HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 02/01/2010 10
•
1'
Charles E. Halter, City Manager
AGENDA
SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY COUNCIL
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
575 DORSET STREET
SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT
REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2010
1) Comments and Questions from the public(not related to the Agenda).
2) Announcements and City Manager's Report.
* 3) Presentation of plans from Veterans Memorial Committee.
4) Report from Burlington International Airport regarding proposed bus terminal location, Greyhound
representatives (Greyhound Coach available in parking lot from 6:30pm).
* 5) Conduct Second of Two Public Hearings on City Charter Amendments.
* 6) Report on 1-89 Exit 12B Innovative Financing Options Study; Michelle Boomhower, CCMPO Executive
Director.
* 7) Report of Sign Task Force Findings; Paul Conner, Director of Planning &Zoning.
* 8) Consider Ambulance Service Fees for 2010; Chief Doug Brent, SB Fire Department
9) Continued discussion on City Manager selection process: residency requirement.
* 10) Review agenda for Development Review Board meeting to be held on Tuesday, February 2, 2010.
* 11) Review and approve minutes from regular City Council meeting held on January 19, 2010.
* 12) Review and approve minutes from special City Council session held on January 25, 2010
13) Sign disbursement orders.
* 14) Consider entering Executive Session to discuss personnel.
15) Adjourn
Respectfully Submitted:
Charles Hafter, City Manager
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
Proposed Charter Amendments:
§ 13-110 . Annual city report
The annual city and school district reports shall be made
available and noticed to the legal voters of the city and school
district at the arlicst time following thc fiscal your, but not
later than twenty (20) days prior to the annual city and school
district meeting March 1 .
§ 13-1302 . Preparation and submission
(a) The city manager and superintendent of schools shall prepare
the budgets for the city and school district , respectively, and
submit same to the council and board of school directors at such
time as required by said boards . The budgets shall contain:
(b) The council and the board of school directors shall
cause copies of the proposed budgets to be delivered to each
member of the steering committee forthwith after the final
preparation of said budgets, but not less than 60 45 days prior
to the date of the annual city and school district meeting. The
steering committee may hold a meeting for the review of such
budgets, giving notice of the meeting as required in Section 1102
subchapter 10 . Prior to thc adoption of such budgets by thc city
and thc South Burlington school district, No less than 4-5- 35 days
prior to the annual city and school district meeting, the
steering committee may submit to the council and the board of
school directors its report and recommendations concerning the
proposed budgets .
(c) The Council shall fix the time and place for holding a
public hearing on the budgets for thc city and the school
district , and shall give notice of thc hearing at least 10 days
prior thereto in a newspaper of general circulation in the city
or by electronic means . The hearing shall be held not less than
10 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date of the annual
city and school district meeting. , The council shall warn then
review the city budget and approve it for submission to the
voters not less than 30 days before the annual city meeting, with
or without change, and in the same manner the board of school
directors shall warn review its budget and approve it for
submission to the voters, with or without change.
§ 13-1303 . City and school district annual meeting warning and
budget
The proposed budgets of the city and school district shall
1
be diotributcd made available to the legal voters of the city and
school district at least 10 20 days before the annual city and
school district meeting public hearing on thc budgcto . Not more
than forty (40) nor less than thirty (30) days prior toe
warnings for the annual city and school district meeting, notice
shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation
within the city informing voters of the date of a public hearing
on the budgets and availability of the warnings for the annual
city and school district meetings, the proposed city and school
district budgets and the city and school district annual reports,—
or by electronic m ano, at lcaot 10 days before thc date of thc
annual mcctingo and thc propoocd budgcts for thc city and ochool
district ohall likcwioc be publiohcd. The council and the board
of school directors shall hold a public hearing on their
respective budgets not more than 10 days before the annual city
and school district meetings .
