member in the Finance Department (FD) responsible for Accounts Payable (AP). POs must be completed in their entirety before being sent to AP. If a purchase is: a. From $10,000 to $25,000, a PO must be sent prior to purchase. AP will send the PO to DCM for approval, or b. Exceeds the budgeted amount a PO must be sent prior to purchase. AP will send the PO to the DCM for approval, or c. Greater than $25,000, a PO must be sent prior to purchase. AP will send the PO to DCM who, if approved, sends the PO to the CM for final decision. If the DCM approves the PO, as required above, the PO will be returned to AP. If the DCM does not approve the PO then the DCM and Department Head must meet to resolve purchase questions. Once the purchase has been made and an invoice is received the department will confirm the invoice against the PO and if acceptable, send the invoice, supporting documentation and a copy of PO to AP for processing. Departments have direct access to NEMRC, so it is the department’s responsibility to track purchases so the department knows when a proposed purchase will over expend a budget line. If an over expenditure will result from the purchase the Department Head will meet with the DCM to determine which other budget line(s) in the departmental budget money will be reduced in an amount equal to the proposed over expenditure. If DCM agrees, and the proposed over expenditure is less than or equal to $10,000 the DCM may approve the PO. If the proposed expenditure is over $10,000 approval must be obtained from the DCM. Voter approved budget allocations will not be changed in the general ledger due to modification of approved expenditure. Each over expenditure shall be recorded within NEMRC. Changing budgeted amounts will make it harder to track expenditures for future years making proper budgeting difficult. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE Department Heads will, annually, create a written list of all staff within his/her department authorized to purchase items. In determining the number of staffs to be on that list the Department Head should balance ease of purchases with the goal of minimizing the risk of improper purchases. The list shall be sent to the AP by July 15th for review. If there are any concerns about the departmental staff on the list and these concerns cannot be resolved with the Department Head, then the DCM or CM will make the final decision as to who within a department is authorized to make purchases. INVENTORY CONTROL All Department Heads are responsible for ensuring that what is ordered is what is received and then used appropriately for city needs. Process for receiving goods: Within each department staff member(s) will be designated by the Department Head to check orders when received. The review shall confirm that the delivered item(s) matches both the packing slip as well as the purchase order if the purchase order was used. Department Head will confirm by signing the PO or the invoice that the order was checked and met requirements. Process for inventory control: Department Heads will develop, institute and maintain an inventory control system which will allow: Tracking of all purchased items coming into the department. Tracking of the status of an item(s). Confirmation of whether an item is still in inventory. Certification that all purchased items have been used as identified on the Purchase Order. EXCEPTIONS TO PURCHASE ORDER AND/OR SELECTION PROCESS Exceptions from Purchase Order and Selection Requirements: Emergency purchases: are exempt from the Purchase Authorization and Selections processes identified in the Policy. Items that are $10,000 or less: purchasing of goods/services that are $10,000 or less do not require a purchase order. Departments can choose to use purchase order form as an approval voucher. Payroll and Other Special Purchases: Payment of payroll, benefits, tax payments, stipends (committees, election workers, City Councilors, etc.), tax refunds, refunds for recreation payments and similar types of expenditures are exempt from the Purchase Authorization and Selections processes identified in the Policy. Appropriate department will forward documentation to Accounts Payable for these payments to be made. Recurring Payments: Purchases of utilities, legally required notices, contracted debt services, employee benefits, etc. do not require a Purchase Order. The Department Head is responsible to notify the DCM if payment of an excepted item(s) will exceed budgeted amount. During the development of the next fiscal year budget Department Heads should identify these recurring payments to insure that the costs are included in their departmental budget. Professional Service Contract Policy: There will be times when the City will need to contract for professional services such as training consultants, actuaries, project analysts, etc. Based on the needs of the City it is discretionary as to the process used to select a Professional Service Contractor except where the City Charter expressly authorizes the Council to make said appointment. It is the policy of the City that when there is such a need, and when there has been money budgeted for such a service and when the total fiscal yearly cost for such a service is less than $50,000 the CM is authorized to enter into a professional service agreement without authorization of the City Council. The CM shall in writing inform the City Council of any such agreement no later than 2 weeks of agreement being approved by the CM. The CM will determine whether it is in the best interest of the City to initiate a Request for Proposal or follow a different selection process. For any such agreement where the total cost is over $50,000, or when a second agreement within the fiscal year with the same contractor will, combined with the original agreement, total more than $50,000, the CM and DCM shall assess whether it is in the best interest of the City to conduct a Request for Proposal and explain their recommendation to the City Council. The Council will decide in this situation whether to conduct a Request For Proposal, or follow a different selection process. Exception to Selection Process: Sole Source Purchases: If the CM determines that there is only one possible source for a proposed purchase, CM may waive the selection process and authorize the purchase from the sole source. State and/or Federal Contract Pricing: If a purchase is to be made utilizing a state or federal contract price, or other regional/collaborative purchasing initiatives and if it is documented the contract price is at or below usual pricing, then the selection process is waived. Exceptions to Purchase Order Process: Open Purchase Order (OPO): If there will be reoccurring purchases from an approved vendor, for each purchase up to 90% of the total bid price then individual POs are not needed. Once the 90% threshold has been reached, a new PO must be signed by the Department Head, and sent to AP prior to any additional purchases or obligation of City funds. This is intended to avoid over spending the approved OPO limits. Once the OPO financial limits have been met and the Department Head wants to continue purchasing the types of items being purchased from this vendor then a new selection process must be initiated. Open Purchase Orders cannot cross fiscal years, therefore, at the end of the fiscal year a new OPO must be approved. VENDOR BID PROCESS All purchases of $25,000 or more, and leases that extend more than two years, shall be subject to a bid process. The bid process shall be initiated by the issuance of a request for bids prepared by the Department Head following the standard format created by the CFO. Notice of the request for bids shall be made by letters and e-mails to known providers soliciting bid responses, advertisements posted on the City’s web page, and advertisements placed in the City’s newspaper of record and such other locations as deemed appropriate by the Department Head or CM. If federal funding is used for purchasing goods and services, the City will follow procurement methods outlined in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulation, Part 200.320. For purchases above $10,000, price or rate quotes must be obtained from two or more qualified sources following the affirmative action provision of this policy and all provisions regarding fair and unrestricted competition. All purchases of $25,000 or more that extend more than two years or construction projects of any value that are funded with federal dollars must follow a bid process as outlined below and also follow any procurement guidance as outlined in the grant agreement. BID SPECIFICATIONS. When a request for bids has been issued, specifications will be available for inspection at the office designated in the bid form. Bid specifications shall include: 1. Bid name. 2. Bid submission deadline. 3. Date, location and time of bid opening. 4. Specifications for the project or services including quantity, design and performance features. 5. Bond and/or insurance requirements. 6. Any special requirements unique to the purchase. 7. Delivery or completion date. 8. For federal grant funded projects, the bidders must also include costs for Davis Bacon compliance if that is a requirement of the federal agency providing the funding. 9. For construction projects over $2,000, a statement that contractors will be provided with a copy of the most current wage determination (from the DOL website at http://www.wdol.gov/dba.aspx) and must comply with the Davis Bacon Act. 10. The following language shall be placed in the Request for Bids/Proposals for all solicitations of goods and services by the City: “The CM reserves the right at his/her sole discretion to reject any and all bids, wholly or in part, to waive any informalities or any irregularities therein, to accept any bid even though it may not be the lowest bid, to call for rebids, to negotiate with any bidder, and to make an award which in its sole and absolute judgment will best serve the City’s interest. The CM reserves the right to investigate the financial responsibility of any and all bidders to determine the ability of the bidder to assure service throughout the term of the contract.” BID SUBMISSION. All bids must be submitted in sealed envelopes, addressed to the CM’s Office and plainly marked with the name of the bid and the time of the bid opening. Bid proposals will be date stamped by CM Office or designee on the outside of the envelope immediately upon receipt. Any bid may be withdrawn in writing prior to the scheduled time for the opening of bids. Any bids received after the time and date specified shall not be considered and shall be returned to the bidder unopened. Bidders shall bid to specifications and any exceptions must be noted. A bidder submitting a bid thereby certifies that the bid is made in good faith without fraud, collusion, or connection of any kind with any other bidder for the same work, and that the bidder is competing solely on his/her behalf without connection with or obligation to any undisclosed person or firm. BID OPENING. Every bid received prior to the bid submission deadline will be publicly opened and read aloud by the CM or his/her designee. The bid opening will include the name and address of bidder; for lump sum contracts, the lump sum base bid and the bid for each alternate; for unit price contracts, the unit price for each item and the total, if stated; and the nature and the amount of security furnished with the bid if required. CRITERIA FOR BID SELECTION. In evaluating bids, the CM or designee will consider the following criteria: 1. Price. 2. Bidder’s ability to perform within the specified time limits. 3. Bidder’s experience and reputation, including past performance for the City. 4. Quality of the materials and services specified in the bid. 5. Bidder’s ability to meet other terms and conditions, including insurance and bond requirements. 6. Bidder’s history of financial responsibility. 7. Bidder’s availability to provide future service, maintenance, and support. 8. Nature and size of bidder. 9. Any other factors specified in a “Request for Proposals" 10. Any other factors that the CM determines are relevant and appropriate in connection with a given project or service. 11. The bid that best meets the overall needs of the City of South Burlington. In addition to the above, in the case of a contract supported by federal funds, the additional criteria shall apply: 1. There shall be no preference exercised for local contractors or suppliers. 2. Minority and women-owned businesses must be included in the solicitation list for the request for proposal. 3. The council will not select a bidder who is listed on the Excluded Parties List System website (https: //www.sam.gov). CHANGE ORDERS. If specification changes are made prior to the close of the bid process, the Request for Bids will be amended and notice shall be sent to any bidder who already submitted a bid and a new bid process will be initiated. Once a bid has been accepted, if changes to the specifications become necessary, the CM or his/her designee will approve a change order specifying the scope of the change. Once approved, the contractor and an authorized agent of the City must sign the change order. RETAINER SELECTION PROCESS. In order to facilitate cost savings and other efficiencies the City may pre-qualify vendors for completion of certain specialized services. In order to do so, the City must issue a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the specific service. The RFQ process for any specific service will be for a period of two to five years. Following the RFQ process, qualified vendors will be included on retainer for this service. Through the RFQ process, the vendor will have already agreed to provide services at a fixed rate of compensation and on certain terms. When the City has a project, it can then contact those firms on the retainer to quickly procure and execute a contract for the specific project. When requesting bids from pre-qualified vendors, the City must contact a certain number of vendors based on the estimated contract price for the project. For projects greater than $50,000 and less than $150,000 the City must contact a minimum of two vendors on retainer to obtain bids. For projects greater than $150,000 the City must contact a minimum of three vendors on retainer to obtain bids. All final selections must require City Manager’s approval. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND LOCAL PREFERENCE. Whenever possible, qualified small, minority and women-owned businesses shall be included in the solicitation lists for bids or non-bid purchases. If the purchase is federally funded in whole or in part, minority and women owned businesses must be included in the solicitation lists and all other affirmative action requirements outlined in the grant provisions must be followed. The City may exercise a preference for local businesses for purchases funded exclusively by the City but only if such a preference does not result in unreasonable prices or rates due to a lack of competition. For purchases funded in whole or in part with federal funding the City may not exercise a preference for local businesses. CONTRACT COST AND PRICE FOR FEDERAL AWARDS For project funded with Federal funds, the city will perform independent price analysis and estimates before receiving bids proposal. The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used. To promote cost-effective use of shared services across the Federal Government the city can enter into intergovernmental agreements or inter-entity agreements where appropriate for procurement or use of common or shared goods and services. As allowable per the grant agreement, the City can use Federal excess and surplus property in lieu of purchasing new equipment and property whenever such use is feasible and reduces project costs. Also, value engineering clause can be used to ensures that that essential functions are provided at overall lower cost. Before processing invoices for payment, relevant terms and conditions of the federal grant agreement and relevant sections of Title 2, Part 200, Subpart E - Cost Principles are referred to when reviewing invoices for federal funded projects. DOCUMENTATION. Records documenting the procurement process including the reason for the specific procurement method chosen, the basis for the award and contract pricing (showing evidence that the process was fair and equitable), as well as any other significant decisions that were part of the procurement process shall be maintained for a period of at least three years from the date of the submission to the Federal government of the final expenditure report if the purchase or project was funded with federal grants, or until the completion of any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit, or other action involving the records, whichever is longer. Otherwise, records shall be maintained by the City in accordance with the retention and disposition schedules as set by the Vermont State Archivist. CODE OF CONDUCT. Employees, officers and agents of the City who are involved in the procurement and selection of bids and purchases shall make reasonable efforts to avoid real, apparent, or potential conflicts of interest. No employee, officer or agent of the City shall participate in selection, award, or administration of a contract if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when: The employee, officer or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs, or is about to employ, any of the above, has a financial or personal interest in the firm/vendor selected for award. An employee, officer or agent of the City who is involved in the procurement and selection of a bid or purchase and who has a real or apparent conflict of interest must disclose that conflict of interest within the context of a duly warned Council meeting that occurs before the bid selection or purchase takes place. Such disclosure must be documented in the minutes for that meeting which shall be retained as part of the official record surrounding the bid or purchase. Officers, employees and agents of the City will not solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties to sub - agreements. Officers, employees and agents who fail to follow the above Code of Conduct shall be sanctioned or disciplined, to the extent permitted by law, for violations of the above standards. DEFINITIONS: Vendor: Someone from whom a goods or service is purchased. Purchase: Means buying, renting, leasing, or otherwise acquiring equipment, services or supplies for a price. Purchase Order: A buyer-generated document that authorizes a purchase transaction. When accepted by the seller, it becomes a contract binding on both parties. A purchase order sets forth the descriptions, quantities, prices, discounts, payment terms, date of performance or shipment, other associated terms and conditions, and identifies a specific seller. Dept Head: Shall mean the Chief of Police, City Clerk, Director of Public Works, Director of Planning and Zoning, Fire Chief, Library Director, and Recreation Director Emergency: A situation that threatens the health, lives or property of the City, or threatens the property of the City or the delivery of necessary services to the residents of the City the CM, City Council, and other authorized emergency services personnel shall have the authority to purchase emergency supplies and services while acting in the best interests of the City. Emergency expenditures may include immediate repair or maintenance of City property, vehicles, or equipment if the delay in such repair or maintenance would endanger persons or property or result in substantial impairment of the delivery of important City services Open Purchase Order: A customer may sometimes create an open or standing purchase order which allows the customer to order quantities of the product(s) from the vendor over a period of time (usually a year) at the specified price. Open POs are often used for services which occur over a period of time. ESTABLISHING CREDIT WITH NEW VENDORS All applications to establish credit with new vendors must be forwarded to the Finance Officer’s and Deputy City Manager’s attention prior to any commitment being made to a vendor. When forwarding the application please fill out all information that your department can complete. On a separate sheet please state the reasons for wanting to establish credit with the vendor as well as what safeguards your department has in place to assure that only appropriate purchases are to be made. Please also note any similar types of vendors with whom you already have established credit. Upon receipt and review of your departmental request the Finance Office will complete any necessary application information and forward the completed application to the vendor. Once confirmation has been received that the account has been established, the Finance Office will notify the department. If the Finance Office has any questions either regarding the application or the need to establish credit with the vendor the office will contact the appropriate Department Head to discuss and resolve. Updated and approved this 17th day of January, 2023. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota GRANTS MANAGEMENT POLICY Objective The City of South Burlington will aggressively seek public and private grants, contracts and other outside sources of revenues for funding projects where appropriate. Scope The purpose of this policy is to provide direction in the application, acceptance, and administration of funds awarded through grants to the City from other local governments, the state or federal government, non-profit agencies, and the private sectors. Grant Administration Each department must provide Finance Office any grant paperwork received including the following i. Grant application form ii. Grant approval/award letter and agreement. iii. Copy of payment reimbursement requests iv. Any monthly, quarterly or annual grant reports v. Any amendments vi. Grant closing documents Procedure Regarding Grant Request Form 1) No City of South Burlington staff member or volunteer shall apply for a grant without completing and receiving approval of the attached Form. 2) All Form questions must be answered. If you need assistance on financial questions please contact the Deputy City Manager Finance Director (846-4112 383-1789). 3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Deputy City Manager Finance Director at least two (2) weeks before the City Council Meeting where the application will be reviewed. Exceptions can be made especially when the funding source(s) do not provide sufficient lead time. 4) Attach any supporting documentation to the Form. 5) Deputy City Manager finance Director will review Form for accuracy and completeness - Deputy City Manager Finance Director does not approve or reject application. 