HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 04/06/2020AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL South Burlington City Hall 575 Dorset Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
IMPORTANT:
Presenters and members of the public are asked to participate remotely either by
interactive online meeting or by telephone.
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/707920749
By Telephone (audio only): Phone Number: (872) 240-3212 Meeting Access Code: 707-920-749
In both cases, you will have the opportunity both to listen AND speak, as in a regular meeting. We ask
for your patience as we make adjustments to this protocol. This will be a fully electronic meeting,
consistent with recently passed legislation. There will be no physical site at which to attend the
meeting.
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Monday, April 6, 2020
1.Pledge of Allegiance. (6:30 – 6:31 PM)
2.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items. (6:31 – 6:32 PM)
3.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda. (6:32 – 6:42 PM)
4.Announcements and City Manager’s Report. (6:42 – 6:57 PM)
5.Consent Agenda: (6:57 – 7:00 PM)
A. *** Consider and Sign DisbursementsB.*** Approve minutes for March 16 and March 23 meetingsC.*** Approve VTrans Municipal Highway Grant Application for Kimball / Marshall AvenueCulvert Replacement.
6. Update on City management measures to address COVID-19 threat. (7:00 – 7:30 PM)
7.Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (7:30 – 7:40 PM)
8. Adjourn (7:40 PM)
Respectfully Submitted:
Kevin Dorn
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
*** Attachments Included
CITY COUNCIL 16 MARCH 2020
The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Monday, 16 March 2020, in the
Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street.
MEMBERS PRESENT: H. Riehle, Chair; M. Emery, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden, D. Kaufman (via
phone)
ALSO PRESENT: K. Dorn, City Manager; T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager; S. Dopp, R. Greco, F.
von Turkevich, M. Kocian, A. Chalnick, M. Ostby, A. Fletcher, research team from Earth
Economics (via phone) and other members of the public
1.Instructions on Leaving the Building in Case of an Emergency:
Mr. Dorn provides instructions in case of an emergency.
2.Additions, deletions or changes in the order of Agenda items:
Ms. Riehle noted the postponement of items #8, 10, 12, 18 and 19 until a future agenda and
the addition of item #19A Other Business. Item “c” was removed from the Consent Agenda.
3.Comments and Questions from the public not related to the Agenda:
Ms. Dopp read a correspondence from Michael Mittag regarding what he considered to be the
“trashing what you don’t like to hear” by people responding to reports commissioned by the
City Council.
4.City management response to COVID-19 threat:
Mr. Dorn outlined what has been happening with regard to city responses to the COVID-19
threat as follows:
a.All public meetings other than City Council, DRB and Planning Commission
have been cancelled. The City Council will decide on how to handle the DRB
and Planning Commission
b.All recreation programs have been cancelled
c.The public has been asked to get information from the city without coming
into City Hall. A lot of information is on line, and staff is working to make
information from the City Clerk’s office available on line as well.
d.Two team members are in quarantine due to health issues. Two others are
in required quarantine due to possible exposure to the virus.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 2
e.Sworn officers of the Police Department and 3 shifts of Firefighters are
essential and must be present. Also some personnel in Water Quality have
to maintain the system. Some Public Works people also have to be present.
Other staff may be able to work from home. If they are not essential
personnel the can stay home (e.g., with children now home from school) and
utilize their sick time while being away. The city is working to enable people
to work from home. This requires laptops and licensing, and the city is not
there yet. There is also a concern with harming the system.
f.The Fire Department is equipped with personal equipment and does not
need to access state stockpiles. They could use more masks, and this is being
worked on. Chief Francis is ill (not with the Corona virus), and Capt. Lascala is
working in his stead. He has enormous experience. Chief Francis will still be
advising.
g.Several libraries in the area have closed, and the South Burlington Library is
moving in that direction. They will be open on Thursday and Friday for
parents to get books for their children. The Librarians will still be at work
doing projects that need to be done. They will be matching the Mall’s new
schedule (11-6 Monday-Saturday, 11-5 on Sunday). There will be no
programming at the Library.
Mr. Dorn stressed that all of this is subject to change.
Ms. Emery asked what will happen if employees need to go beyond their sick days. Mr. Dorn
said that will be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Most employees have hundreds of hours of
sick time available. Some newer employees don’t. Ms. Riehle asked whether sick time hours
can be donated. Mr. Dorn said that is being considered. He added that if an employee is
directed to be in quarantine, they will not be docked and will be considered on “administrative
leave.”
Governor Scott announced today that restaurants and bars are being closed which is putting
the hospitality industry in deep trouble. Hundreds of layoffs are anticipated, and many
employees are not eligible for sick leave. Mr. Barritt noted that this will affect the city’s budget
because of lower local option tax revenues.