2
Page 1 of 2
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sburl.com
Thread-Topic: advice for Monday night meeting
Thread-Index: AcghJdPpdJo1 RGWEQRmCQv9YysghewCKTlnw
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
From: Steven Stitzel <SStitzel@firmspf.corn>
To: Charles Hafter <chafter@sburl.com>
Subject: RE: advice for Monday night meeting
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:29:02 -0500
X-Assembled-By: XWaII v3.44
X-XWALL-BCKS: auto
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2010 16:20:29.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[782C3E30:01CAA35A]
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 9.0.733 [271.1.1/26621
Chuck,
Requirements that public employees reside within the community that employs them are
generally valid and do not violate employees' constitutionally protected right to travel.
Reported cases deal with requirements applicable to all employees of a given city or town or
specific departments of a city or town such as fire departments or police departments. The
reported cases generally address residency requirements imposed by statute, ordinance or
charter. There are, however, reported cases that involve residency requirements contained in
individual public sector employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements. Based
on this, it is our opinion that the Council has authority to establish a residency requirement for
the City Manager without amending the Charter.
This said, it should be noted that Section 902 of the Charter provides that the "manager
shall be chosen solely on the basis of his executive and administrative and professional
qualifications." It is possible to read this provision as suggesting that the Council should not
reject an otherwise qualified candidate because of a candidate's unwillingness to reside in the
City. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine this provision supporting a successful legal
challenge to the Council's rejection of a candidate based on residency.
If the Council is interested in establishing a residency requirement for the City Manager, it
is appropriate that such occur with some formality so that it is recognized as a "policy" of the
City. This can be done by including the requirement in the City Personnel Regulations. As
you know, the personnel regulations can be amended by the Council at any time, without voter
or legislative approval.
--Original Message-----
From: Charles Halter[mai to:chafterAsburl.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:57 PM
To: Steven Stitzel
Subject: advice for Monday night meeting
Steve: The Council is discussing whether it is a good idea to require
the new manager to
live in the city. Can they do that by a policy, adopted by motion,
or would such an action require
Printed for Charles Halter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/1/2010
Page 2 of 2
a city charter amendment?
Thanks
Chuck
This Electronic Mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information
belonging to the sender which are CONFIDENTIAL and legally PRIVILEGED. This information
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission was
addressed, as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information in this transmission is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender at
802-660-2555 or the above address and delete this message and all attachments from your
storage files. Thank you.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733/Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 07:37:00
Printed for Charles Halter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/1/2010
Page 1 of 2
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at sburl.com
Thread-Topic: advice for Monday night meeting
Thread-Index: AcghJdPpdJo1 RGWEQRmCQv9YysghewCKTlnw
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TN EF-Correlator:
From: Steven Stitzel <SStitzel@firmspf.com>
To: Charles Hafter <chafter@sburl.com>
Subject: RE: advice for Monday night meeting
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 11:29:02 -0500
X-Assembled-By: XWaIl v3.44
X-XWALL-BCKS: auto
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Feb 2010 16:20:29.0203 (UTC) FILETIME=[782C3E30:01CAA35A]
X-Antivirus: AVG for E-mail 9.0.733 [271.1.1/26621
Chuck,
Requirements that public employees reside within the community that employs them are
generally valid and do not violate employees' constitutionally protected right to travel.
t Reported cases deal with requirements applicable to all employees of a given city or town or
specific departments of a city or town such as fire departments or police departments. The
reported cases generally address residency requirements imposed by statute, ordinance or
charter. There are, however, reported cases that involve residency requirements contained in
individual public sector employment agreements and collective bargaining agreements. Based
on this, it is our opinion that the Council has authority to establish a residency requirement for
the City Manager without amending the Charter.
This said, it should be noted that Section 902 of the Charter provides that the "manager
shall be chosen solely on the basis of his executive and administrative and professional
qualifications." It is possible to read this provision as suggesting that the Council should not
reject an otherwise qualified candidate because of a candidate's unwillingness to reside in the
City. At the same time, it is difficult to imagine this provision supporting a successful legal
challenge to the Council's rejection of a candidate based on residency.