6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Deputy City Manager Finance Director will submit form to City Manager for approval or rejection. 7) City Manager may request meeting with applicant for clarification. 8) City Manager will determine whether to approve or reject the application and have the project manager informed of the decision. Project manager can request a meeting with City Manager prior to Form being reviewed by Council. 9) Whether Form is approved or rejected by City Manager the Form will be reviewed by the City Council. Project manager will be given the opportunity to discuss Form with Council. 10) Council will make final decision as to whether to approve or reject grant submission. Council approval of grant submission also signifies approval and acceptance of the grant unless there is a significant change in grant terms. If there is a significant change in grant terms the issue of whether or not to accept the grant will be brought before Council for consideration. 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 Deputy City Manager Finance Director in writing as to grant writing, submittal, approval, and implementation progress. 13) If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Deputy City Manager and Finance Officer Director a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials - upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Deputy City Manager Finance Director based on actual grant conditions. 14) Finance Officer Department will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related to financials. Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book. Updated and approved this 17th day of January, 2023. SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL __________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice-Chair __________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk Tom Chittenden __________________________________ Matt Cota March 25, 2002 To: South Burlington City Council, City Manager Jessie Baker, Deputy City Manager Andrew Bolduc, Director of Planning and Zoning Paul Conner, and Fire Chief/Fire Marshall Terry Francis From: Meaghan Emery, Council Vice-Chair Dear Colleagues, Please find attached proposed language for a city ordinance on Short-Term Rentals for the Council to consider at our regular April 4 meeting. After discovering a number of Airbnbs during my recent campaign for re-election and speaking with concerned residents, I have been following developments in Burlington regarding an ordinance recently vetoed by Mayor Weinberger. Following this veto, I began investigating on my own and learned from my research that touristic cities (like ours) are particularly vulnerable to the negative consequences of short-term rentals: foremost among them for us are loss of community-feel in neighborhoods and lowered quality of life, increased housing prices (John Burton has done research on this) with the housing market increasingly being closed to local residents who are outbid by buyers from outside the area, loss of affordable housing, and lost income for local hotels. An increase in crime, including violent crime, has also been identified as a negative consequence of short-term rentals. John Burton found two studies, called the Dartmouth Report (a policy brief for the Vermont State Legislature) and the Washington, D.C. Report, which is more focused on the issue of gentrification. The D.C. report indicates that short-term rentals drive up housing prices in touristic-centric cities, with “a 0.78% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing within the 200-foot buffer” (14). The 2019 Dartmouth Report specifically finds that, “The three counties in which there is the greatest supply of Airbnb listings are also the counties which report a housing shortage. According to Airbnb, Chittenden County hosted the most guests in the state in 2018 — 72,300 — which generated $9.1 million in host income” (4). Another key finding: “Short-term rentals in Vermont are not held to the same health and safety regulations or standards of taxation as the traditional lodging and restaurant establishments in the state” (5). All municipalities in Vermont are not made alike; whereas 47% of homes are vacant in Essex County in the Northeast Kingdom, just 5% are empty in Chittenden County, according to the Dartmouth report (the term “home vacancy” is to be understood as it is used by the U.S. Census, not by realtors). For this reason, many communities in other states are finding that it is more appropriate to regulate STR at the local level because of the variety of needs dependent on the nature of the housing stock and market. According to data on the 2020 U.S. Census American Community Survey, there are 122 homes in South Burlington (indicated with a wide margin of error) that are currently either “rented but not occupied” or “for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use.” There are also 84 “other vacant” homes. The U.S. Census data is used for determining state legislative districts, the distribution of federal funds, and other major policy decisions. For this reason, I believe that we should use the survey data as a reference, keeping in mind that the data is imperfect. Its purpose is to give us an adequate picture from which to draw conclusions. As the Dartmouth Report states, “the state does not possess a comprehensive list of short-term rentals” (12). Our local regulations currently require bed and breakfasts to obtain a conditional-use permit. Burlington also requires the same. However, ordinances are perhaps a more effective means of ensuring compliance with our rules because there is a non-litigated financial penalty for non- compliance and built-in incentives to comply, such as the requirement that hosts sign an affidavit. The difficulties surrounding tax collection is also a consideration. As the Dartmouth Report states, “Since 2016, Airbnb has collected and filed [meals and rooms] taxes for people using their site as a rental platform. However, other popular rental sites such as VRBO do not perform this service. The individual landlord is responsible for charging and filing the tax” (6). Hosts who advertise on VRBO (a subsidiary of HomeAway), which lists full units only, are also avoiding South Burlington’s local option tax. A contact of mine who has worked in the mortgage business for 25 years shared with me that there has been increasing investment in real estate as a “safe haven for money” since regulations were passed following the 2008 crash. He expects that pressure to continue with the current economic indicators pointing toward a possible recession. For this reason, I propose this ordinance language with some urgency. The language I propose below is modeled primarily after existing ordinances in Honolulu, HI, Berkeley and Redwood City, CA, and Seattle, WA, with provisions taken from ordinances in San Francisco, CA (home to Airbnb corporate HQ and the first city to pass an ordinance), Denver, CO, Miami, FL, Chicago, IL, and Jersey City, NJ: https://www.2ndaddress.com/research/short-term-rental-laws/ I have included the provision that the City will require license holders to sign affidavits. Denver is the only city that includes this provision, and hundreds of property owners are shutting down short-term rentals to avoid legal implications. Finally, I also checked out the VT tax code in order to ensure compliance: https://tax.vermont.gov/business/industry/short-term-rentals Thank you for your consideration, Meaghan Meaghan Emery Vice-Chair, South Burlington City Council Proposed Language for Ordinance on Short-Term Rentals in South Burlington, VT The City of South Burlington only allows hosted rentals, so-called “bed and breakfast homes," for stays of fewer than 30 days. They are only allowed in primary residences. They are banned from accessory units, income-restricted affordable housing, student housing and dormitories, and in buildings with more than four units. (see note 10) Renting out an entire home is illegal. The City requires short-term rental owners to obtain a permit (a short-term rental permit) from the City's Planning and Zoning Department. Hosts must register and pay a $250 application fee to obtain a short-term rental permit. (see notes 3 and 7) The City requires license holders to sign affidavits. (see note 6) Hosts are required to collect a 10% tax (9% meals and rooms tax + 1% local option tax). (see note 1) Hosts are required to include the permit number on any advertisement. Short-term rental hosts have to show proof that they are the primary resident and provide liability insurance of $1,000,000 for guests. (see note 2) All hosts are required to pass a fire inspection. (see note 2) All hosts are required to provide soap, clean linen, sanitized utensils, and other living necessities. All pets are prohibited. (see note 9) Parking requirements include one space per guest bedroom. (see note 4) Special events—weddings and corporate retreats—are prohibited. Short-term rental platforms must also obtain licenses from the City. (see notes 10 and 11) Existing short-term rental contracts in breach of these provisions must phase out by Jan. 1, 2023. Fines for illegal short-term rentals is $100 for the first offense, $1,000 for the second, and $2,500 for the third. They escalate to $5,000 a day for ongoing noncompliance, and up to $10,000 per day. Notes: 1. In Vermont, there is a 9% tax on lodging. 2. Vermont law pertaining to short-term rentals is found in 18 V.S.A. chapter 85, subchapter 7. 3. South Burlington Land Development Regulations define “Bed and Breakfasts” thus: “Bed and breakfast. A detached single-family residence with four or fewer rooms for rent, accommodating a maximum of ten guests, for short-term overnight lodging by the day or by the week. The single-family residence must be the primary residence of the owner or operator of the bed and breakfast. Employment shall not exceed one (1) full- time employee in addition to the owner. Only a morning meal may be provided to guests. Bed and breakfasts are also known as tourist homes.” They require conditional-use permits and the following standards must be met: “Standards for single family dwelling in same zoning district. Minimum lot size 1 acre, except SEQ-VC zoning district where there is no minimum lot size.” (Table C-2 and Appendix C) My concern is that we are not enforcing our own LDRs, which was the case in Burlington. A solution, not pursued in Burlington due to the Mayor’s veto, would be an ordinance requiring the signing of an affidavit. 4. South Burlington LDRs currently require 1 minimum and 3 maximum parking spaces per residential unit. 5. The South Burlington Sign Ordinance currently requires the following for bed and breakfasts: “Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, a sign identifying a bed and breakfast as defined by the South Burlington Land Development Regulations as presently in force or amended from time to time in a residential district shall not exceed four (4) square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road having a maximum posted speed limit of 25 miles per hour or less, or eight (8) square feet when located on a lot fronting on a street or road where the maximum posted speed limit is in excess of 25 miles per hour.” 6. The law in Denver requires registered hosts to sign an affidavit, and hundreds of property owners are reportedly shutting down short-term rentals to avoid legal implications. 7. The law in Honolulu also allows the city to confiscate rental earnings. I don't know if this would be possible here. 8. In Oakland a Conditional Use Permit is additionally required to operate short-term rentals. 9. Helen Riehle suggests regarding dogs/pet: allow dogs but have a requirement that they are fully vaccinated and aware of ticks in VT, informed of city requirements for leashing and picking up poop, are well behaved, etc. 10. Airbnb has filed and won a number of lawsuits. For instance, Seattle and New York required platforms like Airbnb, VRBO, and HomeAway to report all licensed operators and their listed units every month; however, the New York bill was recently blocked by a federal judge in January 2019. The important thing that we must keep in mind is to regulate the activity and not an STR platform. 11. Burlington started collecting taxes from Airbnb in 2016. Michael Mittag’s proposed edits: The City of South Burlington only allows hosted rentals, so-called “bed and breakfast homes," for stays of fewer than 30 days. A possible loophole might need fixing; renters can stay for 30 days, move to a hotel or other B&B for a day or two and then return for multiple consecutive stays of 30 days. This has happened in other circumstances where residency is limited. All pets are prohibited. Pets should be allowed if the renter allows it. Helen's Note 9 is OK. Dogs must have up to date Rabies vaccinations. Hosts may not rent if the renter does not produce a valid Rabies Vaccination Certificate. Hosts most post SB's pet ownership and leashing requirements/ordinance on their website, advertisements, platform entry etc. Other comments I received and notes since the Council discussed the proposed ordinance on June 1, 2022: For short term rentals contemplated in this ordinance, the residence should not only be the Primary Residence of the host but must be OCCUPIED by the host (host is required to be in residence). Perhaps allow for buildings that are not year-round to qualify? Or perhaps summer-only camps that are owned by Vermont residents can be rented? STR lodging units did not make it into a final bill in the 2022 session. In Seven Days, I noted an ad for the "Short Term Rental Conference and Trade Show" at Capitol Plaza in Montpelier June 2-3, 2022. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rhpd20 Housing Policy Debate ISSN: 1051-1482 (Print) 2152-050X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rhpd20 Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity Zhenpeng Zou To cite this article: Zhenpeng Zou (2019): Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity, Housing PolicyDebate, DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 Published online: 03 Dec 2019. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 45 View related articles View Crossmark data Examining the Impact of Short-Term Rentals on Housing Prices in Washington, DC: Implications for Housing Policy and Equity Zhenpeng Zou Department of Urban Studies and Planning, School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, University of Maryland, College Park, USA ABSTRACT As on-demand short-term rentals (STRs) grow popular with the rise of sharing platforms like Airbnb, regulations for the STR market have become the center of a debate among policymakers, housing interest groups, the hotelandlodgingindustry,andSTRplatforms.Washington,DC,thenation’s capital and one of the most popular tourist destinations in the United States, is on the front lines of legalizing and regulating the STR business. WiththeheatedpolicydebateoverwhetherSTRsdisrupttherentalhousing market in DC, a concrete discussion about what STRs impose on the owner housing market is left out. Using web-scraped data from Airbnb and property-level data from the city, I investigated the net impact of STRs on single-family property prices through a series of hedonic analyses. The results suggest that having Airbnb establishments in the neighborhood can significantly inflate property prices. Because of the uneven spatial market penetration of STRs, such price impact could inequitably affect low- income homebuyers and add another hurdle to resolving the housing affordability issue faced by policymakers in Washington, DC. ARTICLE HISTORY Received 17 February 2019 Accepted 13 October 2019 KEYWORDS short-term rentals (STRs); Airbnb; housing prices; hedonic analysis 1. From Niche to Mainstream: The Global and Local Rise of STRs Charles Dickens would probably reckon, had he lived in the 21st century, that “It is the best of times; it is the worst of times—for sharing”: We ride with strangers in an Uber; we sit in a cubicle next to an entrepreneur at WeWork; we dare to stay with other travelers in an Airbnb rental. The ideology behind sharing is collaborative consumption—a concept built upon a set of principles such as a critical mass of idling capacities, belief in the commons, and trust in strangers (Sundararajan, 2016). The sharing economy is painted by some as a utopian solution for the underutilized resources in our society and by others as a dystopian road to digital elitism (Kenny & Zysman,2016). The global success of on-demand short-term rental (STR) platforms like Airbnb highlights the phenomenal sharing economy. Thanks to advancements in information and communication tech- nologies (ICTs) and the advent of an integrated (matching, booking, payment, etc.) peer-to-peer marketplace, the searching cost for STRs has notably decreased for both the demand and the supply side (Einav, Farronato, & Levin,2016). Contrary to a centralized economy, where transactional cost is lowered through economies of scale, the sharing economy creates a decentralized market that facilitates heterogeneous product choices (Einav et al.,2016). In addition, crowd-based networks and access without ownership remove the hurdle for ordinary people to participate in the sharing economy, blurring the boundary between a personal property and a professional establishment (Sundararajan,2016). CONTACT Zhenpeng Zou zhenpeng@umd.edu HOUSING POLICY DEBATE https://doi.org/10.1080/10511482.2019.1681016 © 2019 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University In the global context, the soaring sharing economy translates into a rapid STR market expansion: Since its first booking in 2008, Airbnb has accumulated more than 5 million listings in 191 countries around the world and accommodated more than 300 million guests in the past decade (Airbnb, 2018). In the local context—the study area of this article—Airbnb entered Washington, DC, in 2009, and other platforms such as HomeAway and Vrbo followed suit. A typical STR host accommodates guests 32 days of a calendar year and makes an average income of $3,400, according to a survey conducted by Airbnb in 2016 (Airbnb,2016). As of August 2017, the number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC, exceeded 8,000, based on web-scraped Airbnb data. 1 The number of listings peaked around the inauguration of the Trump administration and the following Women’s March in the middle of January 2017, when hundreds of thousands of visitors gathered in the nation’s capital to witness these historical moments (New York Times,2017). When filtered by whether a listing has any reviews, an indicator of STR business activities (Barron, Kung, & Proserpio,2017), active Airbnb listings grew steadily in number.Figure 1 shows time trends for the total number of listings accessible through Airbnb.com, and the number of listings with at least one review from August 2015 to July 2017. According to an Airbnb report (2017), 88% of the hosts in Washington, DC, share space in their permanent home. In 2016, a total of 7,100 entire-home listings hosted at least one stay. In another report (Airbnb,2016), the platform claimed that 76% of its hosts rent out their primary dwelling for STR activities. Cross-referencing different data sources, I come up with the following first impressions of STRs in DC: (a) Washington, DC, is an emerging STR market, owing to its unique status as the nation’s capital and its numerous tourist attractions; (b) the majority of Airbnb’s thousands of listings were registered under a primary residential dwelling, although Airbnb (or other STR platforms) never revealed the number of additional listings registered by a single host or whether all hosts complied with local zoning codes, which may strictly prohibit STRs at certain locations; and (c) there is a sizable commercial STR market, in which the primary function of a property is STR business instead of long-term rental or residency. Spatially, STR listings tend to cluster at tourist hot spots and mixed-use residential areas. I plotted two kernel density maps of Airbnb listings at two points in time (February 2015 and February 2017) based on web-scraped, geocoded Airbnb listing data 2 (see Figure 2(a,b)). In addition to clusters in Figure 1.Number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC, January 2015–July 2017. 2 Z. ZOU the densely populated historical and commercial neighborhoods, STRs also expanded to residential neighborhoods in the Northwest and the Northeast, and across the Anacostia River (Southeast), within a 2-year span. This market expansion is intriguing as the east side of DC is traditionally a less heated housing market with a noticeable growth in recent years (The Washington Post,2018a). Innovations in business and technology often outpace legislation that confines the boundaries of their practice. Once a niche market product, STRs are no exception. Although triumphed by many who profited in the sharing economy, STR platforms increasingly clash with cities as issues, such as illegal listings and unmannerly guest behavior, start to make headlines. The central research ques- tion of this article is whether the thriving STR business in Washington, DC, is a significant factor that drives up single-family property prices in the owner housing market. In addition, it is vital to understand which neighborhoods are most impacted by STRs, especially the neighborhoods with high shares of racial minorities. Many issues with and discussions about STRs are described in the literature. In the following section, I thoroughly review the broader literature on this novel yet controversial topic, with a focus on the welfare impacts STRs have imposed on different communities. 2. STR Literature Review 2.1. Virtues and Vices of STRs STRs only became a popular research subject recently, because of their novelty. Early research focused on descriptive analyses of successes and setbacks of the STR business model: By adopting a trust and reputation system, STR platforms managed to minimize the potential risks of sharing with strangers (Abrahao, Parigi, Gupta, & Cook,2017; Frenken & Schor,2017). On the other hand, a rating system could introduce unintended statistical and social biases because of information asymmetry. For instance, Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2015) found that ratings on Airbnb were overwhelmingly positive, disguising variations in service quality. In addition, STR platforms introduced a two-sided feedback system for guests and hosts, where ratings were usually inflated out of fear of retaliation Figure 2.