HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 08/18/2020AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
IMPORTANT: This will be a fully electronic meeting, consistent with recently-passed legislation. Presenters and members
of the public are invited to participate either by interactive online meeting or by telephone. There will be
no physical site at which to attend the meeting.
Participation Options:
Interactive Online Meeting (audio & video): https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/313973421
By Telephone (audio only): United States: +1 (872) 240-3212 Access Code: 313-973-421
Regular Session 6:30 P.M. Tuesday, August 18, 2020
1.Welcome and review of online procedures (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 – 6:52 PM)
5.Consent Agenda: (6:52 – 6:55 PM)a)*** Approve Disbursementsb)*** Adopt Resolution Prohibiting Smoking on the South Burlington PublicLibrary and City Hall Property
6.*** Consider and possibly approve a resolution authorizing the acceptance of a donation ofproperty and extending authority to the City Manager to sign all pertinent documents – Kevin
Dorn, City Manager (6:55 – 7:10 PM)
7.Overview of current issues related to policy, operations and budget at the South BurlingtonPolice Department – Shawn Burke, Chief of Police (7:10 – 7:55 PM)
8.*** Presentation of The Case for Housing, a Report of the Housing Space Working Group –
Leslie Black-Plumeau (7:55 – 8:25 PM)
9.Update on the development of a new South Burlington Dog Park and report on currentinvestments by Common Roots in the “Wheeler Homestead” property. Justin Rabidoux,Director of the Department of Public Works and Carol McQuillen, Director of Common Roots(8:25 – 8:40 PM)
10.*** Consolidated Trash Hauling report update – Justin Rabidoux, Director of the Departmentof Public Works (8:40 – 8:55 PM)
11.Council review of South Burlington Noise Ordinances and zoning standards – Andrew
Bolduc, City Attorney, Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning. (8:55 – 9:15 PM)
12.Reports from Councilors on Committee assignments (9:15 – 9:20 PM)
13.Other business (9:20 – 9:25 PM)
14. Adjourn (9:25 PM)
Respectfully Submitted:
Kevin Dorn
Kevin Dorn, City Manager
*** Attachments Included
Issues that have been discussed by the Council where further action is pending:
1.Airport noise survey/complaint form on website2.Evaluate water billing and rate structure.3.Declaring racism as a public health issue
South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 08/18/20
Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid
8/18/2020 4110 South Burlington Ace 21.12
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid7/27/2020 VI-15141 827168/3 21.12 21.12
8/18/2020 4111 Champlain Water District 63,190.42
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid7/31/2020 VI-15148 SBWD-364 63,190.42 63,190.42
8/18/2020 4112 Champlain Water District 186,978.20
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
7/31/2020 VI-15146 SBWD-357 336.83 336.83 7/31/2020 VI-15147 JULY CONSUMPTION 186,641.37 186,641.37
8/18/2020 4113 E.J. Prescott, Inc.47.95
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid7/27/2020 VI-15142 5731472 47.95 47.95
8/18/2020 4114 P & P Septic Service, Inc 6,637.50
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
7/24/2020 VI-15143 T-536871 6,637.50 6,637.50
8/18/2020 4115 City Of So. Burlington 443.64
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
8/4/2020 VI-15149 147 443.64 443.64
8/18/2020 4116 City Of South Burlington 314,531.57
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid7/31/2020 VI-15145 JULY SEWER BILLINGS 314,531.57 314,531.57
8/18/2020 4117 City Of South Burlington 245,630.57
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
7/31/2020 VI-15144 JULY STORMWATER 245,630.57 245,630.57
8/18/2020 4118 Ti-Sales Inc.1,476.76
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
7/30/2020 VI-15140 INV0120774 1,476.76 1,476.76
8/18/2020 4119 VT Home Htg & Electric 130.00
Date Voucher Number Reference Voucher Total Amount Paid
8/3/2020 VI-15150 20-043 130.00 130.00
Printed: August 12, 2020 Page 1 of 2
South Burlington Water Dept. Accounts Payable Check Register Date: 08/18/20
Date Check No. Paid To Memo Amount Paid
Total Amount Paid:819,087.73
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________
Printed: August 12, 2020 Page 2 of 2
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.SouthBurlingtonVT.gov
TO: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
FROM: Ilona Blanchard, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: A resolution prohibiting smoking on the South Burlington Public
Library and City Hall property.
DATE: August 13, 2020
BACKGROUND: In order to obtain LEED building points for indoor
environmental quality for the South Burlington Public Library
and City Hall, smoking must not be allowed within the building
or within 25 feet of any operable door or window, and the
building must be so signed.
The City has two ordinances prohibiting smoking – one within
public and publicly accessible buildings and other enclosed spaces
and a second within all City parks (including playgrounds,
natural areas, beaches, athletic fields, bleachers, as well as event
areas and venues).
The Recreation and Parks Director may designate specific
smoking areas within any park, but to my knowledge, no
Director has done so.
The State of Vermont prohibits smoking in all lodging, on
designated smoke-free areas of property or grounds owned by or
leased to the State or a municipality; and in any other area within
25 feet of a State-owned buildings and offices, except to the
extent that any portion of the 25-foot zone is not on State
property.
Tobacco and tobacco substitute use are also banned on all public-
school grounds including Rick Marcotte Central School (RMCS).
Cathedral Square also prohibits smoking.
City ordinances do not prohibit smoking on non-park public
property.
The ownership of the rear of the South Burlington Public Library
and City Hall site is retained by the School District, although
this would likely not be construed as school grounds.
Attached is a resolution for your consideration which prohibits
Background, Continued, Page 2
smoking on the site of the South Burlington Public Library and
City Hall.
RECOMMENDATION: Review the attached resolution and consider adoption.
ATTACHMENTS: •Resolution
ADDITIONAL
CONSIDERATION
R-2020 -
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION PROHIBITING SMOKING ON THE SITE OF THE SOUTH BURLINGTON
PUBLIC LIBRARY AND CITY HALL (180 MARKET ST)
WHEREAS, exposure to secondhand smoke causes death and disease and continues to be a public health challenge; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that there is no risk-free level of exposure to
secondhand smoke; and,
WHEREAS, City ordinances prohibit smoking within public access buildings and City parks and natural areas; and,
WHEREAS, the City of South Burlington is committed to the health and safety of citizens, visitors, and employees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the South Burlington City Council prohibits the use of
lighted tobacco-based products and tobacco substitutes such as e-cigarettes, as those terms are defined in 7 V.S.A. § 1001 or thereafter amended, on the site of the South Burlington Public Library and City Hall and furthermore directs the City Manager to clearly provide signage to notify the public that site is a no-smoking site.
APPROVED this _____ day of __________, 2020.