If the Council is interested in establishing a residency requirement for the City Manager, it
is appropriate that such occur with some formality so that it is recognized as a "policy" of the
City. This can be done by including the requirement in the City Personnel Regulations. As
you know, the personnel regulations can be amended by the Council at any time, without voter
or legislative approval.
--Original Message-----
From: Charles Hafter[maifto:chaftercc sburl.com]
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 3:57 PM
To: Steven Stitzel
Subject: advice for Monday night meeting
Steve: The Council is discussing whether it is a good idea to require
the new manager to
live in the city. Can they do that by a policy, adopted by motion,
or would such an action require
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/1/2010
Page 2 of 2
a city charter amendment?
Thanks
Chuck
This Electronic Mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information
belonging to the sender which are CONFIDENTIAL and legally PRIVILEGED. This information
is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this transmission was
addressed, as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information in this transmission is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to the sender at
802-660-2555 or the above address and delete this message and all attachments from your
storage files. Thank you.
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG -www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733/Virus Database: 271.1.1/2662 - Release Date: 02/01/10 07:37:00
Printed for Charles Hafter<chafter@sburl.com> 2/1/2010
. ..,
1 ,,
University Mall/Airportarm ATKA
ig
Lu
it
cc al L c . g o c ::
N a OU a E L c c E A. B I
1• o C a25 m 4.4 O ,2 m „ -a v`, t
-2 — u, a y v je 3 - .o ' r6 °' T N
tJ ,n f= t! < t2 s= w = g 2 2 tf
pQ--e---Om-0smomm0- 0—a►
via Main St. via Kennedy Dr. via Hinesburg Rd. via Main St
W MONDAY—FRIDAY SATURDA_Y_
4 1 0 i 0 r 1 ♦ t '
i
la d Q � a � 1 i
VI 0000 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0
6:15 6:19 i 6:25 R 16:46 6:49 6:56 7:08 6:15 6:20 j 6:25 1 R i 6:36 i 6:48 ; 6:57 1 7:06
6:45 6:49 6:55 R i 7:06 7:19 7:26 7:38 7:15 7:20 7:25 R , 7:36 7:48 7:57 8:06
7:15 " 7:20 7:25 7:33 7:36 1 7:49 7:57 8:08 8:15 1 8:20 8:25 R 8:36 18:48 j 8:57 9:06
7:45 1 7:50 7:55 — 8:06 ( 8:19 1 8:27 ) 8:38 9:15 1 9:20 ; 9:25 — 9:36 1 9:48 9:57 10:06
8:15 8:20 8:25 — 8:36 8:49 8:57 9:08 9:45 9:50 9:55 10:03 110:08 1 10:20 10:29 10:39
8:45 8:50 8:55 — 9:06 9:20 9:27 9:38 10:15 10:20 10:25 — i 10:36 1 10:48 10:57 11:06
9:15 9:20 9:25 j — 9:36 9:49 9:57 10:08 10:45 1 10:50 10:55 111:03 1 11:08 11:20 i 11:29 11:39
9:45 9:50 9:55 10:03 10:08 1 10:23 10:31 10:39 — ! 1