(a) Airbnb listing locations, February 2015. (b) Airbnb listing locations, February 2017. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 3 (Tadelis,2016). Fradkin, Grewal, and Holtz (2018) conducted two field experiments to improve the effectiveness of the rating system for Airbnb. They found that both financial rewards and simulta- neous reviews could readily eliminate strategic reciprocity in the STR rating process. Although addressing the importance of designing a robust rating system for STR platforms, researchers also found worrisome evidence that social biases were held against STR participants of color. Edelman, Luca, and Svirsky (2017) implemented an audit experiment on Airbnb and found a significantly higher number of booking request rejections of African American guests as compared with white guests. In addition, black hosts were found to earn significantly less rent from STRs than their white counterparts after controlling for housing conditions and location factors (Edelman & Luca,2014). STR platforms claimed that they were not liable for such social biases as a result of their ambiguous policies on user profile photos and listing descriptions (Edelman & Luca,2014). As allegations of discriminatory cases accumulate, public appeals for regulatory measures to hold STR platforms accountable for nondiscriminatory business conduct are also increasing. Having observed the global success of STRs, researchers in tourism and hospitality tried to assess how this emerging market would impact the traditional lodging industry. Zervas, Proserpio, and Byers (2017) suggested that Airbnb could be responsible for a revenue loss of 8–10% for traditional hotel chains in Austin, Texas. The new competition from STR platforms, however, can substantially benefit consumers as lodging cost is brought down (Guttentag,2015). It is no surprise that the incumbent hotels and lodging establishments will defend their business interests by pursuing legislation/regulation against the disruptive STRs. A major argument against the platforms is that they essentially created a deregulated market without enforcing regulation, such as business registration, on their participating hosts (Guttentag,2015). Unlicensed accommodation providers could impose safety and public health risks on guests (Gurran,2018). Furthermore, unlicensed STR listings could escape tax liabilities, providing an unfair advantage over traditional lodging establish- ments that obey tax rules (Gurran,2018; Guttentag,2015). This tax issue is typically resolved through tax agreements between a city government and STR platforms, allowing a city to collect hotel-like taxes on each booking (Bibler, Teltser, & Tremblay,2018). Yet it is not commonly practiced by all city governments in the United States, especially those of small cities (DiNatale, Lewis, & Parker,2018). 2.2. STRs’Externalities In addition to affecting subscribers and the hospitality industry, STRs also impact the welfare level of the broader community through externalities. Externalities exist naturally, as the market is imperfect. Whereas subscribers (hosts and guests) and STR platforms are tied to a legally binding contract, nonsubscribers cannot hold platforms accountable for their behavior. Neither can nonsubscribers invoke market incentives, such as withholding their patronage, to change platforms’behavior (Edelman & Geradin,2016). In the context of STR, the most obvious externality comes from changes to quality of life. Neighborhood quality, unbounded by ownership, could fall victim to a tragedy of the commons, such as constant interruptions to the neighbors from STR guests, overconsumption of rivalrous public goods (e.g., parking space), and reckless guest behavior (e.g., hosting loud parties; Edelman & Geradin,2016). Filippas and Horton (2017) theoretically articulate that negative home-sharing externalities cannot be entirely internalized in a tenant decide regime. The externalities associated with STRs are complicated in that they are both “technological”(i.e., spillovers) and “pecuniary” (Scitovsky,1954, p. 146). Technological externalities of STRs are the social costs incurred by STR guests and borne by the public. Pecuniary externalities of STRs, on the other hand, are the overall housing price and value changes as a result of the advent of STRs in a city (Filippas & Horton,2017). Empirically, quantifying externalities is a difficult task because of their nonmarket nature. Hedonic pricing is a popular empirical approach for valuation of nonmarket goods, which implicitly embeds nonmarket locational characteristics into determinants of property prices/values (Rosen,1974). 4 Z. ZOU Whereas policymaking toward eliminating technological externalities is straightforward, such as restrictions against the use of STRs for events and zoning compliance (e.g., Office of Short-Term Rentals San Francisco,2018), policymaking toward remedying pecuniary externalities involves a complicated planning issue. Specifically, STR platforms are condemned for exploiting the afford- able rental housing stock that could have been rented by long-term renters and for inflating rent and property value (Edelman & Geradin,2016; Gurran,2018; Gurran & Phibbs,2017). Pecuniary extern- alities are a product of interdependence among members of the economy. They cannot be resolved by simply applying policy tools to move the economic equilibrium from the private optimum to the social optimum (Scitovsky,1954). A change in policy to address pecuniary externalities, such as restricting the number of listings per host, is likely to change the dynamics of the entire STR market. A summary of STR externalities is provided in Figure 3. Unlike green space or air pollution, which can be unambiguously categorized as an amenity or a disamenity, respectively, to quality of life, having STRs in a neighborhood can be considered both an amenity and a disamenity. What is revealed through differences in property prices/values is the net effect of STR externalities. Recent empirical results suggest that STRs seem to boost property values or rent (Horn & Merante,2017; Sheppard & Udell,2016; Wachsmuth, Kerrigan, Chaney, & Shillolo,2017; Wachsmuth & Weisler,2018), indicating that the positive externalities associated with STRs dominate the negative ones. Previous literature theorizes potential mechanisms of STRs’positive impact on property prices. STRs offer an extra income that can help property owners maintain ownership for longer as the cost of ownership is reduced (Sheppard & Udell,2016). This extra income stream is capitalized into property prices (Barron et al.,2017). This is a plausible mechanism in particular for those who would otherwise have been evicted from their property because of financial struggles. In addition, STRs could generate new interests in real estate investment: Urban space becomes more valuable as tourists and residents take advantage of STRs (Sheppard & Udell,2016). With limited urban land supply for new development, investors will seek to convert the existing housing stock into STRs, bidding up property prices and making life more difficult for first-time homebuyers and long-term renters. This is exactly what Wachsmuth and Weisler (2018, p. 5) described as “gentrification without redevelopment”: A rent (price) gap emerged as the result of a strong tourist demand for STRs. A strong economic incentive followed for real estate investors to evict existing long-term tenants or to cash out existing homeowners. They then converted properties into STRs without building anything new. Figure 3.Short term rentals' (STRs') welfare impact and mechanism. Modified from Sheppard and Udell (2016, p. 9). HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 5 2.3. STRs’Housing Market Implications Empirically, previous research reached an early consensus that the advent of STR platforms, such as Airbnb,resultedinnetincreasesineitherpropertypricesorrent(Barronetal.,2017;Horn&Merante,2017; Sheppard & Udell,2016; Wachsmuth et al.,2017). As new evidence emerged, the debate intensified over whether STRs exacerbated the housing affordability crisis in major U.S. and international cities. Nevertheless, a lack of robust rental housing transaction data made it difficult for housing policy researchers to produce fruitful results to stir up a conversation. Previous analyses on rental data are aggregatedeitheratthecensustractlevel(e.g.,Horn&Merante,2017)orthemetropolitanarealevel(e.g., Barron et al.,2017). No property/parcel-level rental housing analysis exists at this point, to my knowledge. Many STR proponents found the argument of a direct substitution between STRs and long-term rentals unconvincing. A report on the impact of Airbnb on the Portland, Oregon, housing market suggested that “somewhere between 83 and 377 units (or 0.03% of the total housing stock in Portland) would be considered full-time Airbnb rentals”(ECONorthwest,2016,p.1).Itisunclearwhether restraining the number of full-time STR listings in a city could significantly shrink the rental housing shortage. Opponents of unregulated STRs focused on the issue in regard to commercial STR hosts, who rented multiple listings for an extended number of days in a year (from 3 months to year round). According to a local nonprofit organization, more than one third of all listings in DC could be categorized as commercial listings (DC Working Families,2017). In Canada, researchers found that 13,700 entire homes out of 81,000 Airbnb listings were rented for more than 60 days a year in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver(Wachsmuthetal.,2017).Thedefinitionofan entirehome istricky,sinceitdoesnotnecessarily mean that the property owner lives elsewhere. In the ECONorthwest report (2016), a fair observation was made that Airbnb’sdefinition of an entire home includes (a) accessory dwellings attached to a property, (b) parts of a property with a separate entrance and private rooms, and (c) a basement unit without a separate entrance. In addition, a property owner can list multiple bedrooms as multiple listings on the platform, contrary to the DC report’sargumentthatacommercialhostmusthaverentedoutmorethan one property. As Wachsmuth et al. (2017) point out, current observations about Airbnb are based on third-party information and data sources (e.g., web-scraped data). Any statement with a high level of confidence would require direct data from STR platforms with accurate details. The rest of the article is organized as follows: In Section 3, I highlight controversies around STRs in Washington,DC,and ongoing efforts towardregulatingtheSTR market. In Section 4,I summarizethe Airbnb and property data used in the analysis. Empirical frameworks and results are presented in Section 5. Robustness checks are provided in Section 6. Lastly, I discuss policy implications and conclude the article in Section 7. 3. STR Controversies and Regulations in the District of Columbia 3.1. Growing STR Business Amid Controversies There is no doubt that STR platforms like Airbnb provide economic benefit to DC residents. However, the relationshipbetweenSTRplatformsandthecityisnot alwayspositive.A majorconcernaboutSTRsisthat commercial hosts occupy precious housing resources that could have housed long-term renters in the city. In its defense, Airbnb (2017) argued that only0.22%ofthe entirehomelistings were booked formore thanhalfayearin2016.Inaddition,theaveragemonthlyincomeforanSTRhost($680)isonlyafractionof the average monthly rental income in DC ($2,299). 3 Therefore, from an economic perspective, part-time STRs, which comprise 60% of all entire home units, can hardly substitute for long-term rentals. Another concern regarding STRs’housing market impact has to do with its spatial concentration around tourist hot spots. Areas like downtown and Capitol Hill are real estate heavens and attract heavy tourist traffic. It is, to say the least, worrisome that STRs may significantly change the housing market dynamics in these areas. If a property price premium is transmitted to the rental housing market in such areas, then long-term renters will have to endure inflating rent as a spillover from increasing housing prices. 6 Z. ZOU Other stories unfolded that STR platforms barely regulated their hosts in terms of business registrations or compliance with local zoning ordinances, such as the strict condominium rules that prohibit short-term sublets (The Washington Post,2017a). In one case, several apartment buildings were converted illegally into full-time STRs as opposed to being leased to long-term renters (Greater Greater Washington,2017). STR platforms were not well received by all. Therefore, the city government decided to intervene in the unregulated STR market. 3.2. DC’s STR Regulatory Framework In January 2017, Kenyan McDuffie, city councilmember representing Ward 5, introduced the Home/ Short-Term Rental Regulation and Affordable Housing Protection Act of 2017 (B22-92), which was the first official attempt to legalize and regulate STRs. Proponents and opponents fiercely expressed their positions during the first public hearing in April 2017 over the current state and practice of STRs in DC and to what extent the STR business should be regulated (Council of the District of Columbia,2018). The initial proposal was not well received as STR platforms and subscribers felt the bill “goes too far and is too restrictive”by capping the number of days in a year for STR operation at 15 days (The Washington Post,2017b). After inaction for more than a year, the city council moved the legislation forward in October 2018 with significant amendments to the original bill: STR listings were capped at 90 business days per calendar year; the monetary penalty for violations was reduced; and any STR listing located outside of a host’s primary residence requires a license for operation (Council of the District of Columbia,2018). The city council passed the bill unanimously in November 2018, marking the end of an era of unregulated STRs in Washington, DC. Table A1 highlights the legislative contexts of B22-92. It also describes approved STR bills and ordinances from the neighboring counties, including Arlington County, Virginia; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Montgomery County, Maryland. There are many similarities among these legisla- tions: an STR is defined as the transient occupancy of a residential dwelling (owned or rented); a business license is acquired conditional upon inspections from the regulatory body; only the primary residence is allowed for STRs, where the physical presence of the residents is required for at least 180 days in a calendar year; and the maximum number of STR days in a calendar year and the maximum number of guests are specified. On the otherhand, these bills and ordinances also differ from eachother: whereas both counties in Maryland and the DC government passed jurisdictional bills, Arlington County only revised its zoningordinances.Havingthezoningcommissionenforcingtheordinances withthepowerto suspend or revoke a permit may yield better enforcement outcomes, but it could also cause an admin- istrativeburden.DC’sSTRbillremainsthemostrestrictiveintermsofits90-daycapforSTR(asopposedto 120daysor180days)withspecialexemptions.Inaddition,B22-92istheonlybillthatspecifiesthepenalty for each violation. In response to legislative approval, STR platforms quickly denounced the council’s action and aimed to bring the case directly to a 2020 ballot initiative (The Washington Post,2018b). If passing legislation on STRs requires year-long efforts, then enforcing STR regulations entails admin- istrative readiness and coordination. Underprepared implementation of STR regulations results in unin- tended consequences. One such consequence is a cumbersome registration process. As one of the first cities to pass an STR legislation in 2016, San Francisco, California, only registered 2,168 Airbnb hosts as of early 2018, leavingthe majority of its8,000STRlistingswithnolegalstatus(SanFrancisco Chronicle,2018). Similarly, by 8 months after the legislation took effect, the Arlington County government had only issued 101 transient rental permits on an estimated owner base of 1,600 STRs (INSIDENOVA,2017). If the low registration rate is a mixed outcome of uncooperative STR owners and inefficient administrative proce- dures, thentheexistenceofunregistered/commercial listings heightens alack of regulatoryenforcement. AirDNA (2018) data suggest that 5,778 Airbnb listings in San Francisco remain active, despite the fact that the municipal STR bill has been in effect for 2 years. Should the platforms be fined for listing unregistered STRs? Should the city go after each unregistered STR owner? These unresolved issues are common to municipal lawmakers and governing bodies everywhere, including the District of Columbia. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 7 In the housing policy debate over STRs’impact on DC’s housing market, a missing piece of the puzzle is how STRs could impact property owners and homebuyers. In the following sections, I will empirically investigate this issue using unique open-source data. 4. Empirical Data 4.1. Data Sources Airbnb data: Although data from STR platforms are almost impossible to acquire, third-party web-scraped dataareavailablehavebecomepopularforresearchpurposes(e.g.,Wegmann&Jiao,2017).Web-scraped STR data are subject to some limitations, such as the use of location proxies. Yet such data provide comprehensive information about an available listing, including listing amenities and reviews. Through real-time data scraping, researchers can describe STR activities subject to a degree of discretion. Researchers either design their own scraper (e.g., Barron et al.,2017) or rely on third-party scrapers, such as Inside Airbnb (e.g., Gurran & Phibbs,2017;Horn&Merante,2017)andAirDNA(e.g.,Wachsmuth& Weisler,2018). In this study, I used data collected by Tom Slee from September 2014 to July 2017. 4 Sixweb-scrapedAirbnb datasetsat half-year intervalswerecombinedtorepresentAirbnb listings in DC from early 2015 to mid-2017. The half-year intervals deliberately take into account seasonal fluctuations in tourism (March through August are typically the popular months for DC). Although the data do not cover the initial entry of Airbnb into the DC market, they cover the period when the STR business took off in DC (see Figure 1). Housing data: Housing information came from the Open DC data portal with periodically updated property sales records and city-wide housing appraisal records. The appraisal data provide under- lying housing attributes, such as the number of rooms, bathrooms, and stories; the square footage; and the estimated building year. Property sales records from the Integrated Tax System Public Extract (ITSPE) and appraisal data from the Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) database were extracted and combined using a unique identifier, Square Suffix Lot (SSL). After trimming the data set using matching criteria, completeness of attributes, and exclusions of extreme values, I derived the final data set of property sales records during September 2014–July 2017. Neighborhood data: Aside from housing attributes, neighborhood characteristics are also deter- ministic in hedonic prices. I included the most important attributes in the final data set, such as access to Metrorail stations, public schools, and historical landmarks. In addition, underlying popula- tion attributes at the census tract level were extracted from the American Community Survey database and were incorporated into the final data set. 4.2. Data Processing Because of the size of the housing data sets, neither sales records nor appraisal data were geocoded. Iapplied theMasterAddress Repository(MAR)geocodertogeolocateeachSSLwithintheITSPEdatabase by a 92% matching criterion. Only 7,334 out of the 110,883 records were dropped because of low matching rates. The ITSPE data were then merged with the CAMA residential data based on SSL, and 52,577 single-family property sales records were successfully matched. 5 In the end, 12,680 records between September 2014 and July 2017 were kept in the final single-family housing data set. I measured Airbnb density by counting the number of listings within a certain buffer distance of a property sales point at a given period of time. Four buffer sizes were included in the analyses: 100 feet, 200feet,500feet,and1,000feet.Choosingabuffersizeismoreofanartthanascience:whereasasmaller buffercapturesanSTR’smostdirectimpactonaproperty’sprice,alargerbufferallowsformorevariations inAirbnbdensityandcapturesthebroadereconomic impactofAirbnbactivitiesontheneighborhood.As a comparison, Sheppard and Udell (2016)testeddifferent buffer sizes from 200 meters (656 feet) to 2,000 meters (6,560 feet). Some studies calculated Airbnb density at an aggregated level, such as census tracts (Horn & Merante,2017). I did not include a buffer size smaller than 100 feet or larger than 1,000 feet 8 Z. ZOU because(a)thevariationinAirbnbdensitywasinsignificantforasmallerbuffer,and(b)theneighborhood impactofasinglelistingwastooweakforamuchlargerbuffer.Withanincreasedbuffersize,morelistings will be included, but the listings farther away from the centroid will have a smaller impact on property prices.Figure 4 illustrates the Airbnb density at different buffers in the ArcGIS environment. 4.3. Summary Statistics Summary statistics of the final data set are presented in Table A2. The average number of Airbnb listings within 100 feet of a single-family property sales point is 0.21. The variation is so small for this Figure 4.Example of Airbnb density buffers around a property sales point. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 9 search radius that it may affect the precision of the point estimate in the hedonic regression model. The Airbnb density increases to 0.85, 5.06, and 18.63 for search radiuses of 200 feet, 500 feet, and 1,000 feet, respectively, from a property sales point. In theory, the marginal effect of each Airbnb listing on a property’s price will decay as the buffer size increases. Therefore, I anticipate a declining magnitude in hedonic point estimates for the Airbnb density variable for a larger buffer. The sample average single-family property price is $762,000 and the median price is $630,000, higher than the median home value in DC of $544,000 in 2017. 