HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 11/17/2008 ,,4.4.4
' •City of South Burlington
[�t/�,`�� ,�1��r,����,� 575 DORSET STREET
42..�' `I SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05403
���� -`„ TEL. (802) 846-4107
'•(,_ ;,`° FAX (802) 846-4101
f° N *16'* AGENDA
CITY MANAGER
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CHARLES E. HAfTER
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
575 Dorset St
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
Regular Session 7:OOpm Monday, Nov.17, 2008
1) Comments and Questions from the public (not related to the Agenda).
2) Announcements and City Manager's Report.
3) Presentation of South Burlington Quilt Square for Vermont League of Cities and Towns
Municipal Quilt; Miriam (Mitzi) Oakes.
* 4) Presentation of Burlington International Airport Re-Use Plan (preliminary).
* 5) Public Hearing on Tree Ordinance; second reading of same. Cathy La Rose, Assoc. Planner.
* 6) Request from South Burlington Family Center for City Service Funding.
* 7) Introduction and presentation by new Executive Director of Chittenden County MPO,
Michele Boomhower
* 8) Consideration of first reading of Proposed Land Development Regulation Amendments;
scheduling of public hearing of same. Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
* 9) Consideration of definition of substantial regional impact to Regional Plan. Paul Conner,
Director of Planning & Zoning.
* 10)Consideration of Resolution calling upon the United States Congress to raise Interstate
weight limits in Vermont to match those of neighboring states and Canada.
* 11)Consideration of refunding note for capital equipment for the Fire Department Ambulance
Service.
* 12)Review agenda for Development Review Board meeting to be held Tuesday, Nov. 18, 2008.
* 13)Review and approve minutes from regular City Council meeting held Oct. 6, 2008.
14)Sign disbursement orders.
15)Adjourn
Respectfully Submitted: cliur\ --
Charles Hafter, City Manager
4110
i&v-
southb ui rigi on
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
FROM: Paul Conner 'Ft
DATE: November 17, 2008
SUBJECT: Chittenden County Regional Plan Amendment
Last month the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission passed an amendment to the
Regional Plan, following two public hearings. Vermont law states that the amendment is
officially adopted 35 days afterward the Commission's vote, unless a majority of the
municipalities in the region veto it.
The amendment at hand is the definition of"substantial regional impact." What does this mean?
The Regional Plan is mostly a non-regulatory document, but it does have a role in the State's Act
250 and Section 248 review processes (Section 248 is the review process for utilities that will be
connected to the power grid. It works much like Act 250). In the rare case that a Regional Plan is
in conflict with a Local Plan, the Regional Plan is required to have a method for determining
when it has jurisdiction (ie, significant regional impact).
After a great deal of debate amongst participants from many communities over the course of a
year-plus, a special review committee recommended the following definition:
"Definition of Substantial Regional Impact
A proposed development has a substantial regional impact if a policy of this Regional Plan
that is relevant to the determination of an issue in an Act 250 or Section 248 proceeding1-20
makes recommendations about one or more characteristics,features,standards,or conditions
relating to the proposed development that are more specific than does the municipal plan."
I attended the committee's final meeting last month and was comfortable with the
recommendation. The language is simple and clear. Based on its wording, it is highly unlikely
that the Regional Plan will have jurisdiction over South Burlington's Comprehensive Plan. The
local plan, by its nature, will almost always be more specific than the Regional Plan.
My recommendation would be for the Council to take no action. In this case, "no action"is, de
facto, an approval of the Plan.
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
1 / MR
Chittenden County
TEL 802.846.4490 FAX 802.846.4494 Regional Planning Commission
EMAIL info@ccrpcvt.org WEB WWW.ccrpc vt.org
30 Kimball Avenue •Suite 206.South Burlington . Vermont 054033
SERVING THE
MUNICIPALITIES OF
Bolton
Buet's Gore
Burlington
Charlotte October 28, 2008
Colchester
Essex Junction RE: AMENDMENT OF THE 2006 CHITTENDEN COUNTY REGIONAL PLAN
• Essex Town —NEW DEFINITION OF"SUBSTANTIAL REGIONAL IMPACT"
Hinesburg
"°n`'g``°n At the October 27, 2008 meeting of the Chittenden County Regional Planning
Jericho
MiltonCommission (CCRPC), the Commission adopted the attached amendment of the
Richmond 2006 Chittenden County Regional Plan. This amendment addresses the definition
St. George of"Substantial Regional Impact" that 24 VSA 4346 (17) requires be included in each
Shelburne Regional Plan. The amendment replaces pages 1.16 to 1.21 of the 2006 Regional Plan
South Burlington adopted by CCRPC in 2006.
Underhill
Westford The process for amending a regional plan that is mandated by 24 VSA 4348 includes
Williston a requirement that the amendment adopted by the regional planning commission be
Winooski
submitted to the legislative bodies of the municipalities that comprise the region. The
amendment is considered "duly adopted" 35 days after the date of adoption, unless
within 35 days of that date of adoption CCRPC receives certification from the
legislative bodies of a majority of the municipalities in the region vetoing the
amendment.
Thank you,
Justin Dextradeur, CCRPC Chair
MISSION
To serve Chittenden County and its communities through an effective regional planning process
characterized by cmmmnication facilitation ech cation coliaboun.on and technical assistance.
October 27, 2008
Act 250 and Section 248/Substantial Regional Impact1-8
Why the Regional Plan Defines Substantial Regional Impact
Vermont has established two procedures for reviewing the impacts of certain major development
proposals:
❖ Act 250—Certain proposed developments are required to obtain a permit from one of
Vermont's nine District Environmental Commissions in order to establish that the proposed
development will satisfy 10 criteria defined by Act 250. One of these 10 criteria is that the
proposed development be "in conformance with any duly adopted local or regional plan or
capital program.i 1"9
❖ Section 248—Certain proposed utility facilities are required to obtain a permit from Vermont's
Public Service Board to establish that the proposed facility will satisfy criteria defined by
Section 248. One of the Section 248 criteria is that the proposed facility will "not unduly
interfere with the orderly development of the region with due consideration having been given
to the recommendations of the municipal and regional planning commissione.s 1"10
In Act-250 and Section-248 proceedings in which the provisions of a regional plan or a municipal plan
are relevant to the determination of any issue,the regional plan's provisions must be given effect
to the extent that they are not in conflict with the provisions of a duly adopted municipal plan.