10:15 10:20 10:25 1 — 10:36 1 10:49 10:57 11:08 11:45 1 11:50 11:55 11:08 12:20 11:29 12:39
� w 11:45 ; 11:50 11:55 12:03 12:OS ' i2:20 , 12:29 12:39
10:45 10:50 10:55 — 11:06 i 11 20 1 11:27 11:38 .e 12:15 , 12:20 12:25 — 12:36 12:48 12:57 1.06
11:15 11:20 11:25 1 — , 11:36 1 11 49 ; 11:57 12:08 12:45 1 12:50 1 12:55 1:03 ' 1:08 1:20 1:29 1:39
Ma 11:45 11:50 11:55 - 1 12:06 1 12:20 12:27 12:38
12:15 12:20 12:25 , — ? 12:36 1 12:49 1 12:57 1:08 1:15 1:20 I 1:25 1 — 1:36 1:48 1:57 2:06
12:45 12:50 12:55 1:03 11:08 1:21 1 1:29 1:40 1:45 1:50 1 1:55 ; 2:03 i 2:08 j 2:20 2:29 2:39
2:15 2:20 2:25 — 1 2:36 2:48 j 2:57 3:06
1:15 1:20 1:25 - i 1:36 1:49 � 1:57 2:08 � {
1:45 1:50 1:55 1 2:03 2:08 2:21 2:29 2:40 2:45 2:50 1 2:55 1 3:03 j 3:08 1 3:20 1 3:29 3:39
2:15 2:20 1 2:25 I — 2:36 2:49 2:57 3:08 3:15 3:20 1 3:25 — 3:36 3:48 3:57 4:06
2:45 2:52 2:58 1 — 3:10 3:25 3:3 3:45 3:45 3:50 3:55 1 4:03 1 4:08 1 4:20 4:29 4:39
3:15 3:20 3:25 1 — 3:36 3:49 3:57 1 4:08 4:15 1 4:20 4:25 1 — 4:36 1 4:48 4:57 1 5:06
3:45 3:50 3:55 — 4:081 4:21 4:29 4:401 4:45 4:50 1 4:55 15:03 5:08 5:20 15:29 5:39
4:15 1 4:20 14:25 4:36 4:49 14:57 1 5:08 5:15 15:20 5:25 1 R 5:36 5:48 5:57 6:06
4:30 4:35 i 4:45 4:53 5:00 5:19 5:25 ; 5:40 5:45 1 5:50 5:55 I R 6:06 6:18 6:27 6:38
4:45 ; 4:52 5:00 — 1 5:12 5:27 5:35 15:45 6:15 6:20 1 6:25 1 R 1 6:36 E 6:48 1 6:57 7:06
5:15 1 5:20 5:30 I — j 5:41 5:55 i 6:03 6:15 7:15 1 7:20 1 7:25 i R , 7;48 , 7:57 i 8:06
5:45 1 5:50 f 5:55 ( R t 6:06 6:17 6:25 6:36
6:15j6:2016:251 R 6:36 6:47 6:55 7:06
7:15 ! 7:20 ! 7:25 1 R 7:36 7:47 1 7:55 8:06 U N DAY
8:20 " 8:25 ' 8:30 I R 1 8:41 8:52 1 9:00 9:08 j 1 ( 1 • a
I
9:30 9:35 9:40 j R -I 10:02 110:10 110:21 ? ,�,t.1 0 1 t • d,
1 vE21i 1 , sue F. _ I.t°
1
Pease ask driver if Williston route transfer is possible 1 0 ! 0 1 0 j 0 i 0 0 0 i 0
R On-board request only. 8545 8:50 8:55 1 9:00 9:06 9:20 9:25 9..35
t This bus will travel as far as the intersection of North Street and
North Avenue on request. 9:45 9:50 955 ' 10:00 10:06 1020 1025 110:35
10:45 ! 1050 1055 1 11:00 i 11:06 f 1120 1 1125 1 11:35
AM 11:45 i 1150111:55 1 12:00I 12:06 , 12:20 12:25 i 12:35
a' 12:45 ' 12:50 ; 12:55 1 1:00 1:06 1:20 j 125 j 1:35
1:45 1:50 1:55 i 2:00 1 2:06 ! 220 } 2:25 235
2:45 2:50 2:55 1 3:00 3:06 320 325 335
3:45 3:50 3:55 ' 4:00 4:06 1 420 4:25 i 4:35
4:45 4:50 4:55 1 5:00 ! 5:06 " 520 5:25 { 5:35
5:45 , 5:50 15:55 1 6:00 ! SIIIPA, 620 . 6:25 i 635
Greyhound Ticket Center Schedules http://www.greyhound.com/home/ticketcenter/en/Step3.asp
TICKET CENTER Schedules
Your Selections
Travel From Date To Miles Passengers
One Way Boston, MA 2/2/2010 Burlington, VT 250 1
To change your selections, go back to previous steps.