6 The sample average property land area is 3,000 square feet (sqft) and the average structure area is about 1,700 sqft, with 7.5 rooms, 2.2 bathrooms, 0.6 half-bathrooms, and 1.2 kitchens. In addition, basic amenities are usually included, such as a fireplace, an air conditioner, and a heating system. As for neighborhood attributes, a typical property resides in a populated urban area with heavy traffic (as indicated by the number of crash incidents within a half-mile buffer) and some crime incidents. A propertyusually has agood access to publicschools within walking distance (0.5 miles). A property also hasaneasyaccesstoaMetrorailstationandcommercialareas.InWashington,DC,itisespeciallycommon to have historical landmarks in the neighborhood. Such amenities can have significant impacts on property prices. In terms of neighborhood demographics, a typical DC property is located in a neighborhood with an employed, educated, middle-class population. However, the population demographics differ significantly by zip code. I carefully controlled for such zip code fixed effects and STR clustering effects in the models specified in the next section. I conducted a Pearson’s correlation test 7 to examine the preliminary bivariate relationship between Airbnb density and property prices and to detect the unusual signs of different housing and neighborhood attributes in explaining property prices. All Airbnb density variables were positively correlated with property prices, suggesting a net positive externality from STRs. Most signs of the correlation statistics made sense. No perfect collinearity was found except for income and education at the census tract level. 5. Hedonic Analyses of Airbnbs’Effect on Property Prices Empirically, the hedonic pricing model is one of the most widely adopted approaches to study consumers’willingness to pay for nonmarket goods. In this study, Airbnb density, defined by the number of Airbnb listings within a particular distance from a property sales point, runs into the regression analyses as a hedonic attribute. I constructed three models to fully investigate Airbnbs’ impact on property prices: a pooled cross-sectional model, a fixed-effects model at the census block level, and a first-difference model. 5.1. Model Specifications The full-sample cross-sectional model considers the most comprehensive set of explanatory vari- ables, including housing attributes, neighborhood factors, sociodemographic attributes at the census tract level, and a series of time and location fixed effects. The model is specified as follows: lgpricein ¼α þ Airbnbinβ þ Xinδ þ Nnφ þ εin (1) Housing price takes a logarithmic form to account for the right-skewedness in distribution,Xin represents housing and neighborhood attributes, and Nn represents demographic attributes that are common to each property i in census tract n. The census-block-level fixed-effects model controls for unobserved time-invariant characteristics that may jointly affect housing prices and Airbnb activities, such as commercial activities, infra- structure, and public facilities. In addition, a time trend is added to the model to control for common housing market fluctuations over different periods. The model is specified as follows: 10 Z. ZOU lgpricebt ¼α þ Airbnbbtβ þ Xbtδ þ Nbtφ þ ωb þ θt þ εbt (2) The unit of observation is a representative property in census block b during period t. Both block- level fixed effects ωb and common time trends θt are included. The nation’s capital experienced a historical influx of visitors in January 2017. Both supporters and protesters congested the city during the Trump administration’s inauguration and the Women’sMarch the following day (the latter attracted much heavier traffic). Having anticipated the unprecedented demand for lodging, the local STR community expanded dramatically between November 2016 and January 2017, from 5,975 listings to 9,097 listings,according to the web-scraped data. This exogenous demandshockcreatedauniqueopportunityformeto conductabefore/afteranalysisonhownewAirbnb listings/activities affected property prices. I selected block-level data between March 2016 and November 2016 for the before period and data between February 2017 and July 2017 for the after period. The final data set consists of 2,047 observations for 1,027 blocks. I then applied a first-difference model to understand how changes in Airbnb density affected property prices: Δlgpriceb ¼α þ ΔAirbnbbβ þ ΔXbδ þ ΔNbφ þ Δεb (3) 5.2. Empirical Results The main estimation results are presented in Table A3. Panel A of the table reports the regression coefficients and standard errors for the most important variables in the pooled cross-sectional model. It is evident that (a) having Airbnb listings in the neighborhood mildly raises a single- family property’s price, and (b) the average effect of a listing decays as the search buffer broadens. Other significant variables also help explain property prices, such as good property appraisal grades andconditions,having publicschools and historicallandmarkswithin walking distance,and dwelling in a wealthy community. The model’s goodness of fit is high, with R2 > 0.80. Panel Bshowsregression coefficientsand standard errorsoftheAirbnb listing densityvariables forthe fixed-effects model. The coefficients on the Airbnb densities at the 200-foot, 500-foot, and 1000-foot buffers hold their statistical significance, and they are slightly larger in magnitude than those in Panel A. Whereas the fixed-effects model controls for unobserved time-invariant characteristics at the census tract level, the model’sgoodnessoffit drops because of aggregation. Nevertheless, the results from both models suggest a price premium on properties because of the presence of Airbnb listings in the neighborhood. Panel C of Table A3 shows hedonic regression results for the first-difference model. Again, the coefficients on Airbnb densities at the 200-foot, 500-foot, and 1000-foot buffers remain statistically significant. The magnitudes are much larger because of the dramatic increase in Airbnb density between November 2016 and January 2017. One possible explanation is that the transition to a new administration led to a temporary spike in housing demand to accommodate new residents. Airbnb (and STRs in general) fulfilled the transitional housing need. 5.3. STRs’Inequitable Impact on Property Prices To quantify the impact of Airbnb listings on property prices, I calculated the aggregate impact by multiplying the point estimates from the fixed-effects model and the average density of Airbnb listings for each buffer size. The impacts were then summarized by zip code to account for the unbalanced spatial distribution of Airbnb listings. The results are presented in Table A4. In particular, the underlying demographic composition varies significantly across zip codes in DC because of historical redlining (Lloyd,2016). Certain zip code areas have a much higher concentration of HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 11 Hispanic/Latino and/or African American populations. Historically, displacement of the black popu- lation was prominent in DC (Jackson,2015). It is vital to understand whether STRs have significantly impacted people of color in the city. For the entire city, Airbnb alone could account for an increase in single-family property price by 0.66% to 2.24%. The impact was mild yet nontrivial. Alarmingly, Airbnb was responsible for a significant leap (>5%) in property prices in tourist hot spots, such as downtown (zip code 20005), Shaw (20001), Adams Morgan (20009), Dupont Circle (20036), and Foggy Bottom–George Washington University (20037). These neighborhoods were already overheated in terms of housing demand because of their advantageous locations. STR-related housing investment will only aggra- vate the housing affordability issue. What is more unsettling is that Shaw (20001), NOMA–Trinidad (20002), Capitol Hill (20003), and Columbia Heights(20010) also experienced anoticeable price inflation (>3%) becauseof STRs. These zip code areas are populated by Hispanics and African Americans, as shown in the last two columns of Table A4. Although the increasing price is good news for current homeowners, it acts as a potential hurdle preventing new homebuyers from moving into these neighborhoods. Moreover, it is reasonable to worry that the price premium will be eventually borne by long-term renters, jeopardizing low-income minority renters who could be displaced from the city. This is the missing piece previously ignored in the debates over STRs’housing market consequences in Washington, DC: Not only could STR platforms occupy valuable housing stock, but their business could significantly drive up housing costs in neighborhoods with a concentrated minority population. 6. Robustness Checks 6.1. Robustness Checks on Active Airbnb Listings As mentioned in Section 3, housing advocacy groups and other STR opponents were most con- cerned about the entire home STR listings that might have consumed the existing housing stock. To inquire into this issue, I subdivided the Airbnb listing data by two additional criteria: a listing (a) was categorized as entire home, and (b) had at least one review to signal its active status. About 70% of the observations were preserved after this additional screening. After rerunning all three models, I present robustness check results in Table A5.Surprisingly, whereas the statistical significance of the regression coefficients and the goodness of fitresemble those in Table A3, the magnitudes of coefficients are larger for the 100-foot and 200-foot buffers and smaller for the 500-foot and 1000-foot buffers compared with the results in Table A3. Such interesting results can be explained by a perfectly reasonable rationale: Active STR listings have a stronger localized impact on property prices as their activeness indicates business success and attractiveness to new investors. On the other hand, broader economic benefit usually requires a cluster of listings in a larger buffer area. With fewer listings in a large buffer, the magnitude of the Airbnb density impact declines. 6.2. A Robustness Check on the Rental Housing Market Although the focus of this article is the single-family owner housing market, it will enrich the discussion to look into STRs’impacts on the rental housing market. I could not access disaggregated rental transaction data, so the robustness check was done at the aggregate zip code level. I used Zillow Rent Index (ZRI), a smoothed measure of the median estimated market rate rent, across zip codes in Washington, DC, over time for this exercise. 8 When applied to the same empirical models, the rental data yielded statistically insignificant results (see Table A6). The most plausible estimate is the coefficient on the Airbnb density at the 200-foot buffer. The estimate is positive yet statistically insignificant. In addition, Washington, DC, adopted a strict Rent Control Act, in which any rent hike falls under rent control except for a few exemptions (such as rental units built after 1975 and 12 Z. ZOU federally/district-subsidized rental units). 9 From the housing data set, 74% of the single-family units and60%of themultifamily/condominiumunits were builtpriorto1975,suggestingthatthemajority of the older housing units in DC fall under the rent control umbrella. This is somewhat reassuring for the most vulnerable renters in the city. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that thorough and robust research using high-quality disaggregated rental housing data must be conducted to solve the rental housing puzzle of STRs’housing market consequences. 7. Discussion 7.1. Policy Implications This article provides empirical evidence of STRs’impacts on property prices. The topic has pivotal welfare implications that should not be neglected. Previous attempts to understand STRs’housing market impacts in DC were descriptive and lacked rigor. In this article, I took advantage of innovative web-scraped Airbnb data to demonstrate the indirect impact (externalities) of Airbnb listings on single-family property prices through hedonic analyses. The results suggest that unregulated growth in STR business created an inequitable property price premium that could distress first-time home- buyers and negatively affect long-term renters if the price premium results in higher rent. This study comes out in a particularly meaningful time in the wake of new STR regulations in the District of Columbia. The lengthy legislative process took almost 2 years to finish, with another 11 months of a transition period to go before the regulations come into effect. Although stories about how STR business helped struggling families afford their homes in one of the nation’s most expensive cities (The Washington Post,2018a) should not be neglected, cities ought to realize that anxious STR investors can make life much harder for people who are still seeking a home. STR regulation should by no means deprive a resident of their right to earn an extra income through home-sharing. The unanimous criticism of the stiff cap on STR days in the original bill proposal is proof of this. Strict as it still is, the final version allows for a primary dwelling to be rented 90 days a year. Although it has yet to be tested how effectively the regulation will be enforced, the bill can hopefully cool down STR-related housing investment by prohibiting commercial listings outside of a host’s primary dwelling. It remains challenging as the city must get STR platforms on board to make considerable efforts to remove illegal listings. Any attempt to resolve the conflict between pro-STR and anti-STR communities without a collaborative approach has no chance to succeed. From a planner’s perspective, functional zoning ordinances and an effective zoning board play critical roles in regulating STRs.Table A1 shows that all passed STR legislations revise zoning ordinances to unambiguously confine a residential property’s STR usage. In the case of Arlington County, the zoning commission is also the issuer of STR licenses, empowering the county’s planning body to oversee STR operation and law compliance. In addition to revising zoning codes, planning and housing authorities should keep a keen eye on the affordable housing stock and ensure that the valuable rental housing resources for voucher holders and other affordable housing program participants are not jeopardized by illegal or irrational STR investments. On the other hand, there is a silver lining to foster collaboration between the housing authority and STR platform in home sharing programs (e.g., Department of Housing and Urban Development,2016). Rather than treating STRs as a threat to affordable housing, cities could potentially benefit from the crowd-sourcing technology supported by STR platforms to match voucher holders and rental housing owners. Cities should embark on the smart city concept by thinking and acting innovatively to address existing conundrums. A new type of home sharing program through STRs would be a great experiment to produce a social good through a private– public partnership between a city and STR platforms. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 13 7.2. Limitations and Beyond the Study I acknowledge that this study cannot directly answer the question of how STRs gentrify a city. Gentrification is a complicated issue that goes beyond the scope of the partial equilibrium analyses presented inthis article.Wewillhave toreflectonthemoney-chasing real estatedevelopment thatis by no means affordable to low-income households and racial minorities. We will also have to ask homeowners why they prefer to invest in the STR business. Instead, this study confirms the hypothesis that STRs make it more expensive to own a property in a tourist paradise like Washington, DC. Moreover, and perhaps more alarmingly, they have made the historically minority-concentrated neighborhoods more expensive. Because of the short observation time, the data did not support a parcel-level repeated sales model, which would have been a more robust empirical approach. Nevertheless, all three hedonic models confirmed that STRs indeed inflated single-family property prices. To put this article into perspective, I compared the empirical results with the findings from previous studies: In this article, I find a 0.78% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing within the 200-foot buffer; Barron et al. (2017)find a 0.64% increase in property prices with a 10% increase in Airbnb listings; and Sheppard and Udell (2016)find a6–9% increase in property prices when the number of Airbnb listings doubles within a 300-meter buffer, which translates into a 1.30–1.96% increase in property prices for each additional Airbnb listing in New York City. Different as our methodologies, data, and studies areas are, we come to similar conclusions. Although I included a robustness check on Airbnb’s price effect on aggregated median rent at the zip code level, the results are rather inconclusive. Unsurprisingly, the level of geographic aggregation andthelengthofthetimeserieslimitedtheinterpretabilityoftheresults.FollowingBarronetal.(2017) and Horn and Merante (2017), I believe that the story for Washington, DC, is probably not so different; thatis,STRsalsodriveuprent.Recentstudiesusingweb-scrapedCraigslistdata(e.g.,Boeing&Waddell, 2017) inspire a new research agenda on STRs’rental housing market consequences. Last but not least, hedonic models were only able to allow me to derive the net impact of Airbnb density on property prices. It is unclear what the driving factor is in determining the positive net externality. Judging from the literature (Wachsmuth & Weisler,2018), investors bidding up prices because of the extra income from STR is a more plausible mechanism than the other two (increasing quality of life and more space demanded by existing property owners). As a new wave of jurisdictions start to legalize and regulate STRs, it will be interesting to compare the STR market before and after regulations take effect. One of the greatest debates is whether innovation and technology improve quality of life. In the case of STRs, it is a housing policy debate centering on an innovation in technology that redefines how we live and how we travel. Notes 1.The main data source for this article is the Inside Airbnb website supported by Tom Slee (http://insideairbnb. com/about.html).I appreciate his data collection efforts, in terms of both frequency and quality. However, the data collection process stopped by mid 2017. According to another source, AirDNA, the current number of Airbnb listings in Washington, DC,fluctuates around 7,000. This could be a result of market saturation, policy uncertainty, or a combination of the two. 2.According to the declaimers on Inside Airbnb, the locational information of an Airbnb listing that is publicly available on airbnb.com is typically within a 450-foot distance from its actual address to protect anonymity of a host’s information. This is not problem for the purpose of this study because Airbnb listings are characterized as a density attribute within a certain buffer distance. 3.According to Insider Airbnb, the estimated full-time STR monthly income is about $986 (http://insideairbnb. com/washington-dc/),still much lower than the average rental price (even for a studio). 4.The scraper operator, Tom Slee, stopped Airbnb data collection after the summer 2017 because of an over- whelming number of requests. He directed requestors to other open-data sources such as Inside Airbnb. 5.Another 39,886 records were matched for condominium and multifamily sales records. Condominium data were excluded from this study because of unobserved attributes (such as condominium management quality) that could be crucial in determining their prices. 14 Z. ZOU 6.The median value for condominiums is $440,000, but the condominium sample was excluded because of a lack of detailed condominium attributes in the appraisal database. 7.Because of the size of the Pearson’s correlation matrix, I decided not to include it in the article. 8.See the methodology to calculate the ZRI here:https://www.zillow.com/research/zillow-rent-index-methodol ogy-2393/ 9.See the Rent Control Fact Sheet here:https://dhcd.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dhcd/service_content/ attachments/Rent%20Control%20Fact%20Sheet%202018.pdf Acknowledgments I would like to thank Dr. Gerrit Knaap and Dr. Casey Dawkins from the University of Maryland, College Park, for their insights on the research question discussed in this article. I would also like to thank Hannah Younes from the University of Maryland, College Park, for her helpful edits of the manuscript. Lastly, I appreciate all three anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments, suggestions, and words of encouragement. Disclosure Statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author. Notes on Contributor Zhenpeng Zou is a PhD candidate in the Urban and Regional Planning and Design Program, University of Maryland, College Park, and a research assistant at the National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland, College Park. ORCID Zhenpeng Zou http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1789-7638 References Abrahao, B., Parigi, P., Gupta, A., & Cook, K. (2017). Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(37), 9848–9853. Airbnb. (2016).Overview of the Airbnb community in Washington, DC. Retrieved fromhttps://www.airbnbaction.com/wp- content/uploads/2016/10/AirbnbWashingtonDCEconomicImpactReportOctober2201.pdf Airbnb. (2017).Airbnb, housing, and the District of Columbia. Retrieved from https://www.airbnbcitizen.com/wp-content /uploads/sites/24/2017/04/2017-04-Airbnb-D.C.-Housing-Report.pdf Airbnb. (2018).Fast facts. Retrieved from https://press.airbnb.com/fast-facts/ AirDNA. (2018)San Francisco overview. Retrieved from https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/ san-francisco/overview Barron, K., Kung, E., & Proserpio, D. (2017).The sharing economy and housing affordability: Evidence from Airbnb. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3006832 Bibler, A., Teltser, K., & Tremblay, M. (2018).Inferring tax compliance from pass-through: Evidence from Airbnb tax enforcement agreements. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3117021 Boeing, G., & Waddell, P. (2017). New insights into rental housing markets across the united states: Web scraping and analyzing Craigslist rental listings.Journal of Planning Education and Research,37(4), 457–476. Council of the District of Columbia. (2018).B22-0092 –Short-term rental regulation and affordable housing protection act of 2017. Retrieved from http://lims.dccouncil.us/Legislation/B22–0092 DC Working Families. (2017).Airbnb’s impact in Washington DC –Selling the district short. Retrieved from http:// dcsharebetter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/D.C.