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
__________________________________ ________________________________ Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
__________________________________ ________________________________ Tim Barritt, Clerk David Kaufman
__________________________________
Tom Chittenden
RESOLUTION
Council Acceptance for the Donation of Lands from R.E.M. Development Company, LLC, at 19 Gregory Drive
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, the City of South Burlington and R.E.M. Development
Company, LLC, entered into an agreement for the conveyance of real property and the option to
purchase additional real property at 19 Gregory Drive; and,
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2009, the City, via warranty deed, was conveyed “Unit 2” of the
Gregory Drive Condominium as described in the Declaration for 19 Gregory Drive dated
December 18, 2009, and recorded in Volume 911 at page 268 of the South Burlington Land
Records along with the shared use of condominium common elements; and,
WHEREAS, R.E.M. Development Company, LLC, along with the conveyance of “Unit 2”,
granted the City a twenty-year option to purchase “Unit 1” which was initially valued at
$1,600,000.00; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the twenty-year option for purchase Agreement, the City
had the right to purchase the option property for one dollar at the expiration of the option term,
February 14, 2030; and,
WHEREAS, continuing Robert “Bobby” Miller’s exceptional legacy of philanthropy and civil
service, his children, Stephanie Miller Taylor, and Tim Miller, desire to donate the remainder of
R.E.M. Development Company, LLC’s interest in 19 Gregory Drive to the City of South
Burlington ten years prior to the expiration of the option term.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that City Council accepts this generous donation of
real property from R.E.M. Development Company, LLC, and authorizes the City Manager to
prepare and execute all legal documents necessary to complete the transfer.
Dated at South Burlington, Vermont this 18th day of August, 2020.
______________________ ______________________
Helen Riehle, Chair Meaghan Emery, Vice Chair
______________________ _______________________
Tim Barritt, Clerk Thomas Chittenden
_______________________
David Kaufman
March 2020
Members of the Working Group:
Tom Bailey, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee member and resident
Leslie Black-Plumeau, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee member and resident
Vince Bolduc, South Burlington Interim Zoning Open space Committee and resident
Peter Kahn, South Burlington landowner
Fred Kosnitsky, South Burlington resident
Mike Simoneau, South Burlington Affordable Housing Committee member, and resident
Tami Zylka, South Burlington Interim Zoning Open Space Committee and resident
The Case for Housing
Report of the Housing Space Working Group
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary, page 3
Background, 3
The Regional and Local Picture, 5
The Larger Environmental Context: South Burlington, a Core City, 6
The Case for Housing in South Burlington, Vermont’s Second Largest Municipality, 9
Methodology, 10
Proximity to Infrastructure, 10
Size of Buildable Acres, 11
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, 11
What We Found, 12
Conclusions, 14
Appendix, 16
1. Map of Parcel Numbering Adopted from the Open Space Report, 17
2. Map by Planning and Zoning Department of “Built & Possible Regulatory Framework”, 17
3. Map 11, Comprehensive Plan, 18
4. Map of South Burlington Infrastructure, 19
5. Open Space Parcels Containing More than Five Buildable Acres, 20
6. Spreadsheets
A.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by OSIZ#, 21
B.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by buildable
acres size/rank, 22
C.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by proximity
to infrastructure, 23
D.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, sorted
by proximity points, 24
E.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, sorted
by zoning districts, 25
F.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, with
some residential zoning, 26
3
The Case for Housing
A Report of the Housing Space Working Group
Executive Summary
A working group of South Burlington residents analyzed the 189 parcels numbered by the
Interim Zoning Open Space Committee to determine which of the parcels would be most suitable
for housing. Each of the 189 parcels is greater than 4 acres with less than 10% impervious
surface. Using the “Built & Possible Regulatory Framework” map produced by the Department
of Planning and Zoning, we identified parcels containing land area not restricted from housing
by previous conservation, parkland, hazards, and habitat blocks. These can also be seen as “white
spaces” on that same map.
We found that of the 189 parcels, only 55 have potential for some housing. Working with these
parcels, we applied three types of metrics to determine their viability and suitability for housing:
1) proximity to existing infrastructure (water, sewer, natural gas, roads, and recreation paths); 2)
size; and 3) conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
We found:
Of the 55 parcels, only 30 were adjacent to infrastructure and contained more than five
buildable acres. These comprised a total of approximately 1,081 acres;
Of the 30 parcels, only 15 are presently zoned for residential housing. These comprised a
total of approximately 509 acres, but we estimate that only 256 of these acres are
“buildable.”
Such a small amount of acreage remaining for housing greatly surprised the Working Group and
we feel obligated to share this data with the wider community. It seems incongruous with a city
whose Comprehensive Plan emphasizes affordability as its first item in the Vision and Goals
section: “Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life.”
This report rightly praises the admirable efforts to preserve open space in our community but
contends that these efforts must be balanced with the responsibility to provide housing for all
income levels, especially when considered in the broader regional context. A compelling case is
made that housing built closer to the urban core of Chittenden County is more compatible with
sustainable environmental protection than forcing housing to leapfrog over the City of South
Burlington into the peripheral rural communities.
Background
This Working Group of citizens came together to study and respond to the Final Report of the
Interim Zoning Committee to the South Burlington City Council (more commonly known as the
Open Space Report) recently submitted to the City Council and other groups. Two members of
the Working Group were on the Open Space Committee and three members are on the
Affordable Housing Committee. We carefully read the Open Space Report and regard it as a
thought-provoking and well-executed research project which provides valuable information and
perspective. We appreciate the opportunities for thoughtful study that it provides. The efforts of
the Committee are to be applauded.
4
Their meticulous identification of open space parcels brought to mind that many of these same
parcels might also be appropriate for housing. Which parcels might be most appropriate? Which
less appropriate and which not appropriate at all? Ultimately, we employed the same list of
undeveloped four-acre parcels and focused on the portions of buildable land outside the
identified natural areas within a parcel, which we identified as “buildable acres.” We used a
methodology parallel to that of the Open Space Committee except that our focus is on suitability
for housing. In our consideration, “buildable acre” size was an important factor for economies of
scale, but so was compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, ready access to infrastructural needs
for housing such as water, sewer lines, roads, and recreation paths. This then, is our focus, i.e.,
the possible opportunities on each parcel for housing, mixed income housing, and affordable
housing in particular.
Like the Open Space Report, our study is subject to parallel caveats such as the limitations of the
quality of the available maps and the absence of on-site direct field testing. There are others, but
all in all we found their Report helpful and hope that readers will likewise find this Report
helpful.
The focus of the Open Space Report on ownership parcels rather than natural ecological zones
introduces an unintended consequence that is recognized by its authors. Quoting from the
Executive Summary they warn that the methodology of a “…[parcel-based approach]
overestimates the importance of the entire parcel to natural resource protection…” While no one
wishes to detract from the importance of natural resource protection, the methodology
unintentionally limits potential space for housing.
We point to the findings in the Open Space Report (second to last paragraph of their Discussion
section) that correctly points to the limitations of a parcel based approach:
“Property boundary lines rarely correlate with ecological areas as manifest in
nature, making incompatibilities inevitable. Property lines create straight and
rigid polygons while ecological areas are more organic and diffuse. Some parcels
have valuable natural resources on a small fraction of the acreage, others are
dominated by sensitive areas, yet we classified priority areas according to the full
ownership parcel.”
We are pleased that the Open Space Report explicitly takes the position that “It is possible that
careful planning—especially on large parcels—can protect the most valued ecological resources
while allowing limited development.” This important qualifier is the one which our Report will
focus upon: namely, how many “buildable acres” there might be on each parcel.