Select Departure Schedule for Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Departs Arrives Duration Transfers Carrier Schedule
07:45am 12:15pm 4h, 30m 0 GLI 9125
10:00am 02:50pm 4h,50m 0 GLI 0145
02:O0pm 07:10pm 5h, 10m 0 GLI 9143
11:45pm 04:10am 4h,25m 0 GLI 9127
d=day hour m=ninute GLI:GREYHOUND LIES,iNc.
Quoted Monday, February 01, 2010, 10:30 am
1 of 1 2/1/2010 11:28 AM
Greyhound Ticket Center Schedules http://www.greyhound.com/home/ticketcenter/en/Step3.asp
r.....,_
TICKET CENTER Schedules
Your Selections
Travel From Date To Miles Passengers
One Way Montreal, PQ 2/2/2010 Burlington, VT 97 1
To change your selections, go back to previous steps.
Select Departure Schedule for Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Departs Arrives Duration Transfers Carrier Schedule
08:15am 10:45am 2h, 30m 0 GLI 9124
10:45am 01:15pm 2h, 30m 0 GLI 0126
03:45pm 06:15pm 2h,30m 0 GLI 9128
11:05pm 01:35am 2h, 30m 0 GLI 9122
d=Cay hour rrr=rrrnute GLI:GREYHOUND LINES,NC:
Quoted Monday, February 01, 2010, 10:34 am
1 of 1 2/1/2010 11:32 AM
THOMAS HUN R CPRP
RECREATION DIRECTORaI►$1$ S®1t1b1Yll � �
TODD GOODWIN,CYSA
RECREATION & PARKS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Min"kg,
TO: City Council
FROM: Tom Hubbard
RE: Veterans Memorial at Dorset Park
DATE: January 28,2010
The Veterans Committee will have a brief presentation at the Council meeting on Feb. 1st,
to update Council on the Veterans Memorial Project. The last time the committee came
before Council, you agreed on the conceptual design& location, as well as establishing a
separate city account for fundraising. The committee will now share a summary of the
project to date, renderings of the final design, and preliminary cost estimates (all included
in this packet). The committee is seeking Council's approval for the final design,
authorization to begin fundraising using the separate city account, and support for a grant
application to Sen. Sanders. Jay Zaetz, Chair of the committee, and Lee Dore from Dore-
Whittier Architects will be presenting. I will also be attending, along with other members
of the committee.
•
575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT 05403 Tel: (802) 846-4108 • Fax: (802) 846-4101 • www.sburl.com
VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT
Summary
The committee put out an Invitation to Bid to local artists to have them submit designs for
a Memorial based on our vision for the "Pathway of Honor". Three separate and unique
designs were selected (attached) and a preliminary cost estimate was formulated.
The pathway will lead from one of the most prominent areas in Dorset Park, the Pavilion,
to a second popular area, the Bandshell, connected by a concrete meandering pathway
which will be lit at night, with separate spotlights on the monuments, and landscaped with
bushes, trees, and flowers. The intent is to not only create a place to honor our veterans,
but also to provide an experience for those who come to pay tribute.
The first design is a larger than life "Dog-Tag" which will be made out of stainless steel.
The inscription will read, "A Pathway of Honor" "for the Veterans of South Burlington",
and will include a large ball & chain connecting the two tags. The entire project will honor
the service of all veterans, both living and dead,whether they served in a war or not.
The second structure will be a 10 foot cylindrical steel structure with many of the different
wars carved in large letters around the cylinder. As sunlight, or spotlight at night shines
through the cylinder, the letters will appear on the stone surface surrounding the structure.