-Housing-Report_Web.pdf Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2016).Home sharing. Retrieved from https://www.huduser. gov/portal/casestudies/study-09282016-1.html DiNatale, S., Lewis, R., & Parker, R. (2018). Short-term rentals in small cities in Oregon: Impacts and regulations.Land Use Policy,79,407–423. ECONorthwest. (2016).Housing affordability impacts of Airbnb in Portland. Portland, OR: Author. Edelman, B., & Geradin, D. (2016). Efficiency and regulatory shortcuts: How should we regulate companies like Airbnb and Uber?Stanford Technology Law Review,19(2), 293–328. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 15 Edelman, B., & Luca, M. (2014). Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Working Paper. Retrieved from https:// www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/Airbnb_92dd6086-6e46-4eaf-9cea-60fe5ba3c596.pdf Edelman, B., Luca, M., & Svirsky, D. (2017). Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment.American Economic Journal: Applied Economics,9(2), 1–22. Einav, L., Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2016). Peer-to-peer markets.Annual Review of Economics,8, 615–635. Filippas, A., & Horton, J. J. (2017). The tragedy of your upstairs neighbor: When is the home-sharing externality internalized? Working Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443343. Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., & Holtz, D. (2018). The determinants of online review informativeness: Evidence from field experiments on Airbnb. Working Paper. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2939064. Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective.Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,23,3–10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.01.003. Greater Greater Washington. (2017).DC wins a big victory against landlords who convert housing to Airbnb-like hotels. Retrieved from https://ggwash.org/view/65046/dc-wins-a-big-victory-against-landlords-who-convert-housing-to- airbnb-like-hotels Gurran, N. (2018). Global home-sharing, local communities and the Airbnb debate: A planning research agenda. Planning Theory & Practice,19(2), 298–304. Gurran, N., & Phibbs, P. (2017). When tourists move in: How should urban planners respond to Airbnb?Journal of the American Planning Association,83(1), 80–92. Guttentag, D. (2015). Airbnb: Disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector.Current Issues in Tourism,18(12), 1192–1217. Horn, K., & Merante, M. (2017). Is home sharing driving up rents? Evidence from Airbnb in Boston.Journal of Housing Economics,38,14–24. INSIDENOVA. (2017).Arlington seeing new tax revenue from Airbnb-style rentals. Retrieved from http://www.insidenova. com/news/arlington/arlington-seeing-new-tax-revenue-from-airbnb-style-rentals/article_1e191132-8e45-11e7- b384-175da4d36dd0.html Jackson, J. (2015). The consequences of gentrification for racial change in Washington, DC.Housing Policy Debate,25(2), 353–373. Kenny, M., & Zysman, J. (2016). The rise of the platform economy.Issues in Science and Technology,32(3), 61–69. Lloyd, J. (2016). Fighting redlining and gentrification in Washington, DC: The Adams-Morgan organization and tenant right to purchase.Journal of Urban History,42(6), 1091–1109. The New York Times.(2017).Crowd scientists say Women’s March in Washington had 3 times as many people as Trump’s inauguration. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/22/us/politics/womens-march-trump- crowd-estimates.html Office of Short-Term Rentals, San Francisco. (2018).About short-term rentals. Retrieved from https://shorttermrentals. sfgov.org/about Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic prices and implicit markets: Product differentiation in pure competition.Journal of Political Economy,82(1), 34–55. San Francisco Chronicle.(2018).Airbnb loses thousands of hosts in San Francisco. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle. com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-thousands-of-hosts-in-SF-as-12496624.php Scitovsky, T. (1954). Two concepts of external economies.Journal of Political Economy,62(2), 143–151. Sheppard, S., & Udell, A. (2016). Do Airbnb properties affect house prices? Working Paper. Retrieved from https://web. williams.edu/Economics/wp/SheppardUdellAirbnbAffectHousePrices.pdf. Sundararajan,A. (2016).The sharing economy: The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN: 9780262034579. Tadelis, S. (2016). Reputation and feedback systems in online platform markets.Annual Review of Economics,8, 321–340. Wachsmuth, D., Kerrigan, D., Chaney, D., & Shillolo, A. (2017). Short-term cities: Airbnb’s impact on Canadian housing markets. Retrieved from http://upgo.lab.mcgill.ca/airbnb/ Wachsmuth, D., & Weisler, A. (2018). Airbnb and the rent gap: Gentrification through the sharing economy.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space,50(6), 1147–1170. The Washington Post.(2017a).DC sues company for allegedly treating rent-control apartments like ‘hotel rooms’. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/dc-sues-company-for-allegedly-treating-rent- control-apartments-like-hotel-rooms/2017/04/25/e42ebb50-291a-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html?utm_ term=.06833c8f83ed The Washington Post.(2017b).Money and liability are among issues driving the DC Airbnb bill. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2017/09/18/money-and-liability-are-among-issues-driving-the-d-c-airbnb- bill/ The Washington Post.(2018a).East of the Anacostia, where there are no hotels, Airbnb has been a boon for property owners and guests. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/east-of-the-anacostia-where-there- are-no-hotels-airbnb-has-been-a-been-a-boon-for-property-owners-and-guests/2018/10/28/35f6bb14-d7d8-11e8- 83a2-d1c3da28d6b6_story.html 16 Z. ZOU The Washington Post.(2018b).DC government to propose zoning changes to permit Airbnbs in residential neighborhoods. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-government-to-propose-zoning-changes-to- permit-airbnbs-in-residential-neighborhoods/2018/10/30/c2e160ae-dbbd-11e8-b3f0-62607289efee_story.html?utm_ term=.d4dbb10ed53b Wegmann, J., & Jiao, J. (2017). Taming airbnb: Toward guiding principles for local regulation of urban vacation rentals based on empirical results from five U.S. cities.Land Use Policy,69, 494–501. Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2015).A first look at online reputation on Airbnb, where every stay is above average. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2554500 Zervas, G., Proserpio, D., & Byers, J. (2017). The rise of the sharing economy: Estimating the impact of Airbnb on the hotel industry.Journal of Marketing Research,54(5), 687–705. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 17 Table A1.Comparison of short-term rental legislative frameworks in the DC metropolitan area.JurisdictionWashington, DCArlington County, VAMontgomery County, MD Prince George’s County, MDLegislative framework B 22–92 (Proposed bill and amendments) Zoning Code 12.9.11 and 12.9.12 Zoning Text Amendment 17–03 andSenate Bill 2-16CB-10-2018 and CB-11-2018DefinitionSTR means paid lodging for transient guestswith the host present, unless it is a vacationrental. An STR is not a hotel, inn, motel,boarding house, or bed and breakfast.An accessory homestay is a specialtype of home occupation thatallows the occupant of a residentialdwelling unit to host short-termovernight guests.STR means the residential occupancyof a dwelling unit for a fee for lessthan 30 consecutive days. An STR isnot a bed and breakfast.STR means a residential dwelling unitoccupied by an STR guest, otherthan a permanent occupant, forfewer than 31 consecutive daysand no more than 90 days percalendar year.Business license A license issued by the Department ofConsumer and Regulatory Affairs. Valid fora period of 2 years.Accessory homestay permit from theZoning Administrator. Renewedannually.A license issued by the director of theDepartment of Health and HumanServices is required. Renewedannually.Annual issuance of a license by theDepartment of Permitting,Inspections, and Enforcement.Zoning ordinance DC Zoning Commission will revise zoningcodes to permit STRs.Arlington County Zoning Code12.9.11 and 12.9.12Montgomery County Zoning TextAmendment 17-03CB-10-2018 (Sec. 27–464.09“TouristHome as an‘Accessory Use’”)Days of STRs ina calendar year90 days (unless the host has received anexemption)180 days120 days (no cap for rental days withphysical presence of the owner)90 days if not occupied by the owner,or 180 days if occupied by theownerPrimary dwellingrequirementPrimary residence only, which means theproperty is eligible for the homesteaddeduction pursuant.Primary residence only. The dwellingunit must be occupied for at least185 days per year.Primary residence only (farm tenantdwelling or on-site accessorydwelling prohibited).Must be primary residence to get thelicense. However, no statedrestriction on rental dwellings oncelicense is obtained.Maximum number ofdwellings per host11 (single family; multifamily is subjectto the same rule as condo/apartment)1 (owner’s property or owner-authorized resident’s primaryresidence)Multiple; however, the combinedallowable time frames shall notexceed the permissible calendardaysMaximum number ofrooms per dwellingNo cap, as long as all rooms/suites are withinthe property.No cap. All rented bedrooms must bein the main building. Accessorydwelling allowed with a permit.No cap. Only habitable rooms can beused by guests.No cap. Only habitable rooms can beusedby guests.Maximum number ofguests per dwelling8 (or 2 per bedroom, whichever is greater) 6 (or 2 per bedroom, whichever isgreater)6 (only counting guests 18 years orolder, and maximum 2 perbedroom)8 (and no more than 3 guests perbedroom)Safety code requirements Smoke detectors and carbon monoxidedetectorsFire extinguishers, smoke detectors,and carbon monoxide detectorsSmoke detectors and carbonmonoxide detectors; sanitationfacilitiesSmoke detectors and carbonmonoxide detectors;fireextinguishers; posted emergencycontact andfloor plan(Continued)Appendix18 Z. ZOU Table A1.(Continued).JurisdictionWashington, DCArlington County, VAMontgomery County, MD Prince George’s County, MDOther requirements Liability insurance required. No visitor parkingpermit for STR guests.Forbidden for commercial meetings,or other gatherings for direct orindirect compensation.HOA, condo, and co-op associationswill be notified when anapplication isfiled. An applicationis not prohibited by HOA,condominium document, or rentallease.Liability insurance required.Compliance with the requirementsof HOA, condo association, etc. Oneparking space for every threeguests.Tax14.50%7.25% transient occupancy tax7%7%PenaltyAny host who violates regulations is subject toa civil penalty of $500, $2,000, and $6,000for thefirst, second, and third violations,respectively. Suspension and revocation ofthe license.The permit may be revoked with nonew permit for 1 year in the eventof three or more violations, failureto comply with the zoningordinance, or refusal to cooperatewith a complaint investigation.The license is suspended for anapplicant who has received at leastthree complaints that are verifiedas violations within a 12-monthperiod. No new issuance within3 years after a license is revoked.An STR license may be suspended orrevoked at any time because ofnoncompliance with therequirements, citations, orviolations of the building,electrical, plumbing, or zoningcode. In addition, subject to a civilfine of up to $1,000.Legislative outcome Adopted on November 13, 2018, and effectivein October 2019.Adopted in November 2017 andeffective since January 2018.Senate Bill 2–16 and ZTA 17–03became effective on July 1, 2018.Adopted on October 23, 2018, andeffective October 1, 2019.Note. HOA = homeowners’association. STR = short-term rental. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 19 Table A2.Summary statistics.Variable(name)Mean SDVariableMean SDAirbnb attributesNeighborhood attributesAirbnb listings within 100 ft (Airbnb100 ft) 0.21 0.56 Annual number of traffic incidents within 0.5 miles (numCrash)152.3 114.7Airbnb listings within 200 ft (Airbnb200 ft) 0.85 1.52 Annual number of crime incidents within 0.5 miles (numCrime)326.0 265.3Airbnb listings within 500 ft (Airbnb500 ft) 5.06 7.35 Number of public schools within 0.5 miles (pubschool)2.38 1.82Airbnb listings within 1,000 ft (Airbnb1000 ft) 18.63 26.12 Number of charter schools within 0.5 miles (chaschool)2.60 2.59Housing attributesNumber of metrorail stations within 0.5 miles (metro)0.43 0.66Property prices in $ (last_sale_price)762,842 754,505 Number of historical sites within 0.5 miles (landmark)9.53 15.12Land area in 1,000s of sqft (landarea)3.087 2.835 Demographic attributes (census tract level)Estimated year built (eyb)1970 17.44 Total population in a tract (totalpop)3,904 1,458Number of rooms (rooms)7.44 2.51 Population density per acre (popden)15.20 9.69Number of bathrooms (bathrm)2.24 1.06 Percentage of adults (pct_adult)0.18 0.06Number of half-bathrooms (hf_bathrm)0.65 0.60 Percentage Hispanic/Latino (pct_hisp)0.09 0.08Number of kitchens (kitchens)1.24 0.63 Percentage highly educated—postbachelor (pct_educated)0.29 0.19Number offireplaces (fireplaces)0.60 0.89 Percentage high income—>$20,000 (pct_highinc)0.15 0.14Square footage (sqft)1,693 818.6 Unemployment percentage (pct_unemp)0.11 0.07Air conditioning—dummy variable, 1 is yes (ac) 0.73 0.45 Poverty rate (pct_poverty)0.15 0.10Number of stories (stories)2.19 0.80 Number of observations12,680Grade: 1 is low, 12 is exceptional (grade) 4.25 1.38 Other housing attributes: exterior wall type (extwall), roof type (roof), interior wall type (intwall), heatingtype (heat), building structure (structure), land use code (usecode)Condition: 1 is poor, 6 is excellent (condition) 3.81 0.80Note:SD = standard deviation. 20 Z. ZOU Table A3.Empirical results of the three models. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Pooled cross-sectional model (dependent variable: logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0065 (0.006) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0026** (0.001) 0.0011** (0.000) Landarea 0.0107*** (0.002) 0.0107*** (0.002) 0.0108*** (0.002) 0.0109*** (0.002) Estimated year built (eyb) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) 0.0002 (0.000) Air conditioning 0.0723*** (0.017) 0.0725*** (0.017) 0.0724*** (0.017) 0.0723*** (0.017) Fireplaces 0.0227*** (0.006) 0.0228*** (0.006) 0.0226*** (0.006) 0.0224*** (0.006) Rooms 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) 0.0051* (0.003) Bathroom 0.0648*** (0.004) 0.0648*** (0.004) 0.0649*** (0.004) 0.0652*** (0.004) Half bathroom 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) 0.0278*** (0.005) Sqft 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) Stories 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) 0.0002*** (0.000) Grade 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) 0.0397*** (0.010) Condition 0.1233*** (0.007) 0.1233*** (0.007) 0.1231*** (0.007) 0.1232*** (0.007) Kitchens -0.0291 (0.018)-0.0288 (0.018)-0.0282 (0.018)-0.0281 (0.018) Public school 0.0072** (0.003) 0.0071** (0.003) 0.0068** (0.003) 0.0064** (0.003) Metro area 0.0229 (0.013) 0.0227 (0.013) 0.0220 (0.013) 0.0222 (0.013) Landmark 0.0029*** (0.001) 0.0029*** (0.001) 0.0028*** (0.001) 0.0028*** (0.001) Percentage_adult 0.3242** (0.131) 0.3214** (0.131) 0.3144** (0.130) 0.3078** (0.129) Percentage_educated 0.5133*** (0.113) 0.5046*** (0.114) 0.4819*** (0.114) 0.4650*** (0.116) Percentage_unemp -0.4268*** (0.136)-0.4306*** (0.136)-0.4365*** (0.135)-0.4387*** (0.137) Constant 11.4146*** (0.882) 11.4154*** (0.879) 11.4058*** (0.862) 11.4174*** (0.846) Other controlled variables Heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, number of charter schools, population density, % Hispanic population, % high-income households, poverty rate Zip code dummies ✓✓✓✓ Period dummies ✓✓✓✓ Cluster SE ✓✓✓✓ N 12,680 12,680 12,680 12,680 R2 0.8095 0.8095 0.8097 0.8099 Panel B: Fixed-effects model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0060 (0.008) 0.0078* (0.003) 0.0037** (0.001) 0.0012*** (0.000) Other controlled variables Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half- bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant Period dummies ✓✓ ✓ ✓ N 7,624 7,624 7,624 7,624 N blocks 2,378 2,378 2,378 2,378 R2 0.3905 0.3910 0.3923 0.3925 Panel C: First-difference model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0212 (0.016) 0.0136* (0.008) 0.0103*** (0.002) 0.0031*** (0.001) Other controlled variables Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half- bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, heat type, land use type, structure type, interior and exterior wall type, roof type, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant After 0.0283 (0.017) 0.0275 (0.017) 0.0249 (0.017) 0.0240 (0.017) N 2,047 2,047 2,047 2,047 N blocks 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,027 R2 0.3704 0.3712 0.3804 0.3792 Note. SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. HOUSING POLICY DEBATE 21 Table A4.Aggregate impact of Airbnb on property price by zip code. 200-ft 500-ft 1,000-ft Zip code Density Impact (%) Density Impact (%) Density Impact (%) Hispanic (%) Black (%) 20001 2.61 2.04 15.33 5.67 55.49 6.66 9.22 50.75 20002 1.51 1.18 8.78 3.25 32.45 3.89 4.39 61.33 20003 1.45 1.13 8.64 3.20 31.37 3.76 5.12 36.41 20005 2.68 2.09 24.23 8.97 102.09 12.25 16.77 15.17 20007 0.79 0.62 4.92 1.82 17.72 2.13 7.12 3.12 20008 0.41 0.32 2.53 0.94 9.74 1.17 7.67 5.10 20009 3.43 2.68 20.63 7.63 79.21 9.51 15.13 20.69 20010 1.89 1.47 11.41 4.22 43.68 5.24 30.11 31.07 20011 0.44 0.34 2.7 1.00 10.11 1.21 21.18 65.31 20012 0.21 0.16 1.4 0.52 4.71 0.57 11.22 64.29 20015 0.17 0.13 1.09 0.40 3.54 0.42 6.52 9.00 20016 0.15 0.12 0.98 0.36 3.55 0.43 7.30 4.25 20017 0.35 0.27 2.15 0.80 7.54 0.90 6.49 71.42 20018 0.16 0.12 1.05 0.39 4.21 0.51 5.87 85.08 20019 0.15 0.12 0.7 0.26 2.16 0.26 2.41 94.98 20020 0.21 0.16 1.32 0.49 4.44 0.53 1.41 95.00 20024 0.7 0.55 5.62 2.08 18.11 2.17 5.16 54.50 20032 0.07 0.05 0.38 0.14 1.12 0.13 2.33 90.00 20036 4.36 3.40 29.64 10.97 86.79 10.41 7.62 7.78 20037 3.2 2.50 19.97 7.39 65.79 7.89 5.77 6.32 DC 0.85 0.66 5.06 1.87 18.63 2.24 9.10 50.03 Table A5.Robustness check using entire-unit Airbnb listings with reviews. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Pooled cross-sectional model (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0140 (0.008) 0.0071* (0.003) 0.0028** (0.001) 0.0011*** (0.000) N 12,680 12,680 12,680 12,680 R2 0.8091 0.8091 0.8092 0.8092 Panel B: Fixed-effects model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0096 (0.011) 0.0086* (0.005) 0.0033** (0.001) 0.0008*** (0.000) N 7,624 7,624 7,624 7,624 N blocks 2,378 2,378 2,378 2,378 R2 0.3906 0.3909 0.3913 0.3910 Panel C: First-difference model at census tract level (dependent variable: average logarithm of property price) Airbnb density 0.0258 (0.022) 0.0050 (0.011) 0.0057* (0.003) 0.0017* (0.001) N 2,047 2,047 2,047 2,047 N blocks 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,027 R2 0.3705 0.3698 0.3718 0.3715 Note.SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. Table A6.Empirical results for median rent price at the zip code level. 100 ft buffer 200 ft buffer 500 ft buffer 1,000 ft buffer Variable name Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Coef.SE Panel A: Fixed-effects model at the zip code level (dependent variable: logarithm of median rent price) Airbnb density -0.0002 (0.016) 0.0065 (0.005) 0.0011 (0.001) 0.0004 (0.000) Other controls Land area, estimated year built, air conditioning,fireplaces, rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, half-bathrooms, sqft, stories, grade, condition, number of traffic and crime incidents, constant N 119 119 119 119 N Zip codes 20 20 20 20 R2 0.4202 0.4310 0.4283 0.4373 Note. SE = standard error. The robust standard error is given in parentheses. *p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01. 22 Z. ZOU The Class of 1964 Policy Research Shop SHORT-TERM RENTAL UNITS: REGULATIONS AND IMPACTS IN VERMONT Policy Options to Address the Uneven Playing Field Presented to the Vermont Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs PRS Policy Brief 1920-08 May 14, 2020 Prepared By: Namrata Ramakrishna Emery Rheam Blake McGill This report was written by undergraduate students at Dartmouth College under the direction of professors in the Rockefeller Center. Class of 1964 Policy Research Shop (PRS) students produce non-partisan policy analyses and present their findings in a non-advocacy manner. The PRS is fully endowed by the Dartmouth Class of 1964 through a class gift in celebration of its 50th Anniversary given to the Center. This endowment ensures that the Policy Research Shop will continue to produce high-quality, non-partisan policy research for policymakers in New Hampshire and Vermont. The PRS was previously funded by major grants from the U.S. Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE) and from the Ford Foundation and by initial seed grants from the Surdna Foundation, the Lintilhac Foundation, and the Ford Motor Company Fund. Since its inception in 2005, PRS students have invested more than 70,000 hours to produce more than 200 policy briefs for policymakers in New Hampshire and Vermont. Contact: Nelson A. Rockefeller Center, 6082 Rockefeller Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 http://rockefeller.dartmouth.edu/shop/ • Email: Ronald.G.Shaiko@Dartmouth.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. PURPOSE STATEMENT 3 3. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN VERMONT 3 3.1 DEFINING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL 3 3.2 ASSESSING THE CURRENT MARKET 4 3.2.1 Short-term Rentals and their relationship with the Greater Housing Crisis 4 3.3 CURRENT RULES AND REGULATIONS 5 3.3.1 Health and Safety Regulations 5 3.3.2 Tax Remittance 6 3.4 INTERMEDIARIES AND AGREEMENTS 7 4. CURRENT PRACTICE IN VERMONT LOCALITIES 8 4.1 KILLINGTON 8 4.2 STOWE 8 4.3 BURLINGTON 9 5. POLICY OPTIONS 9 5.1 MANDATE REGISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT 9 5.2 IMPLEMENT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 10 5.3 IMPLEMENT LOCAL POLICIES AT THE STATE LEVEL 10 5.4 INCLUDE GREATER RESTRICTION OF THE MARKET 11 5.5 EXPAND CURRENT TAX REMITTANCE POLICIES 11 6. ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATION 12 7. CONCLUSION 12 APPENDICES 13 APPENDIX A. THE “BIGGEST [EARNING] WEEKENDS” FOR VERMONT AIRBNB HOSTS IN 2019 13 APPENDIX B. 2019 GUEST ARRIVALS AND TOTAL HOST INCOME BY COUNTY. 14 APPENDIX C. 2019 VERMONT LISTINGS AND TOTAL HOST EARNINGS ANNUALLY BY MUNICIPALITY. 