To the extent that such a conflict exists, the regional plan must be given effect if it is demonstrated
that the project under consideration would have a "substantial regional impact.i1"1 That is,
the issue of whether a proposed development has a"substantial regional impact" is important
only when there is a conflict between the regional plan and municipal plan.
It is highly unlikely that provisions of the 2006 Regional Plan and the plans of CCRPC's member
municipalities will be in conflict with one another because
❖ The Land Use Panel of the Natural Resources Board that oversees the Act 250 process
currently interprets "conflict"between a municipal plan and a regional plan in very narrow
terms: "A conflict exists when one plan allows the project but the other does not."1"12
❖ To determine whether a municipal plan or a regional plan provides guidance as to whether a
proposed development is in conformance with the plan, the Land Use Panel considers two
questions: (1)Is the language in the plan mandatory or merely a guidance and(2)Are the
plan's provisions specific or ambiguous?'"
❖ To determine in Act-250 cases whether a plan provision is mandatory or merely a guidance,
the Vermont Supreme Court established a general rule that plan provisions using "shall" are
more likely to be interpreted as mandates or prohibitions, whereas provisions using "should"
are less likely to be so interpreted.1"14 CCRPC deliberately chose to make the 2006 Regional
Plan a "policy plan"that is intended to provide general advisory guidance and intentionally
chose not to use "shall" in the Plan's policy statements.
❖ State statutes establish that regional plans and municipal plans are to be compatible with one
another.1"15
❖ A regional plan must be adopted by not less than a 60 percent vote of the commissioners
representing municipalities and initially may be vetoed by a majority of the municipalities.1"16
❖ Confirmation of a municipality's planning process by CCRPC requires that the municipality's
plan be compatible with the regional plan.1"1
Vermont law requires that this Regional Plan define "substantial regional impact" as the term is to
be used with respect to Chittenden County. The Regional Plan's definition of substantial regional
1.16 / 2006 Chittenden County Regional Plan
•
October 27, 2008
impact "...must be given due consideration, where relevant, in state regulatory proceedings."1-18
It is important to remember that Vermont law(not this Regional Plan's substantial regional impact
definition)determines whether or not a proposed development
❖ Must apply to obtain an Act 250 or Section 248 permit and
❖ Is entitled to be issued the relevant permit.
Both Act 250 and Section 248 require the permit applicant for a project that is proposed to be located
in Chittenden County to submit a copy of the application to CCRPC. CCRPC is a party in any
such application for an Act 250 permit1-19 and may apply to be a party in any such application for a
Section 248 permit.
CCRPC has established a formal policy for its participation in the permit review procedures of
Act 250 and Section 248. Under this policy,
❖ CCRPC's Regulatory Review Committee considers whether an applicant's proposal is in
conformance with the Regional Plan.
❖ The substantial regional impact definition is used to help identify proposals whose
conformance with the Regional Plan should be considered more carefully.
❖ The substantial regional impact definition is not used to determine whether a proposed
development is in conformance with the Regional Plan.
❖ CCRPC staff are to periodically check with municipal planning staff to identify emerging
development proposals to assess their conformance with the Regional Plan. This proactive,
collaborative approach attempts to work out any concerns about Act 250 and Section 248
applications prior to their submission.
The following section constitutes the required definition of"substantial regional impact," as this
term is to be used with respect to Chittenden County.
Definition of Substantial Regional Impact
A proposed development has a substantial regional impact if a policy of this Regional Plan
that is relevant to the determination of an issue in an Act 250 or Section 248 proceeding1-20
makes recommendations that are more specific about one or more characteristics, features,
standards, or conditions relating to the proposed development than the recommendations of
the municipal plan.
Notes
I ' This section relies on"A History of Chittenden County"by Coralie Magoon,which was included in each of
CCRPC's regional plans until 1991 and on the"History"section of the 2001 Regional Plan.
1-2 In 1798,the Vermont Legislature would deny the"Seven Nations of Lower Canada Indians"compensation for
all of the lands west of the Green Mountains north of Ticonderoga on the basis that their claim was nullified
when their French allies ceded Canada to the English.
1-3 Buel's Gore was first chartered in 1780 and Richmond was established in 1794 from parts of Bolton,Hunting-
ton,Jericho,and Williston. South Burlington was established in 1865 when Burlington incorporated. Essex
Junction was incorporated in 1892. Winooski was created from Colchester in 1922.
1_4 Franklin County was created from part of Chittenden County in 1792and other areas were carved out of
Chittenden until 1839. Since then,Chittenden County has existed at its present size of about 520 square miles.
1-5 Northwest Vermont is composed of Addison,Chittenden,Franklin,Grand Isle,Lamoille,and Washington
Counties.
Chapter 1 —Introduction / 1.17
October 27, 2008
1-6 OMB's standards provide that each metropolitan area must have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more
inhabitants. An urbanized area is composed of one or more"central places"and the densely settled(generally at
least 1,000 persons per square mile)"urban fringe"surrounding the central place.
1-7 A CCRPC policy that describes the process and standards for confirming municipal planning programs and
approving municipal plans is posted on CCRPC's website: www.ccrpcvt.org.
1-8 During the preparation of the 2006 Regional Plan in 2005-2006,CCRPC received many comments regarding the
role that the definition of Substantial Regional Impact(SRI)plays in Act 250/Section 248 processes,the
characteristics of an effective SRI definition,and proposed revisions to the SRI definition used in the 2001
Regional Plan. During the 2006 Regional Plan-development process,limited time and staff resources prevented
CCRPC from undertaking the type of focused review needed to prepare amendments to the SRI definition that
would enjoy widespread support. Consequently,the 2006 Regional Plan adopted by CCRPC in August 2006
continued to employ the SRI definition from the 2001 Regional Plan,except for eight technical corrections.
In late 2006,CCRPC requested each of CCRPC's 19 member municipalities to designate a representative to an
SRI Task Force that would recommend needed revisions to the Regional Plan's SRI definition. The SRI Task
Force dedicated over a year to reviewing the relevant State statutes and the 2006 Regional Plan's SRI definition,
deliberating on the characteristics that an SRI definition should have,considering the definitions used by other
regional planning commissions,and attempting several approaches for improving the existing SRI definition.