The case for affordably priced housing has been made clearly and consistently by our Affordable
Housing Committee for years but our city’s successes in actually building more affordable
housing have nonetheless fallen short. Perhaps because of the sheer visibility of new housing and
open space, open space advocates have been much more successful in their efforts to meet their
goals than have advocates for entry-level and affordable housing. The land preservation goal is
an admirable one and their successes have been many. For example, the Open Space Report lists
5
no less than eight planning studies over the past two decades (see its “Preface”) with the goal of
protecting important environmental resources, and that does not include the recent Arrowwood
Report. The Open Space Report reminds us that approximately 50% of the southeast quadrant is
already under Natural Resource Protection (NRP) plus there are four newly conserved parcels
bought by the City, and 19 existent City parks. Nine large UVM properties are largely conserved,
plus there is the massive new Auclair property with third party protection, and many other open
space areas preserved by either zoning restrictions or preserved within housing developments. A
look at the City zoning maps makes clear that the majority of remaining open space is, in fact,
protected from further development. Were we to add to that all of the 1,344 acres included in the
priority parcels identified in the Open Space Report, there would be astonishingly few acres left
for any form of housing development, including mixed-income and affordable housing.
The difficulty is a classic dilemma of “conflicting goods.” Preserving open land and its
associated resources is a desirable goal, but so too is housing, especially for the many
Vermonters excluded because of their inability to pay. Both are important goals for any
responsible community. We need both open land for the many benefits it provides, but we also
need more housing for the benefits it provides.
The need for affordable housing is also a national issue with articles on the housing crisis
appearing in the national media with some frequency. One remarkably good summary of the
situation appears in The Week (March 13, 2020) and can be found at:
https://theweek.com/articles/900141/americas-housing-crisis
Increased housing also addresses the problem of demographic imbalance. More mixed-income
and entry-level housing is needed to draw younger residents into the community to offset the
problem of an aging population. A healthy community and economy are dependent on a healthy
mixture of young and old alike.
We also believe that the majority of the city supports well-planned growth, evidence of which
appears in the 2018 Election Day poll of 431 voters. When asked “do you generally think that
South Burlington is growing too quickly, too slowly, or is the rate of growth about right?” only
30 % said “too quickly” while 9% said “too slowly” and 61% said “just about right.” This 30/70
split is an important statistic to keep in mind as our planning efforts move forward.
The Regional and Local Picture
This is not the place to cite the familiar statistics demonstrating the overwhelming need for
mixed-income and affordable housing. This has been done previously and is readily available,
yet the situation seems to worsen every year with rising income inequality and increasing land
prices. Many organizations have made the case that South Burlington is a critical location for
more housing. The CCRPC has designated South Burlington to be a desirable “growth node” and
their ECOS report makes the point that smart growth is also environmentally more sustainable
than sprawl. Along with the Champlain Housing Trust and Housing Vermont, these
organizations have started a campaign called Building Homes Together with a goal of building
700 new homes in Chittenden County yearly to increase availability and affordability options.
6
According to Leslie Black-Plumeau of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, “without more
new homes, prices will continue to rise making South Burlington an increasingly exclusive and
expensive place to live.” The VHFA also reported that “1,000 South Burlington households pay
more than half of their incomes for housing. Combined with low vacancy rates and the steady
growth of new households, the need for developing additional affordability-priced housing
remains critical for South Burlington.”
The list of organizations calling for a balance between housing and land conservation goes on.
There is a reason why so many of the housing organizations have words like “Sustainability” or
“Conservation” in their titles. The above referenced ECOS report, for example, is taken from
their full title: “Environment, Community, Opportunity and Sustainability.”
We note that the need for affordable housing is unambiguously and powerfully emphasized in
our own 2016 South Burlington Comprehensive Plan. The very first item in the Vision and Goals
section is this: “Be affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of
life.”
This Report emphasizes the principle of many regional and statewide organizations that the
challenge of future land use planning is too often seen in terms of either more housing OR saving
the environment. We share their concern. We believe that South Burlington can continue to
prudently protect open space and the environment while remaining open to the thoughtful
placement of housing.
Only a fraction of most new housing projects in South Burlington have had an adequate number
of officially recognized “affordable” living units. More are needed. On the other hand, we also
trust in the “filtering dynamic” of housing markets in which nearly any new housing eventually
leads to less expensive housing. According to well-accepted research, most new housing
increases the stock of affordable housing indirectly through a filtering process in which upwardly
mobile middle-income residents move into newer units, and their older units become available to
marginally lower-income residents. Each generation of houses eventually ages into the city stock
of existing homes and become affordable to less affluent buyers. The case of many of the older
neighborhoods in downtown Burlington provides vivid examples of this dynamic progression of
filtering. Thus we believe that if we want more mixed-income and affordable housing we must
support many types of housing initiatives while also holding developers to a reasonable and
inclusionary proportion of new units as affordable.
The Larger Environmental Context: South Burlington, a Core City
Functionally and aesthetically, South Burlington is the most central of the suburbs, at the
epicenter of the Burlington metropolitan area. As we look towards prioritizing our City’s
conservation efforts, we are cognizant of the inescapable fact that the preservation of open space
in our community will likely mean greater loss of open space in other communities, shifting
housing to one of the more distant suburban rings. When we limit new housing construction in
South Burlington, that demand for new housing will be forced to outlying communities further
from the urban core where their open space will be negatively impacted and redundant
7
infrastructure constructed. This frustrates the larger goal of environmental conservation and
mitigating climate change.
Environmentalists present credible evidence that high housing density in the core of the urban
center is a key component of sustainability. They argue that were we to design the most efficient,
the most “green” and the most sustainable communities, they would not be sprawling suburbs
with wide radiuses beyond the urban core. Housing in the exurbs demands more highways,
increased drive time, traffic and fuel consumption, as well as expensive, inefficient, and
redundant infrastructure to support new suburban growth nodes. Public transportation
alternatives become even less viable than they are now.
According to the latest 2016 “Vermont Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory and Forecast,”
transportation is responsible for 44.6% of the state’s emissions and increasing. The report
concludes that transportation is “…by far the largest contributor to our gross emissions total.”
Forcing housing away from the core greatly exacerbates Vermont’s transportation-based
greenhouse gas emissions that are exceptionally destructive to the climate. The case for
controlling climate change by reducing—not increasing—transportation-related causes is
demanded by a sustainable environmental ethic.
Consider this thought experiment. Were Chittenden County to achieve the ECOS goal of
building 700 new housing units next year, would the climate and natural environment be best
served by building all of them in South Burlington, Shelburne, Charlotte, Hinesburg, St. George,
Richmond, Jericho, Underhill, or any other more distant town? The authors of the present Report
believe that the optimal answer would be to increase density towards the core communities
where urban infrastructure already exists rather than to build redundant services in a distant
town. Minimizing transportation costs has very long term benefits for the environment. The
further from the core that growth occurs, the less environmentally compatible and economically
efficient it becomes as sprawl, density and congestion extend from the inner rings to the outer
rings. In a regional context, no town is an island; in the complex ecological system, a change in
one town impacts the ecology of another. A housing development just 1, 2 or 3 miles from the
metropolitan core is enormously more efficient than a housing development 10, 15 or 20 miles
away. See map below for a depiction of 5 and 15 miles distances from Burlington.
Our Housing Space Working Group is concerned about any policy that turns away people in
need of housing. We are part of a larger urban community and we have responsibilities for both
the preservation of the larger environment and the housing for all our citizens.