Ms. Emery asked about senior meals. Mr. Dorn said staff will be considering a way to get meals
to them. Ms. Dopp noted that Meals on Wheels will deliver and leave food at the door and
watch from a distance to be sure it’s picked up.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 3
5.Consent Agenda:
a.Approve and Sign Disbursements
b.Approve Minutes for 18 November 2019 and 3 and 18 February 2020
Ms. Emery moved to approve items “a” and “b” of the Consent Agenda. Mr. Barritt seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
6.Presentation of Earth Economics report relating to monetizing the value of natural
resources and presentation by John Stewart regarding financial costs and revenues
deriving from developed property:
The study was done to assist the city in decision making by accounting the value of natural
capital assets. The study used Earth Economics’ “tool kit” to account for the natural capital
assets of 20 identified parcels, approximately 1040 acres. The parcels ranged from 22 to 181
acres. The study found that they provide various ecosystem services and quantifiable benefits
that humans receive from nature (e.g. water, storage of excess stormwater runoff, etc.). The
study also uses the “benefit transfer method” which was the only “practical option.”
Researchers conducted a land cover analysis and calculated land cover with wetland cover.
They identified acres of land cover types per parcel. They then used the benefit transfer
method to transfer the benefits to the study site.
The study concluded that these lands provide $5,000,000.00 to $16,000,000.00 in benefits per
year in ecosystem services. They also provide value over time, much as a home would do.
Assuming the lands are preserved, the study estimated that the cumulative value of the lands
over the next 20 years would be $73,000,000.00 to $240,000,000.00 with a 3% discount rate.
Questions and comments were then received from the Council and public as follows:
Ms. Emery: She would like to see the figures broken down as to how each of the features goes
with a parcel. She asked if there is a wooded area on a parcel whether the graph on p.10 would
apply.
Response: The land cover data is from the Vermont Geoportal. It calculates the area of each
land cover and identifies values from similar studies to get an amount.
Mr. Chittenden: Were these studies you did?
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 4
Response: No. We don’t do research on the ground. We used studies done by others. We
have an in-house data base accumulated over a number of hears. There are also reports from
governments, non-profits, magazine articles, etc.
Ms. Emery: How do you calculate land percentage coverage?
Response: Vermont Geodata Portal.
Mr. Chittenden: What do other organizations use these values for? Can communities tax
properties based on these values?
Response: We have worked with agencies to integrate these values. We are not talking about
price but the risk of losing these services if we don’t take them into account. We do this for
municipalities and for the state.
Mr. Chittenden: How often do you do this for privately owned land? My concern is that the city
has commissioned this study on land it does not own. How often are you commissioned to
study land by someone who doesn’t own the land?
Response: We are trying to shine a light on public benefits of private land. We work with
counties who want to raise awareness of benefits of forests on private land.
Ms. Emery: How much of a parcel is for each value (e.g. food, forest, other natural resources)?
Mr. Barritt: Did not think that was a good method. He appreciated the models and found the
data interesting. He would normalize it by acre for prioritization. The question is what portion
of the land is still buildable and then to figure out the density and see if the density can be
borne on that parcel.
Members felt they should present the study again when more people can be present.
Mr. Conner said staff has to think about how to make use of this report. From a regulatory
perspective, the scope of the study was limited to these 21 parcels. The question is how it
would apply more widely.
Ms. Riehle: Asked how FEMA is using this data.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 5
Response: The value is an “avoided cost.” If there are weather events, you have resources to
mitigate costs to the community. We provide “avoided cost” values to FEMA. There are
different methods used by economists. Different benefits have different methods. A wetland
type of parcel will have a different benefit from grassland or forest.
Mr. Chittenden: He was in favor of avoidable costs but also spoke to the need to look at
“opportunity costs” of land.
Ms. Greco: Would there be degradation of a resource if part of a parcel were developed
nearby?
Response: It would depend on how the ecosystem on the nearby parcel was impacted. That
can’t be determined instantly. We typically provide an evaluation from a watershed scale, not
by a parcel by parcel basis.
Ms. Riehle: Noted that a number of parcels are clumped together in the Great Swamp area.
Mr. von Turkevich: Is the formula used for the study available or is it proprietary?
Response: The method is proprietary but the study is public.
Mr. von Turkevich: Would other researchers doing the same study come up with the same
results, if this is scientific?
Response: That is why we provide a range. Other results would fall within that range.
Mr. von Turkevich: Were all wetlands given the same dollar value or do they differ in quality?
Response: Within wetland types, the same value was given.
Mr. von Turkevich: You didn’t do an on-site evaluation?
Response: True.
Mr. von Turkevich: Why was the study range narrowed from what was originally proposed?
Ms. Riehle: Time and money. It was skimmed down to get information in a timely manner.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 6
Mr. von Turkevich: Would like to know what is going to be done with this information. There is
a lot more we would like to know if anything further is to be done with it.
Ms. Dopp: Noted that these are not the same 20 parcels that Arrowwood studied.
Mr. Conner: This study matches the Open Space IZ Committee parcels. Arrowwood studied 26
habitat areas that didn’t follow property lines.
Ms. Dopp: Do properties have a synergistic effect on each other?
Response: They don’t really affect each other. They are kind of seen in isolation, other than the
range they fall in.
Mr. Chalnick: Questioned why Parcel 133, which is covered with a high-priority resource
doesn’t get much value.
Response: It is mostly grassland cover with not much wetland, according to our study.