In April 2008,the Task Force agreed on an approach for defining SRI that properly balanced administrative
simplicity and certainty. The Task Force recommended that this revised Regional Plan section be substituted for
the section adopted by CCRPC in August 2006 because
The old SRI definition consists principally of numerical standards that each relate to a specific type of
proposed development or impact. Consequently,the 2006 approach has the following shortcomings:
o Numerical Standards—Although numerical standards are precise and certain,it often is very difficult
to establish consensus that a specific threshold truly distinguishes"regional"from"local;"
o Specific Types—Because it is unlikely that a list of specific types of proposed types of impacts or
developments will be comprehensive,this approach may result in gaps in coverage;and
o Proposed Developments—The existing approach tends to focus on the size of a proposed development
(rather than on the actual impacts that are likely to result)and tends to assume that bigger developments
are more likely to have regionally significant impacts(it tends to overlook the possibility of many small
developments having a combined/cumulative impact that is of regional significance);and.
a The new SRI definition establishes a single simple rule that is in keeping with the rules that are used to
consider issues related to SRI in Act 250 reviews.
CCRPC reviewed the Task Force's recommended revision at the Commission's May 19,2008 meeting and
approved using the statutory regional plan amendment process to consider whether the Task Force's
recommendations should be adopted as part of the 2006 Regional Plan. On June 19,2008 and July 24,2008,
CCRPC held the public hearings required by that process and on October 27,2008 CCRPC voted to adopt the
SRI definition recommended by the SRI Task Force.
1_9 The Act 250 criteria are set out in 10 VSA 6086.
t-to The Section 248 criteria are set out in 30 VSA 248. 10 VSA 6605(c)also mandates that the Secretary of the
Agency of Natural Resources may not issue a new Solid Waste Management Facility Certification unless the
facility is included in an implementation plan that has been adopted pursuant to 24 V.S.A.§2202a for the area
in which the facility is located,is consistent with the state plan,and is"in conformance with any municipal or
regional plan adopted in accordance with 24 V.S.A.chapter 117."
t-t t 24 VSA 4348(h). This 4348(h)rule applies specifically to proceedings under Act 250,Section 248,and solid
waste management facility certification. Since January 2007,there were over 100 Act 250 permit applications,
less than 10 Section 248 permit applications and no applications for Solid Waste Management Facility
Certification in Chittenden County.
1-12 Land Use Panel,Natural Resources Board;"Section 32.Criterion 10(Local Plan and Regional Plan),"Act 250
Training Manual,at III.B. "Conflict between the Town Plan and Regional Plan—Definition of Conflict"citing
Re:Peter S. Tsimortos,#2W 1127-EB,Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law,and Order at 24(Apr. 13,2004).
1-13 Land Use Panel,Natural Resources Board;"Section 32.Criterion 10(Local Plan and Regional Plan),"Act 250
Training Manual at III.C."How is a Town Plan or Regional Plan Interpreted?,"citing Re:Times and Seasons,
LLCand Hubert K.Benoit,#3W0839-2-EB,Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law,and Order at 58(November 4,
2005)and other decisions.
1-14 See In re MBL Associates, 166 Vt.606,693 A.2d 698(1997);Houston v. Town of Waitsfield, 162 Vt.476,648 A.2d
864(1994);In re Molgano, 163 Vt.25,653 A.2d 772(1994);In re Green Peak Estates, 154 Vt.363,577 A.2d 676
(1990).
1-15 See 24 VSA 4345a(5),24 VSA 4382(a),and 24 VSA 4350(b)(2). 24 VSA 24 4302(f)(2)defines one plan being
"compatible with"another plan when"...the plan in question,as implemented,will not significantly reduce the
desired effect of the implementation of the other plan." If the plan,as implemented,will significantly reduce the
desired effect of the other plan,the plan may be considered compatible when it includes the additional contents
required in 24 VSA 4302(f)(2)(A)through(D).
1.18 / 2006 Chittenden County Regional Plan
October 27, 2008
1-16 24 VSA 4348(f).
1-17 24 VSA 4350(b)(2).
1-18 24 VSA 4345a(17).
1-19 State of Vermont,Natural Resources Board,Land Use Panel,Act 250 Rules(Effective October 3,2007),Section
14(A)states that"Party Status in Act 250 proceedings is established pursuant to 10 V.S.A.Section 6085(c).
10 VSA 6085(c)(1)states that"In proceedings before the district commissions,the following persons shall be
entitled to party status: ...(C)The municipality in which the project site is located,and the municipal and
regional planning commissions for that municipality;..."
1-20 This definition also applies to applications for Solid Waste Management Facility Certification under 10 VSA 6605(c).
Chapter 1 -Introduction / 1.19
Cat. Program Agency Contact Type Use Funding Local Match Eligibility Application Remarks
Source Deadline
Gil Newbury Highway&bridge Must complete an
District 5 DTA Annual allocation improvement, annual town plan.
Town Highway VTrans 802-655-1581or based on miles of maintenance, State None Class 1,2 and 3 None;distribution May be used to
ib�l Grants Ernest Englehardt Class 1,2,and 3 construction and Town Highways made quarterly maintain recreation
District 8 DTA roads bicycle routes paths.