8
South Burlington at the Epicenter of Housing Need
Circles represent 5 and 15 mile range
9
The Case for Housing in South Burlington, Vermont’s Second Largest Municipality
South Burlington has had a long and successful history of land use planning that has involved
many citizen committees, several voluminous professional studies, and a competent professional
planning and zoning staff. All development efforts were paused any number of times in the past
decades while interim zoning allowed for more careful study of land use issues. As of early
2020, we once again remain under an Interim Zoning hiatus to reconsider development issues,
again under pressure brought by residents who were concerned about the preservation of selected
open spaces.
The case for maintaining open space has been made frequently in the past decade, yet even
though it is equally important, the case of new housing has been much more muted. This is
understandable as people in need of housing are rarely members of our community and have
little voice in setting the priorities of the City. In contrast, local citizens who oppose housing
development have a vigorous and energetic presence that can shape the agenda. This is
understandable as people who need housing currently live elsewhere and their needs cannot be
conveyed to the City’s governing bodies with the same effectiveness.
Population and housing growth in Chittenden County reflect its vital role as the economic leader
in a state struggling with demographic stagnation and anemic economic growth. The central
communities of our County radiate north, east and south from the state’s largest city. Demand for
both jobs and housing have caused the population growth rate in South Burlington to exceed that
of the state, in line with other contiguous suburbs of Shelburne, Essex and Williston. But, in a
state with virtual “zero population growth” the statewide natural environment is more likely to
remain in balance as long as new housing is not forced out of the growth nodes by policy
decisions.
Given its long shared border with the core city of the metropolitan area, South Burlington
benefits from the many economic, social and cultural resources of Burlington. The reverse is also
true. Indeed, the fabric of both cities are woven together at so many points that many residents
and businesses would have difficulty functioning for any length of time without crisscrossing the
borders with some frequency. The state’s largest airport is located within our city, and it is
difficult to drive anywhere in Chittenden Country without traveling on at least one of our busy
traffic corridors.
By virtue of its location, over 95% of the land in South Burlington is within a 5 mile radius of
the state’s two largest employers, the University of Vermont Medical Center, with its 7,600
employees and the University itself with 3,700 employees. It is clear that our location in the
urban core compels us to play a disproportionate role in addressing the housing needs of the
region.
The purpose of this Report is to underscore the responsibility of South Burlington to pay
attention to our need for mixed-income housing and affordable housing in particular. It is
inevitable that the population of Chittenden County will continue to grow for the foreseeable
future and citizens of all economic sectors deserve a place to live.
10
Methodology
Our Working Group started with the same list of 189 parcels utilized by the IZ Open Space
Committee identified by Paul Conner, Director of Planning and Zoning. The 189 parcels consist
of four or more acres but with less than 10% impervious surface. Since we were looking at these
tracts with an eye to potential for housing, we then turned to the new working draft map of South
Burlington developed by the Department of Planning and Zoning that identifies areas restricted
from development. The map, titled “Built & Possible Regulatory Framework” dated January 28,
2020, A copy of this map appears in the Appendix.
This new map of South Burlington is nearly fully colored with many legend codes for parcels
that are already developed, conserved parks, or encumbered by hazards and habitat blocks. Our
Working Group concentrated only on what remained after those restrictions were applied,
appearing as an easily identifiable residual of “white space” of undeveloped parcels interspersed
throughout the city.
We found potentially buildable acres on only 55 of the 189 parcels. To assess the viability of
these parcels for development, the Working Group used a set of three metrics and a weighted
scoring system. See the Spreadsheets in Appendix for details. Our metrics considered three
criteria:
1. Proximity to resources that support housing and development, including municipal water
and sewer lines, roads, natural gas lines and recreational path networks;
2. An estimate of the size of “buildable” acres that excluded no build hazard areas, such as
wetlands (and buffers), river corridors, steep slopes and habitat blocks;
3. Compliance with the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan.
Proximity to Infrastructure
The proximity of the buildable acres of a parcel to infrastructure has a direct effect on the cost of
construction of housing and the long term maintenance requirements of the City. Assessed
infrastructure included municipal water and sewer, public roads, natural gas lines, and
recreational paths. The Working Group assigned a value of 2 points where infrastructure adjoins
the buildable acres, 1 point for infrastructure not adjoining but less than 250 yards from the
buildable acres, and 0 points for infrastructure located over 250 yards from buildable acres.
However, since water and sewer lines are more important (and more expensive) as factors in
housing costs, the Working Group gave more weight to the water and sewer metrics by doubling
the assigned points for them. Also, because recreation paths are less critical to housing than other
infrastructure metrics, the Working Group set a maximum value of the presence of a recreation
path to 1 point. The Working Group relied on a sophisticated map provided by South Burlington
Public Works Department showing roads, water and sewer infrastructure, Vermont Gas System
distribution lines and recreational paths. The map is attached to this Report.
11
Size of Buildable Acres
The size of buildable areas is key in creating middle-priced and affordable housing. This is
because fixed costs (e.g., design, study, permitting etc.) are similar regardless of the size of the
area being developed, and site work is less costly per unit than when more units are developed on
the same site. In evaluating and prioritizing site traits, the Working Group endeavored to
consider only those portions of parcels that are potentially buildable, which we labeled
“buildable acres.” To eliminate the unbuildable portions of parcels from consideration the
Working Group relied on the Planning Commissions’ “Built & Possible Regulatory Framework”
map as referred to previously in this report and attached.
Where buildable acres exceeded 35, it was assigned 4 points. For 25 to 34 acres, it was assigned
3 points. For 15 to 24 acres, it was assigned 2 points. For 5 to 14 acres, it was assigned 1 point,
and for less than 5 acres, it was assigned zero points. A zero point assignment to a parcel does
not mean that the parcel cannot be built upon; rather it means that the Working Group believes
the parcel has a lower potential for housing development of any significance to the city. An
obvious caveat is that the buildable acres are calculations based on estimates from the map. More
exact numbers would require professional assessment of the map as field verified resources.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
Finally, the Working Group examined the South Burlington Comprehensive Plan and how it
addressed housing. Although the Comprehensive Plan contains a great deal of language favoring
housing and citing its importance in the City’s future, Map 11 (see Appendix) was the only place
in the plan that gave guidance as to where housing should be located. That map is intentionally
fuzzy and difficult to use for parcel by parcel analysis as it was not designed for that purpose.
Nonetheless, in the category of the Comprehensive Plan, the Working Group assigned a 1 for
buildable acres located in areas designated for housing and zero for buildable acres located in
areas designed for other use.
In analyzing Map 11 the Working Group noticed an inexplicable characterization of all four
parcels owned by the University of Vermont (numbers 26, 59, 61 and 117). Map 11 shows those
parcels as colored green, indicating future use to be “Very Low Intensity – Principally Open
Space.” Yet an examination of topographical and other maps of those parcels (as well as
firsthand knowledge by some members of the Working Group) indicates substantial portions of
these parcels are well suited for housing. The Comprehensive Plan rating for these parcels on
these metrics should probably be taken tentatively until more information is known.
12
What We Found
The City of South Burlington contains 189 parcels of four or more acres with less than 10%
impervious surface. The land area of 189 parcels total 4,739 acres. Of the 189 parcels, 134 are
effectively eliminated from the potential to support housing because they are already conserved,
City parks, or entirely covered by no-build hazards and/or habitat blocks. This leaves 55 parcels
with at least some unrestricted land with potential to support housing. See Spreadsheet A, B, C.