15 APPENDIX D. CASE COMPARISONS OF REGULATORY PROVISIONS IN DIFFERENT STATES 18 REFERENCES 31 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Vermont tourism industry has historically served as an effective source of tax revenue for the state. There are disparities in the taxation and regulation of traditional tourist lodging, like hotels, and the new and burgeoning short-term rental market. The Vermont Senate Committee on Economic Development, Housing and General Affairs is seeking to understand three main areas to better inform policy making for short-term rental units. These include: (1) the current tax, health and safety regulations for short-term rental units and how these regulations compare to more traditional bed and breakfasts, hotels and motels, (2) perspectives of stakeholders, and (3) the economic and social impacts of these short-term rentals on the individual, community, and state. The Committee seeks to understand how state regulations on short-term rentals compare with those in similar states. Ultimately, the legislature hopes to develop and implement a system of taxation and regulation for the growing pool of short-term rental units across the state. We will analyze the current state of regulation on short-term rentals, analyze its impacts, compare these regulations with states and localities with similar short-term rental markets and tourism sectors, and deliver recommendations based on our findings. 2 1. INTRODUCTION Since its official launch in March 2008, Airbnb has facilitated 500 million guest stays at short-term rentals in more than 100,000 cities.1 According to a 2017 report by the Vermont Department of Health, short-term rentals in Vermont account for 3,600 of the more than seven million active listings on Airbnb.2 The Vermont state legislature reports that three- fourths of the listings are advertising whole-home rentals during which the host, or owner of the property, is away.3 The burgeoning short-term rental market has coincided with a housing crisis that has left many citizens of the state unable to find and maintain residences in long-term housing. This is particularly true in the tourist destinations of Chittenden, Rutland and Lamoille Counties.4 In recent years, these short-term rentals have brought tourists from across the country to Vermont and the option to rent part or all of their properties provides a secondary income for many in the Green Mountain state. The rentals have also caused conflict between permanent residents and tourists. The Vermont hotel industry has called for uniformity of regulations across industries. In 2017, the Vermont Department of Health commissioned the aforementioned report; it has since taken measures to attempt regulation of such listings. These measures will be discussed in more detail in section 3.2 of this report.5 The Vermont State Legislature seeks to balance the interests of the long-term residents, visitors, and business owners in the tourism industry. The recommendations offered in this document seek to achieve such a balance. 1.1 Tourism as a Consideration Thirteen million people visit Vermont as tourists each year.6 The Vermont tourism industry accounts for ten percent of the state workforce—32,000 jobs—and $2.8 billion in economic activity annually.7 When considering the impact of tourism and recreation on the Vermont economy, it is useful to compare its “local quotient” or the relative economic significance of its tourism with that of other states. Visitor accommodation represents three times more economic activity in Vermont than in other states in the northeast.8 According to January 2020 data provided by Liz DeBold Fusco, Northeast Press Secretary at Airbnb, “Vermont Airbnb hosts earned $15.1 million during the ‘biggest weekends’ of 2019.” Approximately 69,800 guests arrived in Vermont during these five weekends. The dates of these high-traffic weekends are outlined in Appendix A and were provided via email by Ms. DeBold Fusco. These weekends aligned with holidays, including Columbus Day, President’s Day, Valentine’s Day, and the Saturday, Sunday and Monday immediately following Christmas. It is important to note tourism increases generally during those weekends, but Airbnb plays a key role in housing tourists.9 3 Tourism benefits local businesses, and consequently, local economies. According to an Airbnb survey of more than 35,000 responses from their host and guest community in the United States: ● 92 percent of Airbnb hosts say they recommend restaurants and cafes to guests. ● 56 percent of Airbnb hosts say they recommend cultural activities such as museums, festivals, and historical sites to guests. ● 55 percent of Airbnb hosts say hosting has helped them afford their homes. ● On average, Airbnb guests say 41 percent of their spending occurs in the neighborhood where they stay.10 Hosts of short-term rentals have also benefited financially. Since Airbnb was founded, hosts have earned over $65 billion renting and sharing their homes. In 2019, Airbnb reached a landmark cumulative $2 billion in tourist-related taxes that have been collected and remitted to local governments on behalf of our global host community over the past four years.11 A table found in Appendix C , also provided via email by Airbnb, breaks down the number of guest arrivals to properties. While the Vermont tourism industry appears to prosper, hotels and inns tell a different story. Darren Drevik, on behalf of the Vermont Inn and Bed and Breakfast Association, believes that inns and bed and breakfasts must adapt or be forced out of business by the price competitiveness of short-term rentals. Inns and bed and breakfasts claim they are being priced out of the market by short-term rentals. Free from much of the costly regulatory burden, hosts of short-terms rentals can charge less per night, says Drevik. He believes adapting to include breakfast or experiences such as spas helps them stand out and stay in business. 2. PURPOSE STATEMENT This report aims to support Vermont in exploring policy options available to regulate short- term rentals to ensure tax collection and health and safety standards. Already, partnerships have been forged with short-term rental platforms, such as Airbnb, to directly collect and deliver taxes from these stays. Ensuring oversight of health and safety measures has been more difficult. 3. CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN VERMONT An existing scaffolding of regulation in the state of Vermont offers an opportunity to develop legislation on short-term rentals to meet the needs of the state. 3.1 Defining a Short-term Rental A “short-term rental” is a rental of sleeping accommodations that is for less than one calendar month (or less than thirty consecutive days). Conversely, a rental for a calendar 4 month or more is a rental to a permanent resident that is not subject to Vermont meals and rooms tax and does not require informational reporting by an internet platform.12 3.2 Assessing the Current Market Douglas Farnham, deputy commissioner of the Vermont Department of Taxes, estimates that Airbnb captures 50 percent of the short-term rental market and has generated a significant portion of the tax revenue collected.13 The three counties in which there is the greatest supply of Airbnb listings are also the counties which report a housing shortage. According to Airbnb, Chittenden County hosted the most guests in the state in 2018 — 72,300 — which generated $9.1 million in host income. Rutland County was second with 51,400 guests generating $7.9 million in income for hosts followed by Lamoille, Windham and Washington counties.14 A further breakdown shows listings from 71 Vermont towns on Airbnb. Burlington and Rutland have the most with 490 and 480 host properties respectively, according to data shared by Airbnb with the state Department of Taxes. Stowe is third with 330 hosts. The top three counties also have a vacancy range of five percent in Chittenden to 26.6 percent in Rutland in 2017.15 This is amongst the lowest vacancy rates in the state. The available homes tend to be mismatched with the needs of the community. There are few small homes that are affordable for the elderly or new homebuyers. Much of the housing stock (26.7 percent) was constructed 80 years ago.16 Most vacant houses in Vermont are secondary seasonal and recreational homes; the vacancy rate is uneven across the state. For example, nearly 47 percent of homes are vacant in Essex County, in the Northeast Kingdom. Conversely, just five percent are empty in Chittenden County. It is essential to understand the types of homes rented as short-term units in these counties, in particular. Using AirDNA,17 a data visualization tool that presents short-term rental market data per community, we were able to conduct analysis of the “types” of short-term rentals and how frequently properties are listed in the areas with the greatest number of listings. In the top five municipalities with Airbnb listings (Rutland, Burlington, Stowe, Montpelier, and Dover), 68 percent of units are registered on Airbnb, 17.8 percent are listed exclusively on VRBO, and about 12.4 percent are listed on both. The majority of listings, 79.6 percent, are complete homes available for rent. This begins to build a case for short-term rentals affecting housing stock in the state. About 19.6 percent of the listings are rooms within a residence. These listings see an average occupancy rate of 53.2 percent. 3.2.1 Short-term Rentals and their relationship with the Greater Housing Crisis “More than one in three Vermont households live in homes that consume unsustainably high portions of their income, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.”18 A report by the Urban Institute cites insufficient construction as one possible cause.19 Another contributor is the secondary home market. Workers in counties highly trafficked by tourists are unable to afford housing in the places in which they work. The Vermont state legislature 5 fears that short-term rentals could contribute to or exacerbate the affordable housing crisis. If secondary or tertiary homeowners can rent out their homes while they are away, these seasonal or recreational homes become economically feasible or even profitable. The short- term rental market may incentivize owners to take the properties off the long-term rental market.20 A lack of long-term rental options hinders working class individuals from finding lodging near their jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests properties are being purchased and immediately listed on sites like Airbnb.21 Some “super hosts” manage several properties at a time. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit these hosts particularly hard. A Wall Street Journal article from April 28, 2020 chronicles stories of those hosts who, once making “magical money,” are facing financial ruin as the short-term rental market dries up.22 Airbnb has pledged $250 million dollars as of the end of April to support those hosts who have faced cancellations due to the pandemic.23 3.3 Current Rules and Regulations Vermont is among states like New York, California, and Wyoming where tourism plays a significant role in the economy. They are also on the forefront of seeking to regulate short- term-rental units. Many states are yet to take any steps to regulate the market. Any legislation that enforces stricter thresholds tends to be made by localities where short-term rentals are prominent. There are two main categories of regulation: health and safety regulation and tax remittance. 3.3.1 Health and Safety Regulations Short-term rentals in Vermont are not held to the same health and safety regulations or standards of taxation as the traditional lodging and restaurant establishments in the state. In recent years, the state has taken measures to narrow this gap, but disparity remains. In conversation with Darren Drevik, on behalf of the Vermont Inn and Bed and Breakfast Association, he shared that this disparity is of greatest concern to hotel proprietors and innkeepers in the state of Vermont. They claim a lack of regulation unfairly advantages short-term hosts and drives down market price. They implore the state to even the playing field, by either increasing regulations on short-term rentals, or deregulating inns and hotels, and letting the market decide the rest. Differences in health and safety standards have left many state legislators fearful that visitors to Vermont are not safeguarded against the actions of their hosts or the conditions of their homes. Legislators are especially concerned about those units run by absentee landlords who are not privy to the day-to-day, on-site operations. Measures taken by the state to execute inspections on short-term rental properties are hindered by a lack of information, resources, and cooperation from short-term renters. Current policies function as unfunded mandates with few mechanisms for enforcement. 6 Registration of short-term rentals is necessary if the state aims to enforce health and safety regulations equally between the hotel industry and short-term rentals. The Department of Public Safety—Division of Fire Safety has regulatory authority over all “public buildings” which includes buildings rented as accommodations regardless of duration.24 The Department of Taxes has tried to disseminate an information packet to hosts prepared by the Department of Health “pertaining to the health, safety, and financial obligations of short-term rental operators, including information regarding the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance.”25 These short-term units do have fire safety requirements, including the use of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, proper egress, and may also require change of use permits. Overall, there is a lack of the resources necessary to perform routine inspections of all short-term rentals within this category. The Division does respond to complaints, conduct fatality investigations, and issues change of use permits. The Division conducts annual inspections of residential care homes but not of rental housing or lodging facilities.26 Therefore, without the initiative of the owner, there is a lack of follow through. Ultimately, very few homes are checked. Of the small percentage of registered short-term units, an even smaller subset of hosts initiates inspections. Hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts that fall under lodging establishments have to meet a higher bar of health and safety regulations, especially if they serve food. They are subject to frequent inspection to meet health standards for serving food. All these entities are registered with the state and need to be licensed to function. Registration fees for lodging establishments can range from $130 to $1,000.27 Owners of these establishments describe requirements as uneven compared to the regulation compliance required for short-term renters. 3.3.2 Tax Remittance Currently, there are several taxes scheduled to apply to short-term rentals. The first of these is the Meals and Rooms Tax. Vermont charges a nine percent Meals and Rooms Tax. This tax applies to any purchase of meals, alcohol sold in bars, and room rentals. The Vermont Department of Taxes writes “sleeping accommodations offered to the public for a consideration on premises operated by a private person, entity, institution, or organization are subject to the Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax if those rentals total fifteen or more days in any one calendar year.”28 However, if lodging is rented to the same person for 30 or more consecutive days, different laws apply. This means that short-term rentals are legally obligated to file and pay the Vermont Meals and Rooms Tax. Since 2016, Airbnb has collected and filed these taxes for people using their site as a rental platform.29 However, other popular rental sites such as VRBO do not perform this service. The individual landlord is responsible for charging and filing the tax.30 7 There is also the Local Option Tax. Municipalities can choose to levy this tax on meals and alcohol, rooms, and/or any items subject to sales tax.31 Currently, there are 15 municipalities in Vermont that apply the tax to all sales taxable items and 19 that collect the Local Option Meals and Rooms Tax and Alcoholic Beverage Tax. Many of the same municipalities appear on both lists. In addition to those municipalities, the cities of Burlington, Rutland, and St. Albans collect their own local taxes on meals, lodging, entertainment, and alcoholic beverages.32 Vermont also taxes all property state-wide to fund schools. Property falls into two categories: homestead or nonresidential.33 Property cannot be considered a homestead if any of the following conditions are true: the owner is not a Vermont resident, it is leased more than 182 days a year, it is used exclusively for a commercial purpose (including rentals), it is a second home, camp, vacation, or summer cottage.34 Property tax rates vary between towns. A statistical breakdown of the reports is provided in Table 1. Overall, there is not a significant difference in the property tax rates between homesteads and nonresidential properties. Table 1. Variance in Vermont Property Tax Rates for FY 2020 Category Minimum Maximum Mean Median Homestead .9758 percent 2.2532 percent 1.5092 percent 1.5235 percent Nonresidential 1.3143 percent 2.0528 percent 1.5886 percent 1.5864 percent Source: Vermont Department of Taxes. FY20 Education Tax Rates. Vermont: 2019. 35 3.4 Intermediaries and Agreements The key intermediaries that facilitate short-term rentals between hosts and guests are Airbnb and VRBO, now a subsidiary of HomeAway. A key difference is VRBO and HomeAway list full units only.36 The introduction of short-term rentals has made collection of the Meals and Rooms Tax difficult and stakeholders in the traditional lodging and restaurant industries are calling on the legislature to create an even playing field for both markets. In 2016, Airbnb agreed to remit taxes directly to the Vermont Department of Taxes. In 2018, the booking site also passed onto the state $7.8 million in rooms and meals and local option tax revenues.37 Agreements with booking websites like the one made with Airbnb in 2016 have aided the state in collecting the once avoided Meals and Rooms taxes. However, this ad hoc system of an intermediary like Airbnb remitting taxes does not address the ability of the state to collect Meals and Rooms taxes from all of its short-term renters. Moving forward, the state may pursue similar agreements with other booking websites like VRBO to ensure more short-term rentals are remitting taxes. 8 4. CURRENT PRACTICE IN VERMONT LOCALITIES Within Vermont, there exists a range of local regulation on short-term rentals. Some areas have a higher concentration of units and, as a result, regulate more strictly. These areas include Killington, Stowe and Burlington. 4.1 Killington38 In January of 2020, the Town of Killington Planning Commission passed new zoning bylaws pertaining to short-term rentals. The town defines a short-term rental as “A furnished house, condominium, or other dwelling room or self-contained dwelling unit rented to the transient, traveling, or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year”. The new bylaws state that being or containing a short-term rental qualifies a building as a “public building” and makes it “subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Vermont Division of Fire Safety pursuant to 30 V.S.A. §2730(a)(1)(D).” Units with a capacity greater than eight occupants are required to obtain a Public Building Permit from the State of Vermont Division of Fire Safety. Smaller units can use a self-certification form instead. Short-term rental owners are also required to provide proof that the liability insurance for the unit applies to any injuries or damages resulting from use of the property as a short-term rental. These elements are required for a property to receive the zoning permit to be used as a short-term rental. 4.2 Stowe39 In Stowe, single-family homes, condominium units, and apartments are permitted to be rented if the rental is for one week or longer. Rentals for less than that are considered to be lodging facilities and are only permitted within certain zoning districts. In addition, with approval, any house may be converted to a bed and breakfast. A bed and breakfast requires the owner or a permanent occupant to live at the bed and breakfast. Upon request, the State Fire Marshall will complete an inspection for safety code compliance. A typical inspection includes ensuring that there is code compliance in regards to egress windows, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, stairways, and handrails. The current cost for an inspection is $125. Homeowner insurance policies generally carry a “business activity exclusion.” In other words, any claim involving a “business activity” could rightfully be denied. Short- term rentals are considered a business, so any claims could be denied. Generally hosts will need a different type of insurance to cover damage and liabilities when you have short- term renters. Some companies, such as Airbnb, are offering some form of additional insurance. 9 4.3 Burlington The more urban nature of Burlington differentiates it from other high-traffic tourist regions in Vermont. The city is currently in the early stages of short-term rental regulation. While ordinances have not yet been enacted, there is a proposed framework. Burlington plans to differentiate between individual rooms rented out within a larger unit and entire units being rented. The number of individual bedrooms that will be allowed to be rented depends on the zoning type of the property. Homes with one or two rented bedrooms would be exempt from a registration requirement. In residential districts, one parking space would be required for each rented bedroom or whole unit. The proposal includes expanding the current bed and breakfast zoning standards to apply to short-term rentals.40 It also suggests limiting the number of whole-unit rentals per building based on the number of units in that building. These zoning regulations would not apply to units rented less than 10 consecutive and 30 total days in any 12-month period. The most significant proposed regulation would require that hosts be a resident of the property of the rental unit. The city believes this will decrease market competition. They also believe that limiting the number of units per building that can be rented on a short-term basis will increase the housing stock available to Burlington residents. 5. POLICY OPTIONS We present five state-wide policy options for short-term rental regulation to meet previously articulated needs. 