Ms. Ostby: Is there a way to say one part of a parcel is more valuable than another? Is that
easily found in your data or is it the average of the parcel.
Response: The smallest value we work with is an acre. We believe we can aggregate the
wetland on a parcel or the grasslands.
Mr. Chittenden: Can the “per acre” value of the resource be produced within your $27,000 fee?
Response: We could potentially do that within the budget.
Mr. Barritt: There are a lot of variables in these formulas. From an absolute perspective on the
numbers, I don’t know how to use them. On a ranking basis, it is valuable.
Ms. Emery: Can the parcels be “parcelized” even more as to where the conservation value lies?
Mr. Conner: The value of doing it on a per acre basis is that you have a relative value.
Ms. Emery: It would allow a developer to say “This looks more developable.” Can we reach a
compromise?
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 7
Mr. Conner: To the extent to which information from these parcels can be extrapolated to
other parcels because resources cross boundaries.
Mr. Barritt: If we had the “constants” that were used, we could do that ourselves, just plug in
the constants.
Mr. Chittenden: It is a proprietary model.
Mr. Barritt: Felt they can come up with a formula to figure out what they’re doing.
Ms. Emery: Can they provide a “normalized value per land type”?
Response: That is going beyond the scope of our study. We typically don’t provide that, but
we’re willing to get together with Mr. Dorn and talk about it.
Ms. Greco: What is the buffer area? Is there a new tool regarding the buffer area to protect
various resources?
Response: That is beyond the scope of the study, but it is worth asking. We have found that at
least a 50-foot buffer for a riparian area is important.
Mr. Chittenden: Noted the importance of John Stewart’s study and cited the need to hear the
results.
Mr. Dorn: Mr. Stewart was asked to look at the cost to provide services and the revenues that
flow from a unit of development. Mr. Stewart was the Chief Financial Officer for the School
District for some time and has a distinguished career in finance. He met with Mr. Rabidoux,
Chiefs Francis and Burke and Mr. Connor to come up with a method. He looked at 2 existing
neighborhoods, one in the Orchard School area and Butler Farms which have roughly the same
number of homes but with different home values. He also utilized the proposed developments
at Dorset Meadows and Spear Meadows. He looked at fire, police, medical and plowing services
and stormwater capital costs. He arrived at the table provided which shows the revenues in the
2 proposed neighborhoods and the cost of services to those neighborhoods. The results were a
new revenue of $132,000 for Dorset Meadows and $43,000 for Spear Meadows. This did not
include possible extension of utilities to the Southeast Quadrant. The study did not get into the
potential cost to others in the city if projects are under-built and the burden falls on taxpayers
elsewhere. He also looked only at municipal
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 8
services. School funding is so complicated. 27% of homes have students in K-12 schools, so the
net would probably be higher, but that is unproven.
What you learn from the study is that the smaller the number of units, the more the inability to
provide services. The more units, the better you can cover the cost of services. This is true
regardless of where you are looking in the city.
Mr. Barritt said low housing density doesn’t fit well with low tax revenue density. Concentrate
housing and concentrate services. Don’t waste the land.
Mr. Dorn added, the smaller the area, the more economically efficient (e.g., plowing).
Ms. Emery asked whether this study took into account the possible need for additional
personnel. Mr. Dorn said it did. Any additional hours could be covered by overtime, which was
figured in.
Ms. Emery said she has heard people are not happy with plowing and that Public Works is
stretched thin. Mr. Dorn said there is a concept of “acceptable level of service” in a
community. At some time, you have to add more services. That is not anticipated with 200
additional homes. With 400, it probably would be.
Ms. Riehle noted the city also hasn’t kept up with paving. Mr. Dorn said it can’t be done at 3%.
Public Works has asked for $1,000,000 which is what neighboring towns pay. Mr. Chittenden
said the additional tax from growth would help to pay for that. If you shrink growth, you put
more burden on the taxpayer. Ms. Riehle said you can have growth from building businesses
and taxing them at a higher rate. Mr. Barritt stressed you have to give them homes to live in at
the same time.
Mr. Kaufman said he has a lot of questions and it is hard to ask them in this format. The biggest
question is how to use all this information to make decisions.
Ms. Emery said she would like to see a 20-year forecast from Mr. Stewart but didn’t know if he
could do that. She questioned whether this is an incrementally expanding value.
Mr. Chittenden said he would like to see the “opportunity cost” if development goes on the
non-resource part of the parcels. He would also like to know how many jobs per unit are
created in the city compared to how many housing units. Also where employees live.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 9
Mr. Dorn said all of those things are components of the Comprehensive Plan and all need to be
considered. CCRPC will have some of that information.
Ms. Greco said she didn’t think Mr. Stewart’s study was a cost of development study because it
did not take into account 75% of the cost (education tax) or environmental costs to clean up
Potash Brook.
Mr. Dorn explained that the education fund isn’t relevant to this study. The State provides
funding and assumes the community will have the money to pay for education.
Ms. Greco cited previous city managers who maintained a balance between residential and
commercial development and said that commercial development “pays more than it takes.”
This study says the opposite.