Further assessment of the remaining
55 parcels for housing viability
revealed many of these parcels are
not capable of significant housing
contribution. Twenty-five of these
parcels contain less than five acres of
buildable land. Some are just over 10
acres (products of the Act 250 ten-
acre exemption) and contain a single
house situated in such a way that,
when combined with the hazards and
habitat present, have negligible
acreage suitable for new housing. Other parcels contain significantly less than five acres of
buildable land, some contain only fragmented buildable land, limiting housing potential other
than occasional “in-fill” units. This does not mean that no housing could be constructed on these
25 parcels, but that even taken in aggregate, the contribution to the city’s housing stock would be
minor. Elimination of the 25 leaves 30 parcels with access to infrastructure and enough buildable
land (612 acres) to meaningfully contribute to housing.
But can the 30 parcels really be developed for
housing? A look at zoning regulations was
needed to find out. It turns out that a full 15 of
the 30 parcels are zoned industrial, commercial
open space, or agricultural. A mere 15 of the
30 parcels are actually zoned to allow housing
offering a total of only 256 buildable acres
(see Spreadsheet E and F.) This is the most
surprising and significant discovery of our
analysis.
It is worth noting that the Arrowwood Report
resulted in the classification of some properties
as having little or no development value in our
classification system because of their
designation as habitat blocks, yet some of these properties are known to have very significant
potential development value. Examples of this are properties #9, #11, and #71. We did not assign
high ratings to these parcels for buildability although a good argument could be made that they
warrant it.
5
2
7
16
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35 or more 25-34 acres 15-24 acres 5-14 acres 5 or less
Buildable Acres
Number of Parcels with Estimated Buildable
Acres By Net Acreage
Total Parcels = 55
13
18
9 11
4
0
5
10
15
20
13 12 11 or 10 9 to 7 6 or lessParcels
Infrastructure points
Parcels with Estimated Buildable Acres
By Proximity to Infrastructure
13=close to infrastructure; 0=no access
Total Parcels = 55
13
Graphic of Buildable Acres
South Burlington total acres: 10,600
189 open space parcels of 4,739
acres per Open Space Report. This
is 44% of the 10,600
Estimated 612 “buildable acres” on
30 parcels. This is 13% of the
4,739 Open Space Report area, and
6% of the city.
Only 15 parcels with 256
buildable acres are zoned
residential.
Just 2 of these parcels has
buildable land of 35 acres
or more.
14
Conclusions
1. There seems to be a misperception that because the South Burlington contains 189
undeveloped parcels of four or more acres, there are 189 parcels that can be developed
for housing. This is an incorrect inference.
2. Current conservation, City parks, environmental hazards, habitat blocks, encumbrances,
and zoning regulations reduces the 189 parcels down to a mere 15 parcels viable for
significant housing. The Working Group is deeply concerned at the discovery that only
15 residentially zoned parcels of five or more buildable acres remain within the city.
3. Buildable acres on these 15 parcels totals approximately 256 acres, in stark contrast to the
2,823 acres already conserved, and the 624 acres of City parks in the 189 parcels.
4. We recognize that perhaps as many as 25 parcels with less than 5 buildable acres offer
some possibilities for housing (and perhaps we missed others) but the limited possibilities
for adding a significant amount of new housing on these small parcels is disheartening to
all those who are committed to addressing the first item in the Comprehensive Plan: “Be
affordable, with housing for people of all incomes, lifestyles, and stages of life.”
5.South Burlington faces a classic dilemma of “conflicting goods.” Preserving open space
land and its natural resources is a desirable goal, but so too is housing, especially for the
many Vermonters excluded because of their inability to pay. Both are important goals for
a responsible community.
6. South Burlington can continue to prudently protect open space and the environment while
remaining open to the thoughtful placement of housing. The Arrowwood Environmental
report and other recent studies focused on animal habitat. But in light of the compelling
need for more affordable human habitat, it is important to critically reevaluate spaces on
some of those parcels where well-planned and right-sized housing developments could
exist compatibly with the needs of the natural world. Human and animal sustainability are
compatible.
7.The demand for housing is creating increased housing costs approaching 10% per year
for middle-class housing, “starter” homes and condominiums. Restricting land available
for new housing will contribute to the rising housing prices not only in South Burlington
but in the region. The housing shortage worsens with rising income inequality and
increasing land prices. Land taken off the housing market—for however defensible a
reason—causes an increase in the cost of housing, a major component of the cost of
living indexes.
8.The values of our community and the Comprehensive Plan favor more housing and our
policies and land development regulations needs to reflect it.
9. The focus on South Burlington as a location for forest blocks, riparian connectivity,
animal habitat and other natural features is a valuable consideration within our borders
but is not in itself a sustainable ethic of environmental preservation and conservation for
the larger region.
10. South Burlington is the most central of the suburbs surrounding the core of the
Burlington metropolitan area. South Burlington lies within a short radius of the majority
of jobs, service, and retail needs within the county and most residents live well within the
range of the most efficient transportation options.
15
11. Inasmuch as transportation is a major contributor to climate change and environmental
degradation, pushing housing to the exurbs is more environmentally damaging than
building housing in our more centrally located community.
12. In studying the maps that depict the remaining suitable acreage for potential housing, this
Working Group has been taken aback by the relative lack of space that is realistically
available for housing.
13. Even when more housing developments are eventually permitted in the City, it is
important to note that a large amount of open space will remain, far more than many
citizens believe. Many acres are already protected by existent formal mechanisms that
may be unknown to those who fear a draconian loss of open space. These mechanisms
include NPR (which already protects 50% of the land in the SEQ), distance from
infrastructure, ownership restrictions, natural resource restrictions, and accessibility.
14. Existing water and sewer infrastructure in South Burlington is extensive. Almost all
parcels are either already served by water and sewer or in close proximity. More housing
using existing infrastructure results in more rate payers sharing costs for these services.
15. While not currently as widespread as water and sewer infrastructure, South Burlington
recreational paths already serve a full one third of the parcels with five or more buildable
acres. Housing projects on additional buildable parcels will enhance the recreational path
network keeping more pedestrians and cyclists off the road.