5.1 Mandate Registration and Enforcement While registration with the state is mandatory, Airbnbs are exempt from the policy. Without enforcing registration of units or information reporting by internet platforms for short-term rentals, the state is less able to directly regulate health and safety via health and fire inspection. The state has oversight over registered units, but very few units per municipality are registered in the state. If Airbnb and VRBO units were to be registered, the state could account for more than 50 percent of the short-term rental market. In order to hold unit owners accountable for the health and safety of their visitors, this will need to change. Without knowing the number and locations of these properties, the Vermont Department of Health has no means of identifying and investigated units for compliance. For example, there are 870 units listed with Airbnb in Stowe and 850 units with Airbnb in Burlington compared to only 126 and 26 rental operators registered with the State of Vermont in these two locations. In all likelihood, many of these operators are using the Airbnb exemption to avoid registering. Using mechanisms that have enabled Airbnb to remit taxes to also register homes will be useful. In all cases, there is a discrepancy in the number of operators registered with the state of Vermont, and the number of units listed. While one operator may be an absentee landlord 10 and own multiple units, it is unlikely that each of 26 operators owns an average of 32 units. Until a reliable count is possible—sometimes collected at the local level through the additional one percent local room and board tax—there will be great difficulty in ensuring adherence to health and safety regulation. In 2017, 75 percent of operators fall into the category of hosts with one-to-two listed units and the remaining 25 percent are rented through hosts with three or more units. These statistics tell a compelling story of under registration. Increasing funding and manpower dedicated to enforcing current legislation around registration may be essential first steps. With effective registration, there are opportunities to institute oversight like in Florida where all units three stories or more in height must file every three years a certificate stating that any and all balconies, platforms, stairways, and railways have been inspected by a person competent to conduct such inspections and are safe, secure, and free of defects.41 It is mandated that the Department of Health will conduct inspections, but a lack of manpower and funding has created an attitude of discontent by innkeepers and bed and breakfast operators. They feel that the attempts by government regulators to level the playing field are half-hearted at best. Owners of short-term rentals can request an inspection, but few do. Moving toward requiring and enforcing registration, licensing, and inspection will require government to allocate additional resources to facilitate implementation. 5.2 Implement Insurance Requirements In 2018, Act 10 of a special session of the Vermont legislature required the Department of Taxes to provide information about the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance for short-term rentals.42 It did not outline any specific insurance requirements. Most homeowners insurance policies include a “business activity exclusion” which means that many claims related to short-term rentals can be denied.43 However, there are insurance agencies in Vermont that sell packages for short-term rental properties that include coverage for business-related claims. If hosts do not have these types of policies, they may have to assume responsibility for injuries, accidents, or damages occurring on or to their properties as a result of rental business. The state is already somewhat removed from this but implementing insurance requirements could help decrease potential numbers of lawsuits and may increase the safety of many properties since insurance agencies will not insure unsafe spaces. One thing to consider is that more comprehensive insurance policies are costlier, so those lower-income hosts who rent their homes as a means of necessary income may lose their ability to do so if they were required to buy more expensive policies. 5.3 Implement Local Policies at the State Level Expanding policies already enacted in Vermont towns and cities to statewide legislation is a possibility in certain cases. For example, implementing minimum stays (one week or 11 more) as is the case in Stowe, reduces the competition with bed and breakfasts and hotels. Requiring hosts to live on the property (as is proposed in Burlington) decreases market competition. The difficulty with expanding some of these policies is that it does not take into account the variance in population density, primary activities driving tourism, and current housing stock issues of each town. Policies that are a good fit for Burlington may not be practical for the rural parts of the state. The tourism market in towns like Stowe and Killington may be more competitive than in other less resort-inclusive towns. It is worthwhile for the state to look at the policies proposed or already in place in these localities and selecting certain components of them is definitely feasible. However, it is important that they keep in mind similarities and differences between these small geographic areas and the state writ large. Vermont is leading the way for statewide legislation to address short-term rental units. An option remains to decentralize the approach and have municipalities implement the conditions that best fit their local context. 5.4 Include Greater Restriction of the Market As it relates to the housing stock shortage, short-term rentals can be further regulated as is the case in Massachusetts where tourism also plays a key role in its economy. In such states, only primary residences can be listed as short-term rentals. This could reopen housing stock because in municipalities with significant housing shortages such as Killington, Stowe or Burlington, 65-to-96 percent of the homes listed are entire houses.44 This may restrict the economic benefits of tourism, and analysis of more effective ways to ensure affordable housing may require other policies that do not sacrifice the benefits of short-term rentals and the tourism they bring to cities. Zoning, construction subsidies and more can be approached to address a lack of available and affordable housing in these areas. It may be important to regulate full home short-term rentals and short-term room rentals differently. In Kansas and Minnesota, the law defines the two entities differently: entire property, or multiple property rentals can be treated and regulated like inns, bed and breakfasts and hotels requiring health and safety thresholds to be met. These more specific definitions of hotel or guest house put limits on duration of stay, or number of beds on property to dissuade entire home rentals. This may allow elderly hosts to continue to preserve their supplemental income, reduce pressure on the housing stock, and discourage practices by absentee landlords who buy and rent out multiple properties that are in most ways the same as hotels and inns. 5.5 Expand Current Tax Remittance Policies If the remittance of taxes is the highest priority, then entering agreements with VRBO and any other listing sites may be the best way to attain compliance. If the state does not want to take on responsibility for permitting or licensing rentals, it may seek to utilize the 12 platforms these vendors use, to remit the expected taxes. Allowing for audits, if necessary, will present an accountability measure. 6. ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF POSSIBLE LEGISLATION Vermont is a leader in legislating short-term rentals at the state level. However, calculating and extrapolating the economic impact of stricter regulation is difficult. These changes have all happened in the last two-to-three years. Comprehensive data are not available yet. For example, it would be extremely interesting to understand the social and economic impact of new legislation in Massachusetts on insurance requirements and required registration of units. These fall within policy measures Vermont could consider, but around the country, there are no evaluations completed in regards to impact.45 The Department of Taxes may also wish to look into declaration of short-term rental income on the individual and joint filings from owners of short-term rentals to assure that this income is captured and taxed appropriately. 7. CONCLUSION Short-term rentals contribute positively to the Vermont tourism industry. Guests who use intermediaries like Airbnb and VRBO patronize local businesses, such as restaurants, and contribute to secondary revenue streams for their hosts. Short-term rentals are not regulated like the traditional hotel and restaurant industry. An agreement between Airbnb and the Vermont state legislature allows the intermediary to remit Meals and Rooms taxes. However, the state does not possess a comprehensive list of short-term rentals. This creates challenges around health and safety regulation and additional taxation. The recommendations outlined in this document include mandatory registration, implementation of insurance requirements, statewide uniformity of regulation, restriction of the market, expansion of taxation. It is difficult to predict the economic impact of the proposed recommendations. The Vermont state legislature may wish to consider such impact and feasibility before it implements these proposed recommendations. 13 Appendices Appendix A. The “Biggest [Earning] Weekends” for Vermont Airbnb Hosts in 2019 2019 Weekend Dates Total Guest Arrivals Total Host Earnings Upcoming 2020 Weekend Dates December 27-29, 2019 16,900 $5.2 million December 25-27, 2020 October 11-13, 2019 15,500 $2.3 million October 9-11, 2020 February 15-17, 2019 14,200 $3.3 million February 14-16, 2020 January 18-20, 2019 11,800 $2.5 million January 17-19, 2020 14 Appendix B. 2019 Guest Arrivals and Total Host Income by County. County Total 2019 Guest Arrivals Total 2019 Host Income Addison 13,200 $1.8 million Bennington 34,300 $6 million Caledonia 16,500 $2 million Chittenden 88,800 $12 million Essex 1,500 $200,000 Franklin 5,200 $700,000 Grand Isle 400 $50,000 Lamoille 58,000 $11.2 million Orange 6,800 $700,000 Orleans 17,400 $2.4 million Rutland 70,700 $11.5 million Washington 43,500 $6.3 million Windham 52,700 $7.5 million Windsor 35,400 $5.8 million 15 Appendix C. 2019 Vermont Listings and Total Host Earnings Annually by Municipality. City Current Active Listings Inbound Guests (Annual) Nights Typical Listing Hosted Per Year Total Host Earnings (Annual) Average Daily Rate Rutland 1,100 66,700 25 $10,600,000 $139 Burlington 850 63,700 67 $8,500,000 $109 Stowe 870 40,300 22 $8,400,000 $152 Montpelier 390 17,900 29 $2,700,000 $102 Dover 290 16,000 25 $2,400,000 $135 Bennington 320 15,500 26 $2,600,000 $116 Ludlow 370 14,700 21 $2,600,000 $143 Newport 240 11,700 30 $1,600,000 $95 Wilmington 200 11,300 21 $1,400,000 $113 Brattleboro 170 11,300 52 $1,300,000 $94 Morristown 170 9,700 35 $1,300,000 $85 Lyndon 160 9,100 25 $1,000,000 $91 Middlebury (village) 230 8,400 30 $1,200,000 $104 Waitsfield 170 8,400 34 $1,200,000 $113 Rockingham 120 7,200 27 $1,100,000 $113 Manchester Center 130 6,800 22 $1,200,000 $123 Waterbury 100 6,800 46 $1,000,000 $113 Barre 170 6,700 19 $900,000 $94 Chester 110 6,400 38 $800,000 $106 Manchester 150 6,200 26 $1,200,000 $128 Colchester 100 5,800 43 $1,000,000 $115 South Burlington 70 5,300 47 $600,000 $85 Cambridge 150 4,600 29 $600,000 $100 Winooski 50 4,100 103 $400,000 $98 Saint Albans 90 3,500 39 $500,000 $87 Newfane 40 3,500 54 $500,000 $106 Richmond 50 3,200 47 $400,000 $100 Fairlee 40 3,200 45 $400,000 $106 Putney 50 2,800 44 $400,000 $114 Bristol 50 2,800 77 $300,000 $75 Rochester 40 2,600 42 $400,000 $100 Dorset 60 2,400 20 $400,000 $119 16 Randolph 30 2,300 27 $200,000 $74 Arlington 50 2,200 45 $300,000 $106 Quechee 50 2,100 21 $400,000 $115 Hardwick 50 2,100 35 $300,000 $100 East Burke 40 2,100 41 $300,000 $107 Shelburne 30 2,000 40 $300,000 $87 Hyde Park 30 2,000 71 $200,000 $102 Hinesburg 30 2,000 72 $300,000 $117 Vergennes 40 1,900 53 $200,000 $105 Norwich 70 1,800 22 $300,000 $111 Cavendish 50 1,700 23 $300,000 $123 Plainfield 30 1,700 43 $200,000 $85 Bradford 20 1,600 69 $200,000 $66 Hartland 30 1,500 37 $200,000 $94 Johnson 20 1,500 29 $200,000 $107 Castleton 30 1,400 46 $200,000 $84 Greensboro 40 1,300 35 $200,000 $102 Windsor 30 1,300 71 $200,000 $75 Essex Junction 30 1,300 48 $200,000 $90 Barton 30 1,300 30 $100,000 $72 Wells 20 1,300 36 $100,000 $79 Williston 20 1,300 32 $100,000 $89 Glover 30 1,100 32 $100,000 $71 Northfield 30 1,100 60 $100,000 $80 Danville 20 1,100 39 $100,000 $71 Bethel 20 1,100 37 $100,000 $82 White River Jct. 40 1,000 12 $200,000 $106 Springfield 30 1,000 69 $100,000 $89 Saint Johnsbury 20 1,000 39 $100,000 $127 Jericho 20 990 35 $100,000 $107 Island Pond 30 920 45 $100,000 $65 Swanton 20 860 45 $100,000 $75 Pittsford 10 850 35 $100,000 $73 West Brattleboro 20 810 34 $100,000 $92 Brandon 10 680 34 $100,000 $71 Jeffersonville 30 620 13 $100,000 $134 Richford 10 590 18 $100,000 $115 17 Marshfield 10 590 80 $100,000 $121 Barnet 20 580 24 $100,000 $104 18 Appendix D. Case Comparisons of Regulatory Provisions by State This is a modified version of the https://realtorparty.realtor/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/HTA-Chart-State-Short-Term-Rental-Regulation.pdf table. State Regulatory Provisions Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wyoming There are no statewide statutes or regulations regarding short-term vacation rentals. Instead, all restrictions fall to the local jurisdictions where the rental properties are located. Alaska A person who is collecting rental income is deemed to be engaged in business activity and must obtain a business license from the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development. Arizona A municipality may not prohibit vacation rentals or short-term rentals or restrict the use of or regulate vacation rentals or short-term rentals based on their classification, use or occupancy. However, a municipality may regulate such rentals for the purpose of protecting the public’s health and safety, “including rules and regulations related to fire and building codes, health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, solid or hazardous waste and pollution control, and designation of an emergency point of contact.” A city or town may also adopt and enforce residential use and zoning ordinances, including those related to noise, protection of welfare, property maintenance and other nuisance issues. “Vacation rental” or “short-term rental” is defined as “any individually or collectively owned single-family or one-to-four-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative or timeshare, that is also a 19 transient public lodging establishment or owner- occupied residential home offered for transient use.” “Transient” is any person who either at the person’s own expense or at the expense of another obtains lodging space or the use of lodging space on a daily or weekly basis, or on any other basis for less than 30 consecutive days. California In California, short-term vacation rentals are generally regulated by the local city or county. The rules vary by locality depending on minimum night stay, the percentage of occupancy taxes and reporting and licensing requirements. However, a statewide law imposes specific recordkeeping requirements on a person or entity, including a person employed by a real estate broker, who, on behalf of another, solicits or arranges, or accepts reservations or money, or both, for transient occupancies in a dwelling unit in a common- interest development, or an apartment building or complex, or in a single- family home. Such persons must also comply with all collection, payment, and recordkeeping requirements of a transient occupancy tax ordinance, if any, applicable to the occupancy. However, a real estate licensee may satisfy these requirements by compliance with the Real Estate Law. Another statewide law requires a rental listing platform such as Airbnb or VBRO to post a notice advising tenants who are listing a room or home to review their leases and insurance policies for restrictions on such activity. Colorado Colorado does not generally regulate short-term rentals, but the Real Estate Commission has taken the position that, although activities relating to these agreements are exempt from the definition of real estate brokerage, a broker must escrow funds coming into their possession involving short-term rental. District of Columbia Short-term rental operators must obtain city permits and hosts may only rent out their primary residence, not second or third homes. Hosts can only offer short- term rentals for up to 90 days a year when they are not present. The rules also prohibit tenants from renting out their units as vacation rentals. Fines for violating the law start at $500 and go up to $6,000.46 20 Florida The regulation of public lodging establishments is preempted to the state. However, a local government or local enforcement district may conduct inspections of public lodging establishments for compliance with the Florida Building Code and the Florida Fire Prevention Code. “A local law, ordinance, or regulation may not prohibit vacation rentals or regulate the duration or frequency of rental of vacation rentals,” except that this does not apply to any local law, ordinance, or regulation adopted on or before June 1, 2011. A public lodging establishment, including a “vacation rental”, must be licensed annually by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. Any rules or regulations established by the operator of a vacation rental must be printed in the English language and posted in a prominent place within the rental. The operator must maintain at all times a register, signed by guests who occupy rental units within the establishment, showing the dates when the units were occupied and the rates charged for their occupancy. This register must be maintained in chronological order and available for inspection by the Division at any time. Operators need not make available registers which are more than two years old. Every public lodging establishment that is three stories or more in height must file every three years a certificate stating that any and all balconies, platforms, stairways, and railways have been inspected by a person competent to conduct such inspections and are safe, secure, and free of defects. A “vacation rental” means “any unit or group of units in a condominium or cooperative or any individually or collectively owned single-family, two- family, three- family, or four-family house or dwelling unit that is also a transient public lodging establishment but that is not a timeshare project”. A “transient public lodging establishment” is “any unit, group of units, dwelling, building, or group of buildings within a single complex of buildings which is 21 rented to gu=ests more than three times in a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or 1 calendar month, whichever is less, or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented to guests.” Hawaii Owner/Operator Each operator as a condition precedent to engaging or continuing in the business of furnishing transient accommodations must register with the Director of Taxation the name and address of each place of business within Hawaii subject to Chapter 237D. The registration, or in lieu thereof a notice stating where the registration may be inspected and examined, must at all times be conspicuously displayed at the place for which it is issued. Additionally, the name, phone number, and electronic mail address of the local contact must at all times be so displayed or made available Any advertisement, including an online advertisement, for any transient accommodation must conspicuously provide: • the registration identification number or an electronic link to the registration identification number of the operator; and • the local contact’s name, phone number, and electronic mail address, provided that if this information is provided to the transient or occupant prior to the furnishing of the accommodation, this contact posting requirement is deemed satisfied. Every person authorized under an agreement by the owner of transient accommodations located within Hawaii to collect rent on behalf of such owner must ensure that every written rental collection agreement displays on the first page of the agreement the name, address, social security or federal identification number, and, if available, the general excise tax license and transient accommodations tax registration numbers of the owner of the transient accommodations being rented, the address of the property being rented, and the following statement set forth in bold print and 10-point type size: 22 “Hawaii transient accommodations taxes must be paid on the gross rents collected by any person renting transient accommodations in the state of Hawaii. A copy of the first page of the agreement, or of federal Internal Revenue Form 1099 stating the amount of the rents collected, shall be filed with the Hawaii Department of Taxation.” “Transient accommodations” means the furnishing of a room, apartment, suite, single-family dwelling, or the like to a transient for less than 180 consecutive days for each letting “that provides living quarters, sleeping, or housekeeping accommodations, or other place in which lodgings are regularly furnished to transients.” Idaho “Neither a county nor a city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals or vacation rentals in the county or city.” However, they may “implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate.” Such rentals must be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all applicable zoning requirements. A local government may not regulate the operation of a short-term rental marketplace, such as Airbnb or VRBO. Indiana With regard to short-term rentals that are rented through a short-term rental platform, Indiana law: • provides a short-term rental of an owner’s primary residence is a permitted residential use under any applicable local-government ordinance and may not be prohibited; • provides in the case of residential property that is not owner- occupied, a local unit of government (local unit) may require a special exception, special use, or zoning variance for the short-term rental of the property and may not interpret and enforce zoning regulations for a variance in a manner that is intended or has the effect of prohibiting or unreasonably restricting all short-term rentals of the property; 23 • allows a local unit to regulate short-term rental of residential property only for specified purposes, such as fire and building safety, sanitation, noise, traffic control and nuisance issues; • allows a local unit to require an owner to obtain one permit for each property, regardless of the number of dwelling units or detached accessory structures on the property that the owner offers as a short-term rental; • allows a local unit to charge a fee of not more than $150 for an initial permit and for a permit issued after the revocation of a permit, but prohibits a unit from charging a renewal fee; and • allows a local unit to limit or prohibit short-term rentals located within a conservancy district. The law does not apply to: • a zoning ordinance or any other ordinance adopted before January 1, 2018, that prohibits, regulates, or restricts short- term rentals in any manner; or • property owner associations, condominium associations, homeowner associations, or cooperatives. Kansas If a short-term vacation rental meets the definition of a “hotel”, it must be licensed annually by the Department of Agriculture after a prelicensure inspection for compliance with Department lodging establishment regulations. If a short-term vacation rental meets the definition of a “guest house”, it is not required to have a lodging license, but it must be inspected if the Secretary of Agriculture receives a complaint concerning such guest house. ”Guest house” means “every building or other structure which is kept, used, maintained, advertised or held out to the public to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished for pay to transient or permanent guests. A guest house shall accommodate no more than seven guests in no more than three rooms furnished with sleeping accommodations, regardless of whether common facilities for the serving or preparation of food are maintained.” There are no other statewide statutes or regulations regarding short-term vacation rentals in Kansas. 