802-524-5926
Gil Newbury
District 5 DTA
Town Highway 30%;or 20%if Grant amounts
802-655-1581or Grant distributed by Resurfacing and State and All Class 2 Town
Class 2 Roadway VTrans Ernest Englehardt the DTA reconstruction Local inventory is Highways March limited to$150,000
Program I District 8 DTA complete per project
802-524-5926
Wayne Davis Develop small
Local Transportation
<>- Municipal Park municipally owned Near state -$250,000 available
VTrans Facilities Project Competitive grant State None required July
and Ride Program Supervisor and maintained park highways statewide
I802-828-5609 and ride facilities
( Any project that Must have an
I Hazard Mitigation ' Project must be
Grant Program FEMA Ray Doherty Competitive grant prevents future loss Federal 25% within designated Varies approved and
802-241-5258 due to natural disaster area adopted mitigation
disaster plan to be eligible
Transportation,
Chris Jolly Application must be
Community,and Planning and Planning, 20%non- Congestion relief, Subject to federal submitted by VTrans
System FHWA Discretionary grant implementation and Federal appropriations
Preservation Programming Engineer research projects federal match safety process on behalf of
Program 802-828-4572 municipality
Northern VT Road inventory and
Resource Federal Maximum grant is
Jarrod Becker capital budget
Better Backroads Conservation (EPA), $4,000 for capital
Northern Vermont RC&D Competitive grant planning,correction 25% No restrictions Mid-October
Program and State and budget;$7,000 for
Development 802 828 4583 of road related Local erosion correction
Council erosion problems
Michael Hedges 10%for Any structure
- Federal, with a span>6 Must be on Federal
dls1,,. Town Highway VTrans Structures Program Managed by VTrans Major rehabilitation State and replacement; feet on a Class Usually initiated Aid system and
Bridge Program Manager or reconstruction Local 5%for 1,2,or 3 town by VTrans CCMPO TIP
802-828-3877 rehabilitation highway
WAGil Newbury y structure
n District 5 DTA °
Town Highway Bridge maintenance, 10%;or 20/°if with a span>6
O 802 655-1581or Grant distributed by State and Maximum of
p Structures VTrans preservation or inventory is feet on a Class January
Program Ernest Englehardt DTA repair Local complete 1,2,or 3 town
CO $150,000 per project
District 8 DTA 802-524-5926 highway
Rehabilitation of No restrictions.
Contract between historic metal truss Federal, Subject to site If federal funds are
Adaptive Use VTrans Sue Scribner State and bridges for adaptive State and 20% approval by None used,must be on
Bridge Program 802-828-3615 municipality re-use(bike/ped) Local adaptive reuse CCMPO TIP
committee
Bike&Pedestrian
7114-• Enhancement Curtis Johnson facilities,scenic Federal and ° Projects Due in Aug.to Must be on CCMPO
Grants VTrans Enhancement Coordinator Competitive Grant easements, Local 20%minimum evaluated relative MPO for TIP
802-828-0583 landscaping,many to Federal criteria prioritization
options
Peter Keating
CCMPO Sidewalk CCMPO Senior Transportation Competitive Grant Sidewalk design and Federal and 20% Municipality must May/June $250,000 available
z Program Planner construction Local be applicant for county annually
Q 802-660-4071 X14
I- Safe Routes to Aimee Pope
N School Vermont SRTS Education and Must be on CCMPO
W Educational VTrans Coordinator Competitive Grant outreach Federal None Any K-8 School Varies TIP;funds available
biennially
a Program 802-828-5799
co Safe Routes to Aimee Pope Must be on CCMPO
W School Vermont SRTS
U Infrastructure VTrans Coordinator Competitive Grant Infrastructure Federal None Any K-8 School August TIP;funds available
biennially
V Program 802-828-5799
m Sherry Winnie Maintenance,
Dept.of Federal, Almost any trails If federal funds are
Recreation Trails Rec Trails Program restoration and
Forests,Parks Competitive Grant State and 20% project on public February used,must bean
Grant Program and Recreation Administrator construction of Local or private land CCMPO TIP
802-241-3690 recreational trails
CCMPO Christine Forde Annual county-wide Projects
Transportation Senior Transportation program developed Federal, ° All projects must submitted in Jan. Projects must also be
CCMPO All modes State and 0 to 20% be eligible for Adopted in July. in the VTrans Capital
111 Improvement Planner in cooperation with Local federal funding Amended as Program
Program 802-660-4071 X13 VTrans required
Z
O Contract agreement Preservation,
Local Al Neveau Federal, All projects must
F- with VTrans allowing rehabilitation or Must have completed
< Transportation VTrans LTF Program Manager State and 10 to 20% be eligible for Ongoing
2 Facilities Program 802-828-3588 municipality to reconstruction Local federal funding scoping
W manage projects projects
Michele Boomhower
u. Federal, 80%Fed.,
Z Unified Planning CCMPO CCMPO Executive Discretionary Any transportation State and 10%State, Federally eligible February Budgeted for-$2
J Work Program Director planning project Local 10%Local planning activity million per year
802-660-4071 X15
WVTrans& Any transportation Any
Z State Vermont Vermont Economic Federal, transportation Must have revenue
W project that is °
Infrastructure Economic Development Authority Loan State and 20/o down project that is Ongoing source to pay back
O eligible for federal
Bank Development 802-828-5627 Local eligible for loan
Authority funds federal funds
FUNDING SOURCES for TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
In Chittenden County, Vermont
ice, `
CCMPC)
ACRONYMS e ,.
AADT: Average Annual Daily Traffic(vehicles per day) Chittenden County
ANR: Agency of Natural Resources
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency Metropolitan Planning Organization
CCMPO: Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization 30 Kimball Avenue Suite 206
DTA: VTrans District Transportation Administrator South Burlington, VT 05403
LTF: VTrans Local Transportation Facilities Program Phone: 802-660-4071
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency Fax: 802-660-4079
SR2S: Safe Routes to School Program
TIP: Transportation Improvement Program Web: www.ccmpo.org
VTrans: Vermont Agency of Transportation Email: info@ccmpo.org
Updated November 2008
CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Purpose and Charge of the Blue Ribbon Commission
The Board of the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) recruited five
prominent Chittenden County citizen-statesmen, each with extensive experience in the public and
private sectors, to form a Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance of transportation(BRC). The
charge of the BRC was to:
"Provide recommendations by December 1, 2008 regarding viable innovative finance strategies
to advance the region's transportation needs, including all modes as well as the necessary
connections with our land use, economic, environmental and quality of life needs."
Working Groups
The work and recommendations of the BRC has been informed by three working grows each
comprised of individuals from the local, state and federal governments, regional organizations, and the
private sector. The working groups and their charges are:
• Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities Group
"Assess appropriateness of current roles and relationships of the state, regional entities
and municipalities in the planning, delivery and management of transportation projects;
to pursue promising avenues for redesigning roles and responsibilities to make multi-
modal transportation network development and management more efficient and cost-
effective."