16
Appendix
1. Map of Parcel Numbering Adopted from the Open Space Report
2. Map by Planning and Zoning Department of “Built & Possible Regulatory Framework”
3. Map 11, Comprehensive Plan
4. Map of South Burlington Infrastructure
5. Open Space Parcels Containing More than Five Buildable Acres
6. Spreadsheets
a. Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by OSIZ#
b.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by buildable
acres size/rank
c.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by proximity
to infrastructure
d.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, sorted
by proximity points
e.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, sorted
by zoning regions
f.Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with more than 5 estimated buildable acres, with
some residential zoning
17
Map of Parcel Numbering Adopted from the Open Space Report
18
19
Map of South Burlington Infrastructure
20
Open Space Parcels Containing More than Five Buildable Acres
21
Spreadsheet A: Parcels with possible buildable acres, sorted by OSIZ#
22
Spreadsheet B: Parcels with possible buildable acres, sorted by buildable
acres size/rank Spreadsheet B: Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by buildable acres size/rankOBJECT IDOSIZ NumberSize/AcresProximity to InfrastructureBuildable AcresComprehensive Plan CompliantWaterSewerGasRoadsRec PathTotal Prox PointsAcres (Estimate)Size/RankMap 111260-00200F6064.45442211335+41Buildable Acres Summary0860-0083576108.07422201035+41Acres# of Parcels0720-0006511796.50442111235+4035+50860-0149912856.46422201035+4125-3420570-01475 / 0570-01505133 / 146 *69.70442211335+0115-2471640-006995949.3440221925-34305-14161540-011959095.34442201225-3431<5251640-012512695.57422211115-24200570-016753531.27442201215-24210040-002013726.00442211315-24210860-001605344.95442201215-24210860-RR7506730.69442211315-24211155-0028410029.48442201215-24211640-0134010122.03442101115-24211640-019854412.6944220125-14111380-000001046.1944020105-14101460-00000.0021226.364001055-14100436-00055.13B186.4244221135-14111560-00065249.732221075-14110570-017053810.9544220125-14110085-001973932.6244211125-14111640-006506128.544022195-14100860-007007017.3244220125-14110436-00055.12B779.7544020105-14111640-012207816.262221075-14100860-013751155.302221075-14110570-0148014111.6544220125-14110570-0151514912.0844220125-14110570-017211599.7344220125-14110860-010611685.7742220105-14111810-00870989.194422113<5011640-0184034180.634422012<5010436-00055.05B427.614422113<5010570-012405712.984422113<5010436-00055.08C6315.054422113<5010436-00030.01A644.464422113<5010436-00030.04A655.594422113<5010436-00030.14A669.164422113<5010436-00030.06A687.924422113<5011700-001507424.64402219<5001640-01203847.47402219<5011640-0172014232.684421112<5000570-016001554.154222111<5011155-002841886.894422012<5010560-00315126 ~9.91022206<5010560-00345130 ~10.18022217<5010560-00325132 ~9.92022206<5010560-00335137 ~9.89022206<5010850-0006015 ~13.074422012<5000570-01700156 %10.434422012<5010850-000##40 ~5.41042208<5000850-0004041 ~7.06042208<5000850-0005058 ~13.112422010<5001700-0021483 ~7.87402208<5011700-0030088 ~6.504422012<500TOTAL:55 parcels1,593.00
23
Spreadsheet C: Parcels with possible buildable acres, sorted by proximity to
infrastructure Spreadsheet C: Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with possible buildable acres, sorted by proximity to infrastructureOBJECT IDOSIZ NumberSize/AcresProximity to InfrastructureBuildable AcresComprehensive Plan CompliantWaterSewerGasRoadsRec PathTotal Prox PointsAcres (Estimate)Size/RankMap 111810-00870989.194422113<501Proximity Points Summary0436-00055.13B186.4244221135-1411Total Points# of Parcels0040-002013726.00442211315-242113130436-00055.05B427.614422113<50112180570-012405712.984422113<5011131260-00200F6064.45442211335+411060436-00055.08C6315.054422113<501940436-00030.01A644.464422113<501830436-00030.04A655.594422113<501740436-00030.14A669.164422113<501630860-RR7506730.69442211315-2421510436-00030.06A687.924422113<501400570-01475 / 0570-01505133 / 146 *69.70442211335+41301640-0184034180.634422012<501100570-016753531.27442201215-2421000570-017053810.9544220125-14110085-001973932.6244211125-14111640-019854412.6944220125-14110860-001605344.95442201215-24210860-007007017.3244220125-14111540-011959095.34442201225-34311155-0028410029.48442201215-24210720-0006511796.50442111235+400570-0148014111.6544220125-14111640-0172014232.684421112<5000570-0151514912.0844220125-14110570-017211599.7344220125-14111155-002841886.894422012<5010850-0006015 ~13.074422012<5000570-01700156 %10.434422012<5011700-0030088 ~6.504422012<5001640-012512695.57422211115-24201640-0134010122.03442101115-24210570-016001554.154222111<5011380-000001046.1944020105-14100860-0083576108.07422201035+410436-00055.12B779.7544020105-14110860-0149912856.46422201035+410860-010611685.7742220105-14110850-0005058 ~13.112422010<5001640-006995949.3440221925-34301640-006506128.544022195-14101700-001507424.64402219<5001640-01203847.47402219<5010850-000##40 ~5.41042208<5000850-0004041 ~7.06042208<5001700-0021483 ~7.87402208<5011560-00065249.732221075-14111640-012207816.262221075-14100860-013751155.302221075-14110560-00345130 ~10.18022217<5010560-00315126 ~9.91022206<5010560-00325132 ~9.92022206<5010560-00335137 ~9.89022206<5011460-00000.0021226.364001055-1410TOTAL:55 parcels1,593.00
24
Spreadsheet D: Parcels with 5 or more buildable acres, sorted by proximity
points Spreadsheet D: Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with 5 or more estimated buildable acres, sorted by proximity pointsOBJECT IDOSIZ NumberSize/AcresProximity to InfrastructureBuildable AcresComprehensive Plan CompliantWaterSewerGasRoadsRec PathTotal Prox PointsAcres (Estimate)Size/RankEstimate AcresMap 110436-00055.13B186.4244221135-141510040-002013726.00442211315-242151Proximity Points Summary1260-00200F6064.45442211335+4551Total Points# of Parcels0860-RR7506730.69442211315-2422011350570-01475 / 1570-01505133 / 146 *69.70442211335+435112120570-016753531.27442201215-2421511120570-017053810.9544220125-141611050085-001973932.6244211125-141121921640-019854412.6944220125-141101800860-001605344.95442201215-242201730860-007007017.3244220125-141141601540-011959095.34442201225-343301511155-0028410029.48442201215-242201400720-0006511796.50442111235+4770300570-0148014111.6544220125-141111200570-0151514912.0844220125-141111000570-017211599.7344220125-141611640-012512695.57422211115-2422401640-0134010122.03442101115-2422011380-000001046.1944020105-141200Buildable Acres Summary0860-0083576108.07422201035+4551Acres# of ParcelsEst Buildable Acres0436-00055.12B779.7544020105-1416135+52680860-0149912856.46422201035+446125-342640860-010611685.7742220105-1415115-2471341640-006995949.3440221925-3433405-14161461640-006506128.544022195-1411401560-00065249.732221075-141611640-012207816.262221075-141500860-013751155.302221075-141511460-00000.0021226.364001055-141100TOTAL:30 parcels1,081.22612
25
Spreadsheet E: Parcels with 5 or more buildable acres, sorted by
zoning district
Spreadsheet E: Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with 5 or more estimated buildable acres, sorted by zoning districts
OBJECT ID OSIZ Number Size/Acres Zoning
0860-RR750 67 30.69 Industrial & Open Space
0860-00700 70 17.32 Industrial & Open Space
1155-00284 100 29.48 Industrial & Open Space
0860-00835 76 108.07 Industrial & Open Space
0860-01061 168 5.77 Industrial & Open Space
0436-00055.13B 18 6.42 Industrial/Commercial
0720-00065 117 96.50 Institutional & Agriculture-South
1640-01251 26 95.57 Institutional & Agriculture-South
1640-00699 59 49.34 Institutional & Agriculture-South
1640-00650 61 28.54 Institutional & Agriculture-South
1260-00200F 60 64.45 Mixed Industrial/Commercial & Residential
1380-00000 10 46.19 Mixed Industrial & Commercial
0436-00055.12B 77 9.75 Mixed Industrial & Commercial
1560-00065 24 9.73 Mixed Industrial & Commercial