Mr. Dorn said it’s an “economy of scale.” The more density, the more you can pay for. If that
weren’t true, every community in the country would be bankrupt. Ms. Greco asked why taxes
keep going up if that is true. Mr. Dorn said taxes go up because things like pension and health
care are going up faster than the rate of inflation. He noted that Grand List growth last year
was only 1%.
7.Consideration of approval of letter to the Vermont Agency of Transportation to
consider reducing speed limits on State Highway 116 (Hinesburg Road):
Members revised the letter to stress the urgency of the request due to safety concerns with the
approach of summer and additional pedestrian and bicycle use of the road.
Mr. Chittenden moved to empower the Chair to amend the letter to be consistent with the
discussion to stress the urgent need due to safety concerns with the approaching summer
season. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously.
8.Councilors’ Reports from Committee Assignments:
Mr. Chittenden: He will be stepping down from the GMT Board because he is
“overcommitted.” He cited the importance of GMT to the city, state and region. Ms. Emery
said she would be happy to be considered for that position. A timeline will be further
discussed.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 10
9.February Financials:
Mr. Hubbard said that 2/3 of the way through the fiscal year, revenues are at 73% and expenses
at 64% of budget. There are concerns as there are now a lot of unknowns due to impacts (e.g.,
pension) from the Corona virus situation. This will be monitored closely. There is concern with
income from local option taxes and the cost for public safety overtime. Fire Inspection income
will be down as will Planning & Zoning permits. He hoped there was time for some recovery
before June.
Ms. Emery asked if there is any delay to the Market Street building. Mr. Dorn said there is not.
Ms. Riehle asked at what point the local option tax numbers will be known. Mr. Hubbard said
the May report. Payments to date are ahead of revenues from last year, which could help. Mr.
Kaufman noted there will be no rooms and meals revenues from all the cancelled conferences,
probably through June. Mr. Chittenden said that is about 25% of the city’s local option
revenues. Ms. Riehle said they will have to make plans at the beginning of the next fiscal year.
10.Convene as South Burlington Liquor Control Commission to consider the following
applications:
Barnyard – 1st class & 3rd class restaurant/bar license and outside consumption
permit
Bourne’s Service Center – 2nd Class license
Catering By Dale – 1st Class & 3rd Class Commercial kitchen license
Champlain Farms – 2nd Class License
Champlain Farms-Exxon – 2nd Class License
Champlain Farms South Burlington j- 2nd Class License
Charlie’s on Fire (Chicken Charlies0 – 1st Class restaurant/bar license
Comfort Suites (1712 Shelburne Rd.) – 1st Class & 3rd Class restaurant/bar/license
and outside consumption permit
Dave’s Cosmic Subs – 1st Class Restaurant/Bar license
Doubletree by Hilton – 1st Class & 3rd Cass restaurant/bar license and Outside
consumption permit
Green Mountain Suites Hotel – 1st Class restaurant/bar license
Hannaford Supermarket (Shelburne Rd.) – 2nd Class license
Higher Ground – 1st Class & 3rd Class restaurant/bar license and Entertainment
license application
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 11
Homewood Suites – 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Class restaurant/bar license and Outside
consumption permit
#105 Jolley Williston Road – 2nd Class License
Kinney Drugs #55 (Williston Road) – 2nd Class License
Koto Restaurant – 1st and 3rd Class Restaurant/bar license
Marco’s Pizza – 1st Class restaurant/bar license
The Mill Market Deli – 2nd Class License
Moose Lodge #1618 – 1st & 3rd class restaurant/bar license & entertainment
license
The Pour House, 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/bar license
Pulcinella’s @ Lakeview (1710 Shelburne Rd.) 1st Class & 3rd Class restaurant/bar
license & outside consumption permit
Simon’s Store & Deli (Shelburne Rd.) – 2nd Class license
Smokey’s Low ‘n Slow – 1st Class & 3rd Class restaurant/bar license
Trader Joe’s #527 – 2nd Class License
Vermont National Country Club (3944-1) – 1st Class & 3rd Class restaurant/bar
license
Vermont National Country Club (#3944-2) – 1st Class & 3rd Class Restaurant/bar
license
Vermont National Country Club (#3394-3) – 2nd class license
Mr. Barritt moved that the Council convene as Liquor Control Board. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dorn said all applications have been thoroughly reviewed.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve all of the license applications as presented. Ms. Emery seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Chittenden moved to reconvene as City Council.
11.Councilors Updates and City Manager’s Report:
Council members reported on recent meetings they had attended.
Mr. Chittenden noted that the Firefighters dinner has been postponed. No new date has been
set. The deposit will not be forfeited if the dinner takes place by the end of the year.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 12
Mr. Dorn said he and Mr. Hubbard have been consumed with the virus issue.
Mr. Hubbard noted that the groundbreaking for the hockey rinks will be rescheduled.
Mr. Dorn said they have been asked by the appraisal company what to do regarding viewing
homes. They will shift for the time being from visits to doing data entry.