The third structure will be a monument created by Stonecrafters in Essex. The granite
structure will feature the American Eagle emblem, as well as brass emblems of all the
branches of service. Wording will include the following...
DEDICATED TO THE VETERANS OF SOUTH BURLINGTON
WHO HAVE SERVED THEIR COUNTRY WITH HONOR
"ALL GAVE SOME, SOME GAVE ALL"
'"* ---, ic .. '-----"' .1";.,...._.__„.-/ 1 -
v 'Tr- AT , --111 Iiiiiii\
M.
L /� o �.I• ' °c° o ..11,.r
p0°. aka' a ao °�-
\ 411111
Irtt 4
\ 1�' p � 0 ev 1,j,111W.....
e. a ,0., . ,4, mr2.; 4:, ,c
-i .
?,3.41 . ,,)
milii--
4.. •
III Op
47341 al ''.•-..,"....••e:'ii e N.,,, ,44400. ec),i• , ..7.€7* fp Of2 0 e4 ..
..
0 Ofie ` oa •e l Age: : 1 --.." , I IT:••, a°._
C
s 03. Lis$: Bo ., q
1.1. ° tiQ ,I/fly,Irr.L 4 . °7r " O0°
t t r T� w r! E In ' A
1 -.�rA_i'. 9 1 _,- . dF
--• jr.....
7•1 11414LP,"-5'..fl. , 1 .......; . ',
ikiiiiii.,,
ll:1 ; ..'
11. --'...111111111171$ •
.,.. ' t 1 :
quo f/"
d
- • '` 1
-Limo.°
4 a -�I" y
n V oO ' ,a A.
01 ' o ! A ,•
a 067 as • ! �► e_.� ;s
b p ' r r
ARCHITECTS,INC.
a oQ ) d° Ir
lei' a0
-.= " = - Proposed South Burlington
4
- Veterans Memorial Park
February 1, 2010
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL AT DORSET PARK
Revised 12-18-09
Sculpture#1
Enlarged stainless steel Dog Tag w/granite base $19,575
Concrete Sculpture Pad& infrastructure $3500
Accent Lighting $2000
Pavers at Sculpture $5000
$30,075
Sculpture#2
10' Cylindrical stainless steel sculpture depicting war names $6000
Concrete Sculpture Pad & infrastructure $3500
Accent Lighting $2000
Pavers at Sculpture $5000
$16,500
Sculpture#3
Granite stone monument with military branch emblems $16,000
Concrete Sculpture Pad & infrastructure $3500
Accent Lighting $2000
Pavers at Sculpture $5000
$26,500
TOTAL MONUMENT COST $73,075
Landscaping
Bituminous concrete path $21,160
Low impact site lighting along path $40,000
Site work including trees & shrubs along path and monuments $13,000
Benches $3000
Misc. Restoration $1500
TOTAL LANDSCAPING COST $78,660
Contingency $10,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST $161,735
Proposed Charter Amendments :
§ 13-110 . Annual city report
The annual city and school district reports shall be made
available and noticed to the legal voters of the city and school
district at thc earliest time following the fiscal y ar, but not
later than twenty (20) days prior to the annual city and school
district meeting March 1 .
§ 13-1302 . Preparation and submission
(a) The city manager and superintendent of schools shall prepare
the budgets for the city and school district, respectively, and
submit same to the council and board of school directors at such
time as required by said boards . The budgets shall contain:
(b) The council and the board of school directors shall
cause copies of the proposed budgets to be delivered to each
member of the steering committee forthwith after the final
preparation of said budgets, but not less than -6-0 45 days prior
to the date of the annual city and school district meeting. The
steering committee may hold a meeting for the review of such
budgets, giving notice of the meeting as required in Section 1102
subchapter 10. Prior to the adoption of such budgets by the city
and thc South Burlington school district, No less than 44 35 days
prior to the annual city and school district meeting, the
steering committee may submit to the council and the board of
school directors its report and recommendations concerning the
proposed budgets .