1460-00000.002 12 26.36 Mixed Industrial & Commercial
1640-01340 101 22.03 Neighborhood Residential
0860-01375 115 5.30 Neighborhood Residential
0085-00197 39 32.62 NRP/NRT/Residential
0570-01675 35 31.27 NRP/NRT/Residential
0860-01499 128 56.46 NRP/Village Residential/ Residential
0570-01475 / 1570-01505 133 / 146 *69.70 NRP/Residential/Village Residential
1540-01195 90 95.34 Residential 1 - Lakeshore
0040-00201 37 26.00 Residential 2
1640-01985 44 12.69 Residential 2
1640-01220 78 16.26 Residential 2
0860-00160 53 44.95 Residential 4
0570-01515 149 12.08 Village Commercial
0570-01705 38 10.95 Village Residential
0570-01480 141 11.65 Village Residential
0570-01721 159 9.73 Village Residential
TOTAL:30 parcels 1,081.22
26
Spreadsheet F: Parcels with 5 or more buildable acres, with some
residential zoning
Spreadsheet F: Undeveloped parcels of 4+ acres with 5 or more estimated buildable acres, with some residential zoning
OBJECT ID OSIZ Number Size/Acres Est of Est of Proximity Zoning
Buildable Acres Restricted Acres
0570-01675 35 31.27 15 16.27 12 NRP/NRT/Residential
0040-00201 37 26.00 15 11.00 13 Residential 2
0570-01705 38 10.95 6 4.95 12 Village Residential
0085-00197 39 32.62 12 20.62 12 NRP/NRT/Residential
1640-01985 44 12.69 10 2.69 12 Residential 2
0860-00160 53 44.95 20 24.95 12 Residential 4
1260-00200F 60 64.45 20 44.45 13 Mixed Industrial/Commercial & Residential
1640-01220 78 16.26 5 11.26 7 Residential 2
1540-01195 90 95.34 30 65.34 12 Residential 1 - Lakeshore
1640-01340 101 22.03 20 2.03 11 Neighborhood Residential
0860-01375 115 5.30 5 0.30 7 Neighborhood Residential
0860-01499 128 56.46 46 10.46 10 NRP/Village Residential/Residential
0570-01475 / 1570-01505 133 / 146 *69.70 35 34.70 13 NRP/Residential/Village Residential
0570-01480 141 11.65 11 0.65 12 Village Residential
0570-01721 159 9.73 6 3.73 12 Village Residential
TOTAL:15 parcels 509.41 256 253.41
MEMO
To: Kevin Dorn, City Manager
From: Justin Rabidoux, Director of Public Works
Date: August 13, 2020
Re: Consolidated Trash Hauling Study
SUMMARY
There are many ways communities coordinate the collection of trash, recyclables and food scraps.
Presently in South Burlington customers contract directly with the hauler of their choice and/or
bring their materials to a drop-off facility. Consolidated collection is another option for the
collection and disposal of household materials. It is a system where one, or more, private haulers
are contracted by a municipality for the removal of curbside trash, recycling, and organics.
Consolidated collection has been periodically evaluated by the region for years. In 2009, the
Chittenden Solid Waste District (CSWD) launched a countywide analysis of
consolidated collection that ran until 2014.
In January 2019, the South Burlington City Council passed a resolution directing the Department
of Public Works to undertake a citywide consolidated collection feasibility study with the City of
Burlington and CSWD. The Study’s Request for Proposals listed the stated objectives of possible
consolidated collection as:
•Reduced environmental costs of excess truck traffic;
•Reduced costs to residents and haulers through more efficient collection routes;
•Reduced infrastructure impacts of excess truck traffic;
•Increased recycling through direct and consistent education to residents;
•Increased diversion by using consolidated collection as the most cost-effective
mechanism to add collection of food scraps;
•Increased safety on local roads;
•Reduced noise in neighborhoods; and
In April 2019 CSWD, the City of South Burlington and the City of Burlington entered
into a contract for services with Gershman, Brickner & Bratton to conduct a feasibility study on
consolidated curbside collection in which a private hauler is contracted by a municipality to
collect trash, recycling, and organics. The study and possible future efforts is limited to single
family homes and residential housing up to four units. Any commercial property or residential
housing with more than four units would continue to contract directly with a hauler of their
choice. We have prepared the attached presentation that summarizes our findings to date.
In Vermont, two communities have consolidated collection:
•Brattleboro – The City of Brattleboro has had consolidated collection of trash and
recycling since the early 90’s, and compost collection since 2013. As recently as 2016 they
have gone from weekly trash to every other week trash pickup, as the addition of compost
collection has reduced the amount of waste put in the trash, and weekly recycling pick up.
Currently they offer EOW trash, weekly recycling, and organics pick up. This service is being
offered by use of a private hauler contracted through the municipality. The system is set up
as a pay as you throw model where residents buy either a $2.00 15-gallon or a $3.00 32-gallon
$3.00 yellow or purple trash bag. These are the only bags that are allowed to be used.
Recyclable materials must be in a container clearly marked recycling. Compost material
must be in a sealed container/cart.
•Westford – The Town of Westford currently offers consolidated collection to their
residents via a private hauler contracted by the town. They offer weekly same day 64-gallon
trash and recycling per household pick up. Their Select Board chose at this time not to
include foods craps in the collection. The service is funded through residents’ property
taxes.
FISCAL IMPACT
No direct impact to the City, but the expectation is this model would bring savings to the
residents of South Burlington.
RECOMMENDATION
As this study wraps up Phase 1 of the project, staff is requesting additional guidance from the
City Council:
Is there enough interest in this effort to advance to a Phase 2 of the project, which would be a
more detailed study (to occur in FY’22 if funds were to be made available) resulting in a contract
that could be solicited to private haulers?
Are there any outstanding issues that the Council wants addressed before Phase 2 or prior to
advancing to Phase 2?
Does the Council want additional public engagement prior to developing a Council
recommendation?
1
Feasibility Study for
Residential Solid Waste
Collection Contracts
August 18, 2020
22
Jennifer Porter
GBB Vice President (Project Manager)
•18+ years of experience on government and private sector
sustainability initiatives
•Former Conservation Program Coordinator with Portland,
Oregon’s Office of Sustainable Development
Kate Vasquez
GBB Project Manager
•18+ years of experience of experience in recycling, solid
waste reduction, and solid waste management
•Combination of consulting and public sector experience with
Fairfax and Loudon counties, in Virginia
Sam Lybrand
GBB Special Principal Associate
•35+ years of in-depth knowledge and experience with
establishing and operating integrated solid waste systems
consisting of collection, transfer, recycling, landfill and waste-
to-energy components
33
Feasibility study
to assess the viability of
consolidating residential
trash, recycling,
and food scraps
collection services in:
-Burlington
-South Burlington
Solid waste
management
consulting
Collection
route
optimization
Market
research
Contract
management
Technical
assistance
Project
coordination
44
-Recycling through direct
and consistent education to
residents
-Diversion by using
consolidated collection as
the most cost-effective
mechanism to add
collection of food scraps
-Recycling using wheeled
carts by all residents
-Safety on local roads
-Compliance with state and
local mandates
-Costs to residents and
haulers through more
efficient collection routes
-Environmental costs of
excess truck traffic
-Infrastructure impacts of
excess truck traffic
-Litter using wheeled carts
by all residents
-Noise in neighborhoodsIncreased ReducedObjectives of Possible
Consolidated Collection
What is Consolidated Collection?