• Funding Options Group
"Identify methods and opportunities for increasing the type and amount of methods
available to Chittenden County and Vermont for funding needed transportation
improvements across all modes."
• Flexible Standards and Project Delivery Group
"Re-examine Vermont's current standards for transportation design, engineering and
construction to identify options for applying them in proportion to the nature and needs of
different types of projects. Further, to examine Vermont's laws, regulations and policies
to enable the use of expeditious mechanisms for transportation project delivery, such as
public-private partnerships and design-build contracts."
Timeline & Next Steps
October 31, 2008 —Working Group Recommendations Forwarded to Blue Ribbon Commission
November-Blue Ribbon Commission Meetings to Finalize Recommendations to CCMPO Board
December— CCMPO Board to Receive and Consider the Recommendations of the BRC
CCMPO's Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)
Every five years the CCMPO undertakes a MTP, a document that includes the strategies,
actions and projects that will lead to "an integrated multimodal transportation system to
facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods..." According to Federal
regulations, the MTP must also look out over a minimum 20-year planning horizon and
be grounded by reasonably expected funding. The CCMPO's 2025 MTP was completed
and approved in 2005. The latest version, the 2060 MTP,just getting underway, will use
a technique called Scenario Planning and will cast a wider view into the future, looking
out 50 years.
The process to develop the MTP requires widespread and on-going public and local
government input. The transportation pulse of Chittenden County residents was taken in
2006 through a comprehensive county-wide public opinion survey to determine their
ideas, desires, complaints etc. as they relate to transportation. This survey will serve as
an important public opinion baseline as we plan for our transportation future. More
recently we've started public visioning workshops, an integral component of Scenario
Planning, to help us identify future development patterns and the transportation systems
needed to serve that development. The first workshop took place Wednesday, October
29th at CVU High School in Hinesburg and two others will follow: Wednesday,
November 12th at the Unitarian Church in Burlington, and Saturday,November 22nd at
the Champlain Valley Expo in Essex Junction.
Meetings with local, state and federal government officials, local and regional planning
commissions, business groups, environmental organizations, and other special interest
groups will be on-going through the MTP development process. A draft Plan is expected
late in 2009 and a document ready for public hearing and subsequent adoption should be
complete early in 2010.
For more information on the MTP, contact Peter Keating at 660-4071 ext. 14 or
pkeating@ccmpo.org Also, check the MTP link from the CCMPO's website at
www.ccmpo.org
CCMPCI
i i,
At MO
Chittenden County October 31, 2008
Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Charles Hafter, Town Manager
City of South Burlington
30 Kimball Avenue 575 Dorset Street
Suite 206 So. Burlington,VT 05403
South Burlington, VT
05403-6825
Dear Chuck,
t 802.660.4071
f 802.660.4079 As the new Executive Director of the Chittenden County Metropolitan
Transportation Organization,I am looking forward to meeting with your City
www.ccmpo.org Council at their November 17, 2008 meeting. I understand that you will be able
info@ccmpo.org th
to give us an arrival time on Friday,November 14 . Topics to be discussed in
our 20 minute presentation will include:
• Metropolitan Transportation Plan(MTP)Update
• 2010 Campaign For Active Transportation
• New Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
• Activities of the CCMPO Innovative Finance Blue Ribbon
Commission
• 2009 Federal Surface Transportation Bill reauthorization
• Local projects and needs
We will attempt to be as brief as possible. I am enclosing the following items for
your City Council's review prior to the meeting:
• A Summary of the MTP Update Process
• A Brochure on the 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation
• The TIP Brochure
• A Summary of the Purpose and Timeline for the Blue Ribbon
Commission.
I look forward to meeting your City Council members and working with your
community to continue to improve transportation in Chittenden County in the coming
year.
Please feel free to call me at 660-4071 ext. 15 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
't 1/ 1 (
Michele Boomhower
Executive Director
Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
Communities working together to meet Chittenden County's transportation needs
2010 CAMPAIGN FOR ACTIVE 2010 VISION FOR MAKING THE CASE:
TRANSPORTATION BACKGROUND CHITTENDEN COUNTY WHY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION?
The 2010 Campaign for Active Transportation The 2007 Pedestrian and Bike Summit hosted by the Mobility
aims to fund dozens of communities across the CCMPO,Local Motion and other local partners * Nearly half of all trips in the United States are
country with$50 million each to promote brought more than 70 advocates together to identify three miles or less.
trails,walking and biking for improved critical projects and outline steps to complete them. * Building more roads alone does not
mobility. The Chittenden County Metropolitan The highest priority projects resulting from that significantly mitigate congestion.
Planning Organization(CCMPO)is leading exercise,along with other local plans and studies, * Active transportation investments lead to
local partners in Chittenden County as part of guide our 2010 Campaign efforts and include: increased mode share. Vehicle miles traveled
the national 2010 Campaign, spearheaded by can be reduced five to 15 percent in areas with
the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. • Route 15 Corridor connecting Winooski, good walking and biking conditions.
Colchester,Essex and Essex Junction($8M)
The campaign builds on the Nonmotorized • Winooski River Crossings to connect Burlington Economic Development
Transportation Pilot Program(NTPP)in the and Winooski($3.2M) * Trails spur new residential and commercial
2005 federal transportation bill SAFETEA-LU • I-89 Exit 14/Route 2 Interchange which connects development.
which provided$25 million over four years to Burlington and South Burlington($7.5M) * Trails consistently increase property values
each of four communities (Columbia,MO, • Route 2 Corridor to connect South Burlington and along their corridors.