12.Other Business:
Mr. Hubbard noted there is currently in place for when there is a special warrant that comes up
between meetings whereby it can be signed by members at the next meeting. Because it is not
known what physical presence will be happening at future meetings, staff proposes an
alternate plan. Members will provide a verbal assent via phone when 3 members cannot be
present at a meeting. Mr. Hubbard or Mr. Dorn would then sign the warrants in place of 3
assenting members until such time as Council members can actually sign for themselves. Mr.
Barritt said this should include some written notice that Mr. Dorn or Mr. Hubbard signed on
behalf of members who had assented verbally.
Mr. Barritt moved to approve the proposed policy for the signing of warrants as discussed with
the electronic vote of councilors noted on their signature line. Ms. Emery seconded. Motion
passed unanimously.
Mr. Barritt questioned why BCA members were paid for only 1 hour for the recount. Ms. Emery
said it was considered a meeting.
Mr. Riehle noted that for the near term, the Council wants to meet remotely using available
technology. Mr. Dorn said the city can record the meetings on camera for archival purposes.
Ms. Emery questioned the loss of Channel 17. Mr. Kaufman said it can be recorded and
immediately shared with Channel 17, and they can make it available as they usually do.
Members then briefly discussed ways to better use technology during these times.
Mr. Dorn proposed an executive session on 23 March to discuss how to handle such things as
DRB and Planning Commission meetings. They may know more at that time as to where things
are headed. Members agreed to meet at 7 p.m. for about an hour and a half in the upstairs
conference room.
CITY COUNCIL
16 MARCH 2020
PAGE 13
As there was no further business to come before the Council Mr. Chittenden moved to
adjourn. Mr. Barritt seconded. Motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at
9:35 p.m.
_________________________________
Clerk
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Monday, March 23, 2020
The South Burlington City Council held a Special Meeting on Monday, March 23, 2020 at 7:01 PM in the Green Mountain Room at City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. (Electronic connections for
meeting available)
Members present via electronic means: H. Riehle, M. Emery, D. Kaufman, T. Barritt, T. Chittenden
Also Present: K. Dorn, City Manager, T. Hubbard, Deputy City Manager
1.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Instructions on exiting building in case of emergency.
K.Dorn provided instructions on how to exit the building in case of emergency
3.Agenda Review: Additions, deletions or changes in order of agenda items.
There were two additions made to Other Business on the agenda
4.Comments and questions from the public not related to the agenda.
There were no questions from the public
5.Consent Agenda
M.Emery moved to approve the Consent Agenda. T. Barritt seconded the motion. The
motion passed by a 5 – 0 roll call vote
6.Consider & possibly approve postponing deadline for dog & cat license renewal.
T.Barritt moved to waive the application of penalties for dog and cat licenses until July
1, 2020. T. Chittenden seconded the motion. The motion passed 5 – 0 by roll call vote.
7.Other Business
a)T. Chittenden moved to warn a Public Hearing on LDR amendments 1913-A, and
1913-B for May 18, 2020, at 7:30 PM. T. Barritt seconded the motion. The
motion passed 5 – 0 by roll call vote.
b)The Council approved by consensus holding a deliberative session on a matter
before them under Interim Zoning via electronic meeting.
8. Adjourn
D.Kaufman moved to adjourn the meeting. M. Emery seconded the motion. The meeting
was adjourned at 8:05 PM.
Memo
To:South Burlington City Council
From: Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works
CC: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
Justin Rabidoux Director of Public Works
Date: March 30, 2020
Re: VTrans Municipal Highway Grant Application for Kimball / Marshall Avenue Culvert
Replacement
The stream crossing over Muddy Brook on South Burlington’s border with the town of Williston failed in 2017. At that time, a temporary bridge was installed that allowed traffic to continue despite the failure of the culvert beneath. During the 2019 Halloween storm the failed culvert washed out completely. Damage from the storm required that the temporary bridge be closed. Work was completed to temporarily stabilize the area and re-open the
bridge, but a permanent stream crossing needs to be installed.
Prior to the Halloween 2019 storm event and since the initial incident in 2017, work has been underway to design a permanent crossing in this location that provides safe pedestrian facilities to connect South Burlington and Williston. This has long been a goal in the region as evidenced by past studies (2006 & 2010) completed by the CCRPC and available at:
https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-
content/uploads/2018/01/SharedUsePathOverMuddyBrook_20061221.pdf
https://studiesandreports.ccrpcvt.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Supplemental-Info-
Report-10-04-10.pdf
The municipalities of South Burlington and Williston are strongly committed to advancing this replacement structure, improving the bicycle and pedestrian facilities in this area, and improving the non-vehicular connection between our two communities. In order to move this
effort forward, we would like to apply for a Municipal Highway Grant to help defray the cost of construction. Included with this memo please find a copy of the Municipal Highway Grant application, as well as a grant request form to council. We trust you will find this application complete, but if you have any questions please feel free to reach out to me.
I am requesting that Council indicate their support for this project and the City’s grant
application to the Municipal Highway Grant program. I am requesting that council take a formal vote on this matter and approve submission of the attached grant application.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (802) 658 – 7961 x6113 ortdipietro@sburl.com.