When a municipality contracts with one or more haulers
to provide curbside collection service
for specific routes or districts,
rather than have multiple haulers running routes in each neighborhood.
5
Possible Public Concerns
•Customers will no longer have a choice of who
provides their service.
•Smaller haulers may not be able to compete with
larger haulers for collection districts and could lose
business.
•Some haulers believe they will lose customers, who
would choose to opt-out of curbside collection, to
Drop-Off Centers.
6
Possible Public Concerns (cont.)
•Haulers who do not service commercial customers or
large residential complexes will lose their ability to
grow for the term of the contract beyond the
population growth, which will vary by collection
district.
•The general thought that government should not
interfere with the operations of private enterprise.
7
2015 data: U.S. Households with
Access to Curbside Recycling & Source of Service
U.S. Household with Access
to Curbside Recycling
Source of Curbside Recycling
Service
Through Municipality / Private haulers
under contract
Individual Subscriptions
Source: “2015-16 Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling”, prepared by RRS and Moore Recycling Associates
8
2019 Data: Source of Residential Curbside
Collection
Source: GBB benchmarking of 461 cities
Combination
6%Residents' private
subscriptions
11%
Cities through municipality /
private haulers under contract
83%
9
Breakdown of the 83%: Cities through
municipality / private haulers under contract
Source GBB benchmarking of 461 cities
Municipal
40%
Contracts
58%
Municipal/Contracts
2%
10
8/13/2020 10
10
Phone
Survey
28
questions
408 surveys
•65.8%
Burlington
•34.2% South
Burlington
Confidence
rating:
95%
Margin of
error:
+/-4.68%
11
Service Subscriptions
•An estimated 75% of respondents subscribe to curbside collection service
•Assumption: in consolidated model, more residents would convert to
curbside service
Bulky Waste
•Residents seem to have relatively few bulky items to dispose of
Food Waste
•Positive response to the idea of adding food waste collection for composting
Yard Waste
•Much of the yard waste is being managed on site or removed by
resident/landscaper
•Very few residents have yard trimmings collection right now
Cost
•Relatively high collection costs compared to much of the U.S.
•Consistent with municipal areas with above-average cost of living
•Likely a function of route inefficiency and high disposal costs
Key Observations of Survey
12
How much do you pay for
Trash Service per Month?
13
Would you support or oppose franchising,
as described to you today?
50%
16%
6%
28%
South Burlington only
39%
23%
20%
18%
Burlington only
Support Oppose Not enough information Don’t know
14
How would you like to be billed,
if there’s franchising?
32%
15%
6%9%
38%
Burlington only
41%
12%
14%
3%
30%
South Burlington only
Billed directly by hauler
Through utility bill
Line item on annual tax bill
Other
Don't know
15
Consolidated Collection
Key Info
Contracts for buildings with 1-to-4 units
•Larger continue with haulers’ commercial routes
Performance Standards for Haulers Under Contract
•Need to meet defined performance standards
•Can lose contract
Back door service
•Need to be offered
•Could be additional fee
16
Consolidated Collection
Key Info
Opportunities for Small Haulers
•Bid for districts providing opportunities for small haulers
Opting Out
•Residents can opt out and self-haul to a CSWD drop-off center
Current Monthly Price Range
•$28-$49: 64-gallon weekly trash/weekly recycling
•$37-$45: 64-gallon weekly trash/every-other-week recycling
17
Collection Frequency Resident Cost per Month
Trash Recycling Food Waste
Collected
Opt-Outs Burlington South
Burlington
Base case Weekly Every-other-week No No opt-outs $23.16 $23.51
Option A Weekly Every-other-week No Opt-outs at 15%$24.03 $24.47
Option B Weekly Weekly Weekly No opt-outs $33.71 $34.72
Option C Weekly Weekly Weekly Opt-outs at 15%$34.79 $35.37
Option D Every-other-week Every-other-week No No opt-outs $20.45 $20.74
Option E Every-other-week Every-other-week No Opt-outs at 15%$21.20 $22.79
Option F Weekly Weekly No No opt-outs $25.82 $26.68
Option G Weekly Weekly No Opt-outs at 15%$26.67 $27.50
Evaluation of Consolidated
Collection Scenarios
Additional options to consider in consolidated collection contracting:
✓Option to elect curbside service
✓Choice of adding organics collection
✓Choice of back door service
✓Choice of container size for solid waste and recycling
18
EXAMPLE ANNUAL SYSTEM
COST POTENTIAL SAVINGS
ESTIMATED RANGE FROM
CONSOLIDATION*:
City of Burlington:
$700K to $2.8M Savings
City of South Burlington:
$300K to $1.4M Savings
Current
charges for
service
Cities other
utility
charges
Cost of
collection
services
nationally
Reduced GHG
emissions
* Using bi-weekly / Every other week solid waste and recycling as comparative service level for all customers
19
EXAMPLE ANNUAL SYSTEM
COST POTENTIAL SAVINGS
ESTIMATED RANGE FROM
CONSOLIDATION*:
City of Burlington:
$1.6M to $3.6M Savings
City of South Burlington:
$720K to $1.7M Savings
Current
charges for
service
Cities other
utility
charges
Cost of
collection
services
nationally
Reduced GHG
emissions
* Using weekly solid waste and recycling as comparative service level for all customers
20
Pounds of Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
per Fleet
City Consolidated
Collection Scenarios
# of
Trucks
in Fleet
Per
week
Per
year
Burlington Weekly waste collection 3 3,501 182,043
Every other week recycling
collection
2 3,990 103,745
South
Burlington
Weekly waste collection 2 2,039 106,021
Every other week recycling
collection
2 2,155 56,023
Greenhouse Gas Impact
Estimated that consolidated collection
system will save up to
2/3
of current miles traveled /
GHG emissions
3 primary
haulers
covering
nearly all
miles in
cities
None
greater
than
50%
3 haulers
currently
serve 75%
of cities
21
Negotiate disposal agreements
with Casella for waste collected
from cities delivered to Transfer
Station
Direct billing by CSWD for
recyclables collected from each
city / Contractor(s) only charge
for collection services
Request pricing for flexible
service options as well as
maximum possible opt-out
households at 15%
Consider issuing RFPs based on
cities billing residents directly
through current utility billing
system
Collection contracts term:
7 years + 1 three-year cities
option
CSWD expands food waste /
composting facility capacity
(this is underway)
Cities issue separate RFPs
Include options for small hauler
participation, including backdoor
and on-call bulk waste collection
as options in RFPs
Recommendations
22
Next Steps
23
8/13/2020 23
23
Questions & Answers
Thank You!
Jennifer Porter
GBB Vice President
Project Manager
jporter@gbbinc.com
(347) 979-4992
Sam Lybrand
GBB Special Principal Associate
slybrand@gbbinc.com
(347) 268-8919
Kate Vasquez
GBB Project Manager
kvasquez@gbbinc.com
(703) 863-8512