Sheboygan County,WI,Minneapolis,MN,and Williston($9.1M) * Trails are the top community amenity potential
Marin County, CA)to demonstrate that • Champlain Path rail with trail connecting home buyers seek in a new neighborhood.
targeted investments in trails,walking and Burlington and Charlotte($8.4M)
biking lead to mode shift. The campaign • Muddy Brook Connector between South Climate
anticipates an expansion of the program in the Burlington and Williston($4.2M) * Automobiles account for nearly 20 percent of
upcoming transportation reauthorization. • Cross Vermont Trail, a complete statewide west- United States energy-related CO2 emissions.
to-east trail adventure($0.5M) * Automobile emissions are rising due to more
The campaign kicked off at Rails-to-Trails • Colchester-South Hero Causeway and Bike people,more cars per person,and more miles
Conservancy's TrailLink 2007 conference in Ferry infrastructure to improve the Island Line driven per car.
which elected officials,advocacy groups, Trail connecting Chittenden County and Grand Isle * Walking and biking currently yield greater
government officials and concerned citizens County($1.2M) CO2 reductions than other popular solutions
from across the country gained the tools to • Burlington Waterfront Bike Path rehabilitation like hybrid cars.
make the case for active transportation in their to provide a safe and fun waterfront route($3.9M)
communities. • Lake Champlain Bikeways to expand and Public Health
improve bicycle routes connecting the Lake * The obesity epidemic results in 300,000 annual
Champlain Valley in Vermont with New York and deaths and$117 billion in health-related
Quebec,Canada($0.5M)
expenses.
• Education& Enforcement Programs to * Experts recommend 30 minutes of moderate
4.. encourage and promote walking and biking as part physical activity five days a week.
of a healthy,active lifestyle ($2.5M) * Integrating exercise into daily trips is an easy,
. • CCMPO Sidewalk Program to provide additional fun and inexpensive way to meet this goal.
`'..
.. ,�,;,.„ � � �'�� V:IN � �, , m resources for our communities to develop and
' x ° expand local walking and bicycling facilities($1M) 1.11111
0 To read the complete 2010 Campaign for Active
0
G Transportation case statement for Chittenden County
a visit www.ccmpo.org/BikePed.
ai
•
M e4'" • !
110 .."
,,.. iiiiN
I� ,P,*"...,::',„14.
�:1111 t' it
t Res • +y °
A p I.Vi„t.",:A. i' -....:,:„..:
Z is 't a` e yryy, ,�k+ fi+"4 x ail
+-.4 � � Si::-
f?tT. .....• Ys� a.,t_.. -r .. f '.-S...'n' Jm2 �...a.> � .. �.y.I. .vim✓_'}W4ry yew ` ,' 'N z 'I..t�'
Imagine what transportation • The 2010 Campaign for
benefits our communities could 2 r- M.o •
realize with significant additional - 'e n ctii 'e
resources for trails, walking and f °�"�'""'
biking. For example: For more on the 2010 Campaign
in Chittenden County please visit transportation
*By investing in active transportation • www•CCmpo.Orq/BlkePed
infrastructure and programming,Portland,OR, , or call 802-660-4071 x17
has experienced a quintupling of bike miles C H ITTE N D E N COUNTY, VT
traveled over the last 15 years.
*Thanks to targeted investments over many
years,28 percent of all trips.in Minneapolis, Visit www.localmotion.org to Take the opportunity to dream about
MN, involve walking or bikng. IRN� learn more about walking and Decreased congestion * .S'tronger
biking in Chittenden County
*Estimates indicate that more than 100,000 rocareconomy * Cleaner air,
commuting trips are made annually on the reduced climate impact
Capital Crescent Trail in Washington, D.C.
* Healthier people
For more information on the national * Connected and vibrant
campaign visit: www.railstotrails.org communities
2008 Executive Committee New England Water Environment Association, Inc.
President 100 Tower Office Park, Suite K
Robert Cutone Woburn, MA 01801
Cambridge,MA (781) 939-0908 • Fax(781) 939-0907
President Elect mail@newea.org • www.newea.org
Erin Mosley
Boston,MA
Elizabeth Cutone
Vice President
Executive Director
Howard F.Carter October 27, 2008
Saco;ME
Treasurer
Katherine M.Mello City of South Burlington
Providence,RI Attn: Mr. Charles Hefter
Secretary 575 Dorset Street
Deborah P.Mahoney South Burlington,VT 05403-6260
Concord,MA
Dear Charles:
Publications Director
Susan K.Landon It is m
Wakefield,MA Y privilege to noti fy you that the City of South Burlington has been selected as the recipient of the 2008
NEWEA:
Past President
Arnold T.Bevins Wastewater Utility Award
Vernon,CT
Meeting Management Director This award was established in 2006 by the NEWEA Utility Management Committee. The award is given for
Daniel P.Bisson operations and performance excellence. The purpose of this award is to acknowledge the outstanding performance
Manchester,NH of a wastewater division in the New England region.
PWO Representative You are invited to accept this award personally during the 2009 NEWEA Annual Conference in Boston,
Paul A.Dombrowski Massachusetts,January 25-28, 2009 at the Awards Luncheon Ceremony. The luncheon is the culmination of
Cheshire,CT
NEWEA's calendar, and your attendance affords you the public and professional recognition you deserve for
WEF Delegates outstanding achievement. The Awards Luncheon Ceremony will be held on Wednesday,January 28, 2009 at
Steven D.Freedman 11:30 AM-1:30 PM in Salon E at the Boston Marriott Copley Place Hotel.
Portland,ME
Charles W.Tyler We hope thatyou will be able to attend the luncheon to receiveyour award. The award will bepresented toyou
Winthrop,MA by
Robert O.Button NEWEA President Robert Cutone. We ask you to arrive at 10:00 AM, at which time we will stage a mock
Cambridge,MA presentation for the purpose of taking official and personal photos. Please refer to the final Conference Program for
Jeanette Brown room location. Due to the number of awards given,this will be the only time set aside for picture taking. Our
Stamford,CT experience has shown that stopping to take pictures during the official ceremony interfers with the flow of the event,
John F.Hart and encroaches on the afternoon sessions.
Saco,ME
State Directors Award recipients are NEWEA guests at the Luncheon. You may pick up your complimentary luncheon ticket at the
Edward J.Savage conference registration desk on the third floor. If you wish to purchase additional luncheon tickets,you may use the
Poultney,VT registration form from the Annual Conference Preliminary Program announcement.
Paul A.Desrosiers
West Warwick,RI
Bradley L.Moore If you are not registered for the conference,the NEWEA Registration desk will provide you with a conference badge
Bangor,ME that will allow you admittance to the Exhibit Hall on the day of the luncheon.
George C.Neill
Concord,NH To assist us in setting guarantees, please contact the NEWEA office to let us know whether you will attend
Peter H.Grose
Manchester,CT the Awards Luncheon at 781-939-0908.