24 Instead, all restrictions fall to the local jurisdictions where the rental properties are located. Massachusetts The Department of Health “has determined that lodging provided through Airbnb or similar online services is subject to local licensure or permitting as a lodging house or bed and breakfast in the same manner as traditional lodging houses and bed and breakfast establishments are licensed or permitted.” Mass. Dep’t Health Memorandum, Licensing of Online Home Rental Services (May 16, 2014). Legislation passed by the legislature in 2018, H.B. 4841, would require operators to carry not less than $1 million of liability coverage for each stay unless the hosting platform provides coverage. It also would allow a city or town to limit areas, number and length of the rentals and to require licensing or permitting and inspections of rental establishments. Minnesota If a vacation home rental property meets the definition of “lodging establishment” for Department of Health purposes, it must be licensed annually and be inspected at least every 24 months by the Department’ “Lodging establishment” means “a building, structure, enclosure, or any part thereof used as, maintained as, advertised as, or held out to be a place where sleeping accommodations are furnished to the public as regular roomers, for periods of one week or more, and having five or more beds to let to the public.” Nebraska Nebraska lawmakers gave overwhelming approval to a bill that would prohibit cities from banning short-term housing rentals such as the ones advertised on online sites like Airbnb.47 New Hampshire New Hampshire does not generally regulate short-term vacation rentals. However, any advertisement for a short-term rental by print, display, publication, distribution, or online listing offering a short-term rental must include the meals and rooms license number of the operator. A “short-term rental” is defined as “the rental of one or more rooms in a 25 residential unit for occupancy for tourist or transient use for less than 185 consecutive days.” New York In New York state, it unlawful to advertise occupancy or use of dwelling units in a class A multiple dwelling for occupancy that would violate the requirement that a class A multiple dwelling shall only be used for permanent residence purposes, meaning occupancy of a dwelling unit by the same natural person or family for 30 consecutive days or more. Class A multiple dwellings include “tenements, flat houses, maisonette apartments, apartment houses, apartment hotels, bachelor apartments, studio apartments, duplex apartments, kitchenette apartments, garden-type maisonette dwelling projects, and all other multiple dwellings except class B multiple dwellings.” Therefore, short-term rentals are not permitted in such buildings nor may they be advertised on platforms like Airbnb or VRBO for such purposes. North Carolina For purposes of North Carolina’s extensive Vacation Rental Act, a “vacation rental is defined as the rental of an apartment, condominium, single-family home, townhouse, cottage, or other property that is devoted to residential use or occupancy by one or more persons “for vacation, leisure, or recreation purposes for fewer than 90 days by a person who has a place of permanent residence to which he or she intends to return.” Exception: The Act does not apply to rentals to persons temporarily renting a dwelling unit when traveling away from their primary residence for business or employment purposes. A landlord or real estate broker and tenant must execute a vacation rental agreement, which is valid and enforceable only if the tenant has accepted the agreement as evidenced by: • the tenant’s signature on the agreement; • the tenant’s payment of any monies to the landlord or broker after receipt of the agreement; or • the tenant’s taking possession of the property after his or her receipt of the agreement. 26 The required contents of the agreement are specified in § 42A-11, including the wording of a mandatory notice which must be conspicuously displayed on its face. Note: Any real estate broker who executes a vacation rental agreement that does not conform to the Act or fails to execute a vacation rental agreement is guilty of an unfair trade practice and is prohibited from commencing an expedited eviction proceeding as provided by the Act. Any advance payments, other than a security deposit received by the landlord or real estate broker must be deposited in a trust account in a federally insured depository institution or a trust institution authorized to do business in Illinois no later than three banking days after payment receipt. Disbursement and use, as well as refund of such funds are controlled by the Act. The Act specifies the grounds and procedures for expedited eviction of vacation rental occupants. It also sets forth procedures to be followed in instances where mandatory evacuations of the property are ordered by governmental authorities. A landlord must provide fit premises as described in the Act, which includes complying with all applicable codes and providing smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors. A tenant must maintain the vacation rental while in occupancy. A real estate broker who manages a vacation rental property on behalf of a landlord must: • manage the property in accordance with the terms of the written agency agreement signed by the landlord and broker; • offer vacation rental property to the public for leasing in compliance with all applicable federal and North Carolina laws, regulations, and ethical duties, including, but not limited to, those prohibiting; • notify the landlord regarding any necessary and follow the landlord’s direction in arranging for any such repairs; • verify that the landlord has installed operable smoke detectors and carbon monoxide alarms; and • verify that the landlord has annually placed new batteries in a battery-operated smoke detector or carbon monoxide alarm. 27 Rhode Island A Rhode Island municipality may not prohibit an owner from offering a room, house, or other such residential unit through a hosting platform or prohibit a hosting platform from providing a person or entity the means to rent, pay for or otherwise reserve a residential unit. Legislation introduced in 2018, H.B. 8189, which would have significantly regulated short-term rentals statewide, did not pass. South Carolina The South Carolina Vacation Rental Act, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 27-50-210 to 270 (2018), applies to the rental of residential property for a period of fewer than 90 days. It governs vacation rental agreements, evidence of acceptance of such agreements, advance payment, and rental management company responsibilities. Tennessee A local governing body shall not: • prohibit the use of property as a short-term rental unit; or • restrict the use of or otherwise regulate a short-term rental unit based on the unit’s classification, use, or occupancy. A local governing body may, however: • enact, maintain, or enforce a local law that regulates property used as a short-term rental unit if governing body demonstrates that the “primary purpose of the local law is the least restrictive means to protect the public’s health and safety;” or • “apply a local law that regulates land use to a short- term rental unit in the same manner as other residential dwellings.” “Local laws” include those concerning residential use and other zoning matters, noise, property maintenance, and nuisance. A local governing body may limit or prohibit the use of a short-term rental unit to prohibit or restrict housing of sexual offenders, operation of specified residential treatment facilities licensed, selling of illegal drugs, selling of beer or alcoholic beverages or other activity that requires a permit or license under Title 57, or operation as an adult-oriented establishment. A short-term rental unit provider, or an online short- term rental unit marketplace on the provider’s behalf, 28 must maintain at least $500,000 in liability insurance or coverage to cover damage done or suffered by any person renting the unit. A short-term rental unit provider must comply with all requirements regarding fire sprinklers, smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide alarms. “Short-term rental unit” is defined as “a residential dwelling, including a single-family dwelling or a unit in a multi-unit building, such as an apartment building, condominium, cooperative, or time-share, that is rented wholly or partially for a fee for a period of less than thirty (30) continuous days.” Utah Municipalities and counties may not: • enact or enforce an ordinance that prohibits an individual from listing or offering a short-term rental on a short-term rental website; or • use an ordinance that prohibits the act of renting a short-term rental to fine, charge, prosecute, or otherwise punish an individual solely for the act of listing or offering a short-term rental on a short-term rental website. “Short-term rental” is a residential unit or any portion of a residential unit that the owner or the lessee of the unit offers for occupancy for fewer than 30 consecutive days. Vermont A person may not operate or maintain a lodging establishment, including a short-term rental, unless he or she obtains from the Commissioner of Health an annual license authorizing such operation. Exception: The licensing requirement applies only to those short-term rentals that solicit public patronage by advertising by means of signs, notices, placards, radio, electronic communications, or printed announcements The business of conducting a short-term rental may not be conducted under unclean, unsanitary, or unhealthful conditions. The Commissioner may inspect, at all reasonable times, a short-term rental and the registrant’s records related to it. A short-term rental operator must post within the unit a telephone number for the person responsible for the unit and contact information for the Department of 29 Health and the Department of Public Safety’s Division of Fire Safety. “Short-term rental” is defined as “a furnished house, condominium, or other dwelling room or self-contained dwelling unit rented to the transient, traveling, or vacationing public for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days and for more than 14 days per calendar year.” Note: The Department of Health is charged with preparing “a packet of information pertaining to the health, safety, and financial obligations of short-term rental operators, including information regarding the importance of reviewing options for property and liability insurance with the operator’s insurance company.” Virginia Any locality may, by ordinance, establish a short-term rental registry and require operators within the locality to register annually, providing the complete name of the operator and the address of each property in the locality offered for short-term rental by the operator. “Short-term rental” is “the provision of a room or space that is suitable or intended for occupancy for dwelling, sleeping, or lodging purposes, for a period of fewer than 30 consecutive days, in exchange for a charge for the occupancy”. Such an ordinance may not require a person to register if such person is: • licensed by the Real Estate Board or is a property owner who is represented by a real estate licensee; • registered pursuant to the Virginia Real Estate Time- Share Act; • licensed or registered with the Department of Health, related to the provision of room or space for lodging; or • licensed or registered with the locality, related to the rental or management of real property, including licensed real estate professionals, hotels, motels, campgrounds, and bed and breakfast establishments. Such an ordinance may also provide that an operator required to register may be prohibited from offering a specific property for short-term rental upon multiple violations on more than three occasions of applicable 30 state and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, as they relate to the short-term rentals. Wisconsin Cities, villages, towns, and counties may not enact or enforce an ordinance that prohibits the rental of a residential dwelling for seven consecutive days or longer. If a residential dwelling is rented for periods of between seven and 28 consecutive days, cities, villages, towns, and counties may limit the total number of days within any consecutive 365-day period that the dwelling may be rented to no fewer than 180 days, and they may require that the days run consecutively. Anyone who maintains, manages, or operates a short- term rental for more than 10 nights each year must obtain a tourist rooming house license from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and also obtain a license for conducting such activities from the city, village, town, or county if any of these enact an ordinance requiring such a license. Short-term rentals are defined as “a residential dwelling that is offered for rent for a fee and for fewer than 29 consecutive days.” 31 REFERENCES 1 Airbnb. “Fast Facts.” Airbnb. 2019. https://news.airbnb.com/fast-facts/ 2 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 3 D’Ambrosio, Dan. “Innkeepers, Lawmaker Push For Airbnb Regulation.” Burlington Free Press, January 24, 2018. https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/money/2018/01/24/vt-inn-owners-say-airbnb-and- others-unfair-competition/1028290001/ 4 Evancie, Angela, and Henry Epp. “Why Does Vermont Have Such A Housing Crunch?” Vermont Public Radio, www.vpr.org/post/why-does-vermont-have-such-housing-crunch#stream/0. 5 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 6 “Scott Releases Tourism Benchmark Study,” Vermont Business Magazine, December 21, 2018. https://vermontbiz.com/news/2018/december/21/scott-releases-tourism-benchmark-study 7 Ibid. 8 Vermont Department of Tourism and Marketing. 2017 Benchmark Report: Tourism in Vermont. Vermont: 2017. https://accd.vermont.gov/sites/accdnew/files/documents/VDTM/BenchmarkStudy/VDTM- Research-2017BenchmarkStudyFullReport.pdf 9 Airbnb. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 “Collecting and Reporting.” Collecting and Reporting | Department of Taxes. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://tax.vermont.gov/business-and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals/collecting-and- reporting. 13 Edwards, Bruce. “Vermont Grapples with Airbnb Issues.” Rutland Herald, September 5, 2019. https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/business_vermont/business_vt_news/vermont-grapples-with-airbnb- issues/article_5fcd43c9-b35c-5b92-becc-e5f6aaa8d913.html. 14 Ibid. 15 Epp, Henry and Evancie, Angela. “Why Does Vermont Have Such a Housing Crunch?” Vermont Public Radio, March 8, 2019. https://www.vpr.org/post/why-does-vermont-have-such-housing-crunch#stream/0 16 Ibid. 17 AirDNA is a market minder platform that supports visualization of data around Airbnb and VRBO; it is intended to help inform owners and their business strategies around renting. Grey, David, Miguel Romero, and Cameron Tabatabai. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics: Airbnb & Vrbo.” AirDNA. https://www.airdna.co/. 18 “What Would It Take to Solve the Affordable Housing Crisis?” VHFA.org - Vermont Housing Finance Agency, April 4, 2019. https://www.vhfa.org/news/blog/what-would-it-take-solve-affordable-housing- crisis. 19 “Housing.” Urban Institute Next 50. https://next50.urban.org/question/housing?cm_ven=ExactTarget&cm_cat=HFPC+-+02-22-2019+- +N50+Spec&cm_pla=All+Subscribers&cm_ite=focuses+on+affordable+housing&cm_lm=lblack- plumeau@vhfa.org&cm_ainfo=&&utm_source=MarketingCloud&&utm_medium=newsletters&&utm_ca mpaign=news-HFPC&&#housing-promising-solutions 20 “Airbnb's Negative Impact On Housing & Rent Studies Show Airbnb & Short-Term Rentals Deplete Housing & Raise Rent Pricing.” httrps://legislature.vermont.gov/Documents/2020/WorkGroups/Senate%20Economic%20Development/Sho rt%20Term%20Rentals/W~Ronda%20Berns~Fact%20Sheet%20Airbnb%20Impact%20on%20Housing~2- 6-2019.pdf 21Owens, Nancy. “Nancy Owens: Short-Term Rentals and the Housing Market.” VTDigger, June 23, 2019. https://vtdigger.org/2019/06/23/nancy-owens-short-term-rentals-and-the-housing-market/. 32 22 Mickle, Tripp, and Preetika Rana. “'A Bargain With the Devil'-Bill Comes Due for Overextended Airbnb Hosts.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, April 28, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a- bargain-with-the-devilbill-comes-due-for-overextended-airbnb-hosts-11588083336. 23 “$250M To Support Hosts Impacted by Cancellations - Resource Center.” Airbnb. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://www.airbnb.com/resources/hosting-homes/a/250m-to-support-hosts-impacted-by- cancellations-165. 24 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 25 Vermont Department of Taxes. Act 10 (Special Session) 2018 Legislation Relating to Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2018. https://tax.vermont.gov/short-term-rentals-update 26 Vermont Department of health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 27 Vermont General Assembly. Title 18: Health, Chapter 85: Food and Lodging Establishments. Vermont: 2018. https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/fullchapter/18/085 28 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business- and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals 29 Airbnb. “Airbnb Collects Landmark $1 Billion in Hotel and Tourism Taxes.” Airbnb Newsroom, December 6, 2018. https://news.airbnb.com/airbnb-collects-landmark-1-billion-in-hotel-and-tourism-taxes/ 30 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business- and-corp/meals-and-rooms-tax/short-term-rentals 31 Ibid. 32 Vermont Department of Taxes. Participating Municipalities: Local Options Sales Tax. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/business-and-corp/sales-and-use-tax/local-option-tax/municipalities 33 Vermont Department of Taxes. Property Tax: Frequently Asked Questions. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/tax-professionals/property-taxes 34 Vermont Department of Taxes. Homestead Declaration. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/property-owners/homestead-declaration 35 “Department of Taxes.” FY20 Education Tax Rates | Department of Taxes. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://tax.vermont.gov/content/fy20-education-tax-rates. 36 Vermont Department of Health. Short-Term Rental Working Group Report. Vermont: 2017. http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Legislative-Reports/2017-Act76-ShortTermRental.pdf 37 Edwards, Bruce. “Vermont Grapples with Airbnb Issues.” Rutland Herald, September 5, 2019. https://www.rutlandherald.com/news/business_vermont/business_vt_news/vermont-grapples-with-airbnb- issues/article_5fcd43c9-b35c-5b92-becc-e5f6aaa8d913.html 38“Town of Killington Zoning Amendments,” n.d. https://www.killingtontown.com/vertical/sites/%7BE4345A2E-9636-47A3-9B74- 2E6220745729%7D/uploads/KTN_Zoning_Amendments_approved_by_PC_-_January_8_2020.pdf 39“Stowe FAQ,” n.d. http://townofstowevt.org/vertical/Sites/{97FA91EA-60A3-4AC6-8466- F386C5AE9012}/uploads/FAQ_Short-Term_Rentals.pdf. 40 “Regulatory Framework for Short-Term Rentals.” Regulatory Framework for Short-Term Rentals | City of Burlington, Vermont. Accessed May 13, 2020. https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/mayor/housingpolicy/str. 41 State Short-Term Rental Regulation Chart – November 2018. National Association of Realtors. https://realtorparty.realtor/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/HTA-Chart-State-Short-Term-Rental- Regulation.pdf 42 Vermont Department of Taxes. Short-Term Rentals. Vermont: 2019. https://tax.vermont.gov/short-term- rentals-update 43“Stowe FAQ,” n.d. http://townofstowevt.org/vertical/Sites/{97FA91EA-60A3-4AC6-8466- F386C5AE9012}/uploads/FAQ_Short-Term_Rentals.pdf. 44 Grey, David, Miguel Romero, and Cameron Tabatabai. “Short-Term Rental Data & Analytics: Airbnb & Vrbo.” AirDNA. https://www.airdna.co/. 33 45 Logan, Tim. “Airbnb to Appeal Ruling That Upheld Key Part of City's Short-Term Rental Law - The Boston Globe.” BostonGlobe.com. The Boston Globe, June 4, 2019. https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2019/06/04/airbnb-appeal-ruling-that-upheld-key-part-city-short- term-rental-law/tcacer69WueDpxolJmNk3O/story.html. 46“New Washington, D.C., Airbnb Law Goes into Effect October 1.” MyLodgeTax, October 2, 2019. https://www.avalara.com/mylodgetax/en/blog/2019/10/new-washington-dc-airbnb-law-goes-into-effect- october-1.html. 47 Ozaki, Andrew. “Bill to Protect, Regulate, Tax Airbnb Rentals Advances.” KETV. KETV, February 2, 2019. https://www.ketv.com/article/bill-to-protect-regulate-tax-airbnb-rentals-advances/26116971.