City Of South Burlington, Grant Request Form
Prior to applying for a grant please complete this form and submit to Assistant City Manager..
Please submit at least two weeks prior to City Council approval meeting. Extenuating circumstances which do not permit two
weeks notice should be brought to the attention of the Assistant City Manager as soon as possible.
Please attach actual grant application form – either blank or completed
__Tom DiPietro ___________________________ _____March 26, 2020______
Name and title of person completing this form (Project Manager) Date
1. Name/title of grant and submittal deadline date: Municipal Highway Grant. Due on April 17, 2020.
2.What specifically is the grant’s purpose? The grant will pay for construction of a replacement culvert
under Kimball Avenue.
3. What does the grant fund and not fund (be specific)? This grant will fund construction of a new culvert
on Muddy Brook located on Kimball Avenue at the City’s border with the Town of Williston.
4. Total Project Cost: $2,145,000
a. Amount of grant: $175,000
b.Is there a City match required, how much and in what fiscal year(s)? Yes. A 10% match is
required. Remaining project costs will be shared between the City and the Town of Williston. We
anticipate incurring expenses in FY21 and FY22.
c.Are there other grants “tied into” or being used as a match for this grant of which are
matching funds for this grant? Nothing is “tied into” this grant, but the City previously received
a grant to complete a scoping study (completed) and is currently working under another grant for
design engineering. We also recently received a $300,000 Transportation Alternatives grant
through VTrans. None of these grants can be used as match for this grant. This is a large,
expensive project and we are pulling together as many funding sources as possible to fund it.
5.From what budget line will match be paid, and is there unencumbered money to pay it? Match (cash
contribution) will be paid from the stormwater utility budget. Specifically, it will be paid from line item
402-12-7100-81.00. We will be splitting project costs with the Town of Williston.
6. Is there a cost to the city upon grant conclusion, and if yes, please describe? No
7. Is grant for stand-alone project, and if no, how does grant fit into another project (describe in some
detail)? The grant is for the construction of a new stream crossing, including pedestrian facilities, on
Muddy Brook. It is a stand-alone project.
8. Length of grant - will the grant cross fiscal year(s)? This grant will require work in FY21 and FY22. It
will cross fiscal years.
9. Who will apply for grant (name/title)? Tom DiPietro, Deputy Director of Public Works
10. How much time will it take to complete grant application form? 2 hours
11. How likely is it that we will receive grant? Quite likely. We have a strong project that aligns with the
goal of the grant. We have also received grants from this organization before and the project is a regional
priority.
12. Who will manage (project manager) grant and grant paperwork if approved (if different person than
who is filling out this form), what are any grant compliance requirements, how much time will this
take and how is that time available? Are there funds available in the grant to pay for our
administrative costs? Can in-kind service be used as part of the City match? Tom DiPietro will serve
as the project manager for this grant. He will be supported by other Stormwater Utility staff (Dave Wheeler
and Emmalee Cherington). This project needs to be completed regardless of whether or not we receive the
grant, so the only additional work is related to grant management. We estimate this to be approximately 40
hours over the term of the grant. Time spent by City staff on administration could be used as match, but
since the total project cost will be well in excess of our 10% required match we are not proposing to utilize
our time as match in this instance
13. Describe grant payment process – method of cash flow: The City will complete work approved in the
grant scope of work and request reimbursement from the Town Highway Structures Program. The work has
to be complete prior to requesting reimbursement.
14.Should a Council-appointed Committee, Board, or Commission review this request? The work
proposed under this grant is typical of work completed by stormwater utility staff. For these reasons, a
board or committee appointment seems unnecessary.
15.In terms of priority, with 5 being highest and 1 being lowest, please rate this grant in terms of how it
fits into your primary mission as approved by City Council and current projects to complete that
mission: 5. The culvert in this location failed during the Halloween storm causing a road closure. The City
reopened the road utilizing temporary measures, but a long term solution needs to be put in place. There
could be significant traffic and environmental impacts until such time as the new culvert is installed.
Maintaining and replacing this type of infrastructure aligns with the Stormwater Utility’s mission.
___________________________________ _______________________________
Reviewed by Asst. City Manager, Date If approved, grant money will be in this fund
____________________________________ _______________________________
Approved by City Manager, Date Not Approved By City Manager, Date
___________________________________________ ______________________________________
Approved By City Council, Date Not Approved By City Council, Date
2/17/11
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 Assistant City Manager (846-4112).
3) As a rule the Form needs to be submitted to the Assistant City Manager 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) Assistant City Manager will review Form for accuracy and completeness – Assistant City
Manager does not approve or reject application.
6) After being reviewed if the Form is complete the Assistant City Manager 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 application. Council will
also have to formally approve accepting the grant itself if/when it is awarded.
11)If Council approves Form the project manager will be expected to use his/her Form responses to
guide the actual grant application.
12)Project manager will update Assistant City Manager in writing as to grant writing, submittal,
approval, and implementation progress.
13)If grant is accepted by granting authority project manager will submit to Assistant City Manager
and Deputy Finance Officer a monthly progress report on grant implementation and financials –
upon request of project manager report time frame can be modified by Assistant City Manager
based on actual grant conditions.