Joseph Witts
West Concord,MA Congratulations to you on being selected for this significant honor.
Sincerely,
Eliza th Cutone
Executive Director
cc: Robert Cutone, President
Douglas Lee Miller, Chair Awards Committee
W. Dana Green, Chair, Registration Committee
Carl Hendrickson, Chair, Utility Management Committee
CONFERENCES Edward Savage,Vermont State Director
Thomas DiPietro, City of South Burlington
2008 Spring Meeting
The Cape Codder Resort
Hyannis,MA
June 1-4,2008
2009 Annual Conference
Boston Marriott Copley Place WaFedeEtir:
terment
Boston,MA
January 25-28,2009 MEMBER ASSOCIATION
South Burlington Planning Commission
:ill,*ksto
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
(802) 846-4106
�•� www.sburl.com
Meeting Monday, November 17, 2008
7:00 pm
City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street
AGENDA:
1. Joint meeting with City Council: see Council agenda for details.
Upcoming Meeting Schedule:
Tuesday, 11/25: NO MEETING
Tuesday, 12/9, 7:30 pm: Regular PC Meeting/ City Center Environmental
Assessment Public Hearing (location TBA)
Respectfull submitted,
7
ZIA--
Paul Conner,AICP
Director of Planning &Zoning
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council
South Burlington Planning Commission
FROM: Paul Conner
DATE: November 17, 2008
SUBJECT: Burlington International Airport Re-Use Plan
Burlington International Airport has begun work on two related planning projects, the
Airport Master Plan and the BTV Re-Use Plan.
• The Master Plan, which will be updated over the next 18-24 months, will examine the
long-term needs and impact of the Airport. That process is just underway.
• The Re-Use Plan is focused specifically on the acquisition of properties adjacent to the
airport within the defined noise boundary. This study, which began in October, is
slated to be completed by the spring.
The BTV Re-Use Plan is the focus of Monday's agenda item. The project calls for a series
of three (3) public meetings. We asked the Airport to schedule the first of these early on
in the process, as they are developing their concepts, to allow for maximum feedback
from the City Council, Planning Commission, and community. The results of this study,
once complete, will feed into the work of the Master Plan, which will have its own public
outreach components.
The City, through its planning & zoning department, has been a participant in team
planning meetings on both projects, and encouraged the team to share its initial findings
with both the City Council and Planning Commission.
I encourage you to bring questions with you, but to keep in mind that the focus of the
meeting is on the Re-Use Plan not the Master Plan, and that the findings and idea they
present will be conceptual and preliminary in nature.
I
South Burlington,VT Monday,November 17,2008
Noise Land Inventory Update and Reuse Plan
The Burlington International Airport, in conjunction with the City of South Burlington
and the Federal Aviation Administration, is in the process of preparing a Noise Land
Inventory Update and Reuse Plan.
This plan utilizes federal funding for the purchase of properties that reside within a 65 db
noise level contour surrounding airport operations. 123 properties have been identified
non-compatible with airport noise because of their proximity to the airport operation area.
Tonight's meeting is the first of three designed to not only inform South Burlington city
officials and residents of the progress being made with the Reuse Plan, but to facilitate a
forum for feedback as the Plan is being developed.
The planning process incorporates strategic measures to address the short, medium and
long term land use and neighborhood characteristics as impacted by the Burlington
International Airport's residential home acquisition program on adjacent neighborhoods.
This residential acquisition program is strictly voluntary. No resident or property owner
is required or urged to sell their property unless they desire to do so.
Proactive strategies for land use,redevelopment, zoning, landscaping and phasing will be
addressed in the Noise Land Inventory Update and Reuse Plan. These strategies will then
be incorporated in the Airport's Master Plan Update Study which is currently underway
and will provide for long term community based solutions to assure that the traveling
public is handled safely and efficiently at the Burlington International Airport for the next
twenty years and beyond.
The Burlington International Airport serves 1.4 million passengers annually and has a
significant and broad reaching economic impact on the region. Escalating passenger
growth has occurred over the past decade due in part to the addition of two discount
airlines that serve Burlington and Canadian passengers realizing convenience and/or
significant cost savings in airfares charged when traveling from Burlington, as compared
to Montreal's Trudeau Airport.
For more information regarding the Burlington International Airport Noise Land
Inventory Update and Reuse Plan contact Bradford J. Worthen, Community Facilitator,
Burlington International Airport, 802-343-0861 or via email bworthen u;btv.aero
SBSD Enrollment by Level
What is the actual and projected enrollment?
1200
—a—Combined K-5
1000 is
e—FHTMS
SBHS
800
600
d
400
Z
Projections are based on a four year average
200 - of the grade-to-grade changes in enrollment.
(Non-resident students are included.)
0 I I I I I I I i 1 1 I I I I
c9 CPi9 9 OO O O O O O5 O; O O > > > 's >?
O O OP Oc9 >Tt >6�
(9 O y v.) c, t5 6
—�
School Years
11/17/2008
In Page 1 of 1
From: Trevor Lashua <tlashua@vlct.org>
To: Trevor Lashua <tlashua@vlct.org>
Subject: Interstate weight limits
Good afternoon all,
Attached please find a copy of a resolution calling upon the United States Congress to raise Interstate weight
limits in Vermont to mirror those of the states and Canadian provinces surrounding us.
Vermont's lower Interstate weight limits(80,000 pounds compared to regional limits of 99,000 pounds or more)
force those larger trucks traveling into and through the state to detour off the Interstate and on to local and state
roads.As a result,these heavier trucks rumble through downtowns, past schools, across local bridges, and over
local culverts and pavement. One significant result is increased wear and tear on municipal and state
infrastructure. The 2009 VLCT Municipal Policy, adopted by local officials in October,supports the action
proposed in the resolution.The policy reads:
"The legislature should instruct VTrans to work with the federal government to set weight limits on interstate
highways consistent with existing state highway weight limits in order to reduce the impact of overweight vehicles
that are forced onto local roads".
Local officials in the Northeast Kingdom who have been working on this issue for awhile are encouraging other
municipalities to sign this resolution and join them in urging Vermont's congressional delegation to take action to
make the weight limits consistent across the northeast. Responses to a letter sent by local officials from that
region this fall indicated that at least 30 Vermont municipalities were interested in signing a resolution similar to
the one attached.
Also attached is a list with mailing address for the three members of Vermont's congressional delegation and
VTrans Secretary David Dill (it should be noted that VTrans has been open to the idea of raising the Interstate
weight limits, and has suggested the increase as a solution to the congressional delegation). If your municipality
adopts the resolution, please also let VLCT know and we will forward your information to the coalition of local
officials in the Northeast Kingdom.
Regards,
Trevor
Trevor M. Lashua
VLCT Senior Associate for Advocacy and Information
1-800-649-7915
tlashua@vIct.org
FM
Interstate weight limits resolution.doc
Mailing addresses for Vermont congressional delegation.doc
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175/Virus Database: 270.8.6/1766 - Release Date: 11/4/2008 8:26 AM
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 11/7/2008
A resolution calling upon the United States Congress to increase weight limits on Interstate
highways in Vermont
Whereas, two interstate highways crisscross the state of Vermont, connecting it to the rest of
New England, New York, and Canada, and
Whereas, the 80,000 pound federal weight limitation is applied to the Vermont sections of the
Interstate, and
Whereas, the weight limit on Interstate highways in surrounding states is 99,000 pounds or more;
and
Whereas, these higher weight limits at our borders force the heaviest trucks off the Vermont
sections of the Interstate and onto state and local highways to traverse the state or to make
deliveries or pick up loads;
Whereas, these heavier trucks place an additional burden on local and state roads, bridges, and
culverts, and
Whereas, heavier trucks must subsequently pass schools and down Main Streets, presenting
additional hazards for pedestrians, motorists, and the truck drivers themselves, and
Whereas, the"invisible backbone" of Vermont's economy—its transportation infrastructure—is
already ailing from underinvestment and the effects of usage and age, now therefore be it
Resolved by the Town/City/Village of 1...4, t`"\'ham:'
That the United States Congress is strongly encouraged to increase federal weight limitations on
Interstate highways in Vermont to mirror those on Interstate highways in neighboring states and
provinces.
Z111,4eie " ) o
Chair of the S. Q�s�., �,,,, City Council (Date)
Page 1 of 1
Subject: Overweight Trucks
From: "Bruce Hoar" <bhoar@sburl.com>
To: "Chuck Hafter" <chafter@sburl.com>
Chuck,
Here we go again with overweight trucks. I looked back through my files and have found at least twice before
when this issue has been dealt with or tried to be dealt with. Both the league and Rep. Mazur had solicited
comments in the past. We certainly should support opening up the Interstate Highways to heavier truck loads.
As it is now tucks cannot carry their maximum loads on the interstates. There are lots of reasons to allow heavier
trucks on the interstate. There are just as many reasons not allow them. However I believe that the most
compelling reason is one that is simple. The interstates are just built better than our town highways. The average
thickness of asphalt on the interstate system is between 12"and 15"thick. Also the interstate system was built
under much more stringent conditions then roads that were once cow paths. The average pavement thickness on
our roads is 3"to 4" if they have not been overlaid. Even without the controls on the other materials that go into
road building just the pavement thickness alone adds to the argument that the interstates are much better suited
for the truck loads. The City would benefit greatly just by having 1-189 open to heavier loads. I feel that we
should certainly support any action to increase the weight limits on Federal Highways.
Bruce K. Hoar
Director
South Burlington Public Works
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington,VT 05403
802-658-7961
bhoar@sburl.com
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.175 /Virus Database: 270.9.3/1786 - Release Date: 11/13/2008 6:01 PM
file://C:\DOCUME-1\Chuck\LOCALS--1\Temp\eud6.htm 11/17/2008
South Burlington,VT Monday,November 17,2008
Noise Land Inventory Update and Reuse Plan
The Burlington International Airport, in conjunction with the City of South Burlington
and the Federal Aviation Administration, is in the process of preparing a Noise Land
Inventory Update and Reuse Plan.
This plan utilizes federal funding for the purchase of properties that reside within a 65 db
noise level contour surrounding airport operations. 123 properties have been identified
non-compatible with airport noise because of their proximity to the airport operation area.
Tonight's meeting is the first of three designed to not only inform South Burlington city
officials and residents of the progress being made with the Reuse Plan, but to facilitate a
forum for feedback as the Plan is being developed.
The planning process incorporates strategic measures to address the short, medium and
long term land use and neighborhood characteristics as impacted by the Burlington
International Airport's residential home acquisition program on adjacent neighborhoods.
This residential acquisition program is strictly voluntary. No resident or property owner
is required or urged to sell their property unless they desire to do so.
Proactive strategies for land use, redevelopment, zoning, landscaping and phasing will be
addressed in the Noise Land Inventory Update and Reuse Plan. These strategies will then
be incorporated in the Airport's Master Plan Update Study which is currently underway
and will provide for long term community based solutions to assure that the traveling
public is handled safely and efficiently at the Burlington International Airport for the next
twenty years and beyond.
The Burlington International Airport serves 1.4 million passengers annually and has a
significant and broad reaching economic impact on the region. Escalating passenger
growth has occurred over the past decade due in part to the addition of two discount
airlines that serve Burlington and Canadian passengers realizing convenience and/or
significant cost savings in airfares charged when traveling from Burlington, as compared
to Montreal's Trudeau Airport.
For more information regarding the Burlington International Airport Noise Land
Inventory Update and Reuse Plan contact Bradford J. Worthen, Community Facilitator,
Burlington International Airport, 802-343-0861 or via email bworthen!a@btv.aero
SBSD Enrollment by Level
What is the actual and projected enrollment?
—II—Combined K-5
::: i
- -FHTMS
SBHS
c 800
42) f
m I
600 1
i
t
.Q
z400
Z
Projections are based on a four year average
200 of the grade-to-grade changes in enrollment.
(Non-resident students are included.) f
i
0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 > > > > > > >
cP c9 0 up3? cS` rn -� W c9 O cP 37 cr 61
i9 O O O O O O O O O O > I �> > 5- 5> j' ' -
c9 O up 37 0\ 6) —1 cP c9 O cP 37 (.1‘ 6) -1,
School Years
11/17/2008