14) Deputy Finance Officer will maintain a spread sheet of all grants that tracks grant progress related
to financials.
15)Grant spread sheet will be included in yearly Budget Book.
Municipal Highway Grant Application
APPLYING FOR: Structures Class 2 Roadway Emergency
MUNICIPALITY: MUNICIPAL CONTACT (name):
Phone: E-Mail:
DISTRICT CONTACT (name):
Phone:
SCOPE OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED BY GRANTEE
Location of Work. The work described below involves the following town highway / structure:
TH# ____, (Name)_________________________ which is a class ____ town highway.
Bridge #_______, which crosses ___________________________________________________
Culvert # ___, for which the original size was _________ and the replacement size is ____________
Causeway: ______________________________________________________________________
Retaining Wall: ______________________________________________________________________
Problem:
Proposed Scope of Work:
Estimated Project Amount: $
E-Mail:
DUNS #:Grantee FY End Month (mm format):
FY
MAILING ADDRESS:
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: Automated Manual Combination
Reason For Problem:
Detailed Cost Estimate (below or attached):
Estimated Completion Date:
Latitude:Longitude:MM (If Available):
Below this line to be filled in by VTrans staff:
Recommended Award Amount:
District Staff Approval: (name) ___________________________Date: _________________________
Note:
Projects may involve impacts to protected historic or archaeological resources. For more information, responsible parties are encouraged to contact the District staff.
Municipality has adopted Codes & Standards that meet or exceed the State approved template? YES
Municipality has a current Network Inventory? YES
Municipality MUST complete the following environmental resource checklist:
EXISTING STRUCTURES: (check all that apply)
Steel Tube Culvert Concrete Box Culvert
Stone Culvert Concrete Bridge
Ditch Rolled Beam/Plate Girder Bridge
Metal Truss Bridge Wooden Covered Bridge
There are foundation remains, mill ruins,
stone walls or other
Stone Abutments or Piers Buildings (over 50 yrs old) within 300 feet of work
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (check all that apply)
The project involves engineering / planning
only
The project consists of repaving existing
paved surfaces only
The project consists of reestablishing existing
ditches only within existing footprint All work will be done from the existing road or
shoulder
The structure is being replaced on existing
location / alignment
There will be excavation within 300 feet of a
river or stream
There will be excavation within a flood
plain Road reclaiming, reconstruction, or widening
Tree cutting / clearing Temporary off-road access is required
New ditches will be established The roadway will be realigned
The municipality has included photos of the project. Must show infrastructure and surrounding
features as much as possible. YES NO
Masonry Structure
Other:
New structure on new alignment Repair/Rehab of existing structure
NO
NO
SHEET 1 OF 1Project:
HTA Project #:
Location:
Task:
Calculated By:Date:9/7/2018
Checked By:Date:9/7/2018
SECTION A - MAJOR ITEMS
ITEM NO.UNIT QUANTIT UNIT COST COST
203.27 CY 167 15.00$ 2,505.00$
204.25 CY 5103 23.00$ 117,369.00$
204.30 CY 5123 30.00$ 153,690.00$
540.1 LS 1 611,100.00$ 611,100.00$
900.608 CY 378.0 50.00$ 18,900.00$
900.64 LS 1 30,000.00$ 30,000.00$
900.64 LS 1 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
LS 10%93,356.40$
LS 15%140,034.60$
ROUNDED STRUCTURAL TOTAL:1,227,000$
STRUCTURES MOBILIZATION
STRUCTURES CONTINGENCY
GRANULAR BACKFILL FOR STRUCTURES
PRECAST CONCRETE STRUCTURE (INCLUDING WING WALLS, FOOTINGS)
INSTREAM RIPRAP
TEMPORARY WATER DIVERSION
REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BRIDGE
STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION
Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement
910909
Kimball/Marshall Ave. South Burlington, VT
Conceptual Estimate
JAD
JAO
STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE 2 - PRECAST CULVERT
MUDDY BROOK CULVERT REPLACEMENT
DESCRIPTION
UNCLASSIFIED CHANNEL EXCATION
V:\HSG\910909\4-Design\Estimates\EST_BSG_ALT 2SHT 1 OF 2 Printed: 1/16/2019
Project:
HTA Project #:
Location:
Task:
Calculated By:Date:10/10/2018
Checked By:Date:10/11/2018
SECTION A - MAJOR ITEMS
ITEM NO.UNIT QUANTIT UNIT COST COST
201.11 ACRE 0.7 33,000.00$ 23,100.00$
203.15 CY 2400 10.00$ 24,000.00$
203.30 CY 3600 11.00$ 39,600.00$
301.25 CY 1030 36.00$ 37,080.00$
301.26 CY 890 40.00$ 35,600.00$
490.30 TON 890 80.00$ 71,200.00$
613.11 CY 1285 43.00$ 55,255.00$
616.26 LF 540 37.00$ 19,980.00$
618.15 TON 100 136.00$ 13,600.00$
621.20 LF 750 16.00$ 12,000.00$
900.675 SF 201 75.00$ 15,075.00$
10% OF ABOVE TOTAL 34,649.00$
381,139.00$
SIGNS, MARKINGS, LOAM/HUMUS, ETC.5%19,056.95$
400,195.95$
PIPES, UNDERDRAIN, CB's, MH's, ETC.7%28,013.72$
428,209.67$
ITEM NO.UNIT QUANTIT UNIT COST COST
621.90 LF 100 $ 13.00 1,300.00$
630.10 HR 40 52.00$ 2,080.00$
630.15 HR 350 25.00$ 8,750.00$
MISCELLANEOUS TRAFFIC CONTROL 10% OF ABOVE TOTAL 1,213.00$
441,552.67$
EROSION, SEDIMENT, AND POLLUTION CONTROL 5%21,410.48$
(HAY BALES, SILT FENCE, SWPPP, TEMP. WATER POLL. CONTROL, ETC.)OF DRAINAGE
462,963.15$
DESCRIPTION
TEMPORARY TRAFFIC BARRIER
SUBTOTAL A
SUBTOTAL B
SECTION C - DRAINAGE ITEMS
SUBTOTAL C
SECTION D - TRAFFIC CONTROL
UNIFORMED TRAFFIC OFFICERS
FLAGGERS
SECTION E - EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL
SUBTOTAL D
SUBTOTAL E
ROAD ALTERNATIVE C - 10' GREEN SPACE
DESCRIPTION
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, INCLUDING INDIVIDUAL TREES AND STUMPS
COMMON EXCAVATION
MUDDY BROOK CULVERT REPLACEMENT
PRECAST CONCRETE CURB, TYPE B
SECTION B - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS
BITUMINOUS CONCRETE SIDEWALK
EARTH BORROW
SUBBASE OF CRUSHED GRAVEL, FINE GRADED
SUPERPAVE BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVEMENT
SUBBASE OF CRUSHED GRAVEL, COURSE GRADED
STEEL BEAM GUARDRAIL, GALVANIZED
AGB
Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement
910909
Kimball/Marshall Ave. South Burlington, VT
Conceptual Estimate
NLR
MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY
STONE FILL, TYPE II
ADDITIONAL WINGWALL AND HEADWALL AREA
\\HTABURL-FILE\Burlington\HSG\910909\4-Design\Estimates\EST_Concpt-Estimate_Alt 3SHT 1 OF 2 Printed: 11/2/2018
Project:
HTA Project #:
Location:
Task:
Calculated By:Date:10/10/2018
Checked By:Date:10/11/2018
ROAD ALTERNATIVE C - 10' GREEN SPACE
MUDDY BROOK CULVERT REPLACEMENT
AGB
Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement
910909
Kimball/Marshall Ave. South Burlington, VT
Conceptual Estimate
NLR
ROADWAY MOBILIZATION 10%46,296.31$
ROADWAY CONTINGENCIES 15%69,444.47$
578,703.94$
578,703.94$
ROUNDED ROADWAY TOTAL:579,000.00$
SECTION G - ADDITIONAL ITEMS
SUBTOTAL G
SECTION F - MOBILIZATION AND CONTINGENCIES
SUBTOTAL F
SEE ADDITIONAL SHEETFOR ASSUMPTIONSMADE WHILE COMPILING THIS ESTIMATE.
\\HTABURL-FILE\Burlington\HSG\910909\4-Design\Estimates\EST_Concpt-Estimate_Alt 3SHT 1 OF 2 Printed: 11/2/2018
Project:
HTA Project #:
Location:
Task:
Calculated By:Date:10/10/2018
Checked By:Date:
1.Assume 6" pavement thickness due to large AADT
2.Assume Full Depth Reconstruction (12" crushed, 12" gravel)
3.Assume 2 month construction duration
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ROAD ALTERNATIVE C - 10' GREEN SPACE - ASSUMPTIONS
Muddy Brook Culvert Replacement
910909
Kimball/Marshall Ave. South Burlington, VT
Conceptual Estimate
NLR
This Conceptual Engineer's Estimate of Probable Construction Costs is based on
the anticipated scope of work, as well as Hoyle, Tanner's experience with similar
projects and understanding of current industry trends. The estimate has not
been based on a final design for this project, and as such, it is intended to be
preliminary in nature. It should be ntoed that changes in material or labor costs
in the construction industry could impact the project cost in either direction.
Assumptions used for this estimate are listed below.
\\HTABURL-FILE\Burlington\HSG\910909\4-Design\Estimates\EST_Concpt-Estimate_Alt 3SHT 2 OF 2 Printed: 11/2/2018
Kimball/Marshall Ave – Muddy Brook Crossing
TH Structures Grant Application
Page 1 of 2
Photo A – February 2020 – Facing West from Marshall Avenue
Photo B – February 2020 – Facing West from NE Temporary Bridge Footing Corner
Kimball/Marshall Ave – Muddy Brook Crossing
TH Structures Grant Application
Page 2 of 2
Photo C– February 2020 – Upstream facing Downstream
Photo D– February 2020 – Slope Repair at West Abutment