(c) Thc Council shall fix thc time and placc for holding a
public hcaring on thc budgets for thc city and thc school
district, and shall give noticc of thc hcaring at lcast 10 days
prior thereto in a newspaper of general circulation in thc city
or by electronic mcans. Thc hcaring shall be held not less than
10 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date of the annual
city and school district meeting. , The council shall warn then
review the city budget and approve it for submission to the
voters not less than 30 days before the annual city meeting, with
or without change, and in the same manner the board of school
directors shall warn review its budget and approve it for
submission to the voters, with or without change.
§ 13-1303 . City and school district annual meeting warning and
budget
The proposed budgets of the city and school district shall
1
be distributcd made available to the legal voters of the city and
school district at least 10 20 days before the annual city and
school district meeting public h aring on the budgets . Not more
than forty (40) nor less than thirty (30) days prior to The
warnings for the annual city and school district meeting, notice
shall be published in a newspaper having general circulation
within the city informing voters of the date of a public hearing
on the budgets and availability of the warnings for the annual
city and school district meetings, the proposed city and school
district budgets and the city and school district annual reports,—
or by cicctronic means, at 1 ast 10 days bcforc the datc of the
annual mcctings and the proposed budgets for the city and school
district shall likewise be published. The council and the board
of school directors shall hold a public hearing on their
respective budgets not more than 10 days before the annual city
and school district meetings .
2
CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
The CCMPO serves as a cooperative regional forum for the development of transportation policies, plans
and programs that address transportation issues and opportunities in Chittenden County. CCMPO plans,
prioritizes, and coordinates the use of all federal transportation funds in Chittenden County.
CCMPO is a federally mandated agency to undertake transportation planning,but it is locally controlled.
CCMPO is responsible to all citizens of the region to ensure the implementation of the best transportation
plan for Chittenden County. The CCMPO Board is composed of appointed officials from each of the 18
county municipalities, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans),the Chittenden County
Transportation Authority(CCTA), the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC), the
Federal Highway Administration(FHWA), Vermont Transportation Authority(VTA)and air and rail
representatives. These officials are accountable to their respective constituencies. The implementation
of the transportation plan is primarily carried out by VTrans and the municipalities.
Under federal law, CCMPO is required to maintain and update a long range Metropolitan Transportation
Plan and a short range Transportation Improvement Program(TIP). In addition, CCMPO provides
technical and planning assistance to its member municipalities and VTrans.
In January 2005 CCMPO adopted the 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the county. The
Transportation Plan was based upon the Regional Plan that was adopted by the Chittenden County
Regional Planning Commission in 2001. The transportation plan was developed based upon a forecast of
over one billion dollars of federal funds to be spent within the county by the year 2025. More than half of
these funds are to be used for maintaining our present transportation system.
CCMPO approved the Federal Fiscal Year TIP for 2010 through 2013 in July 2009. It is a prioritized,
multi-year list of transportation projects in Chittenden County. To receive federal funds, each
transportation project,program or operation must be authorized through the TIP. During the period of
this TIP, more than$230 million in federal dollars are slated for transportation projects within the county.
CCMPO provides a wide variety of technical and planning service to its membership. Some samples of
this include the following:
• Aerial Orthoimagery Program
• Infrastructure Management System
• Traffic counts
• Regional Public Transportation Initiative
• Route 15 Corridor Improvement Plan
• Route 2 Corridor Improvement Plan
• Signal Optimization
• Sidewalk Grants
• Scoping projects which is the first step to make a concept into a project.
• Technical Assistance Projects
• Transportation Action Grants
A list of projects underway or recently completed in South Burlington is provided on page 2. Once
complete, these studies can also be found at www.ccmpo.org, which is also where you can find traffic
count data generated for your community.
Jeffrey Can, CCMPO Chair
City of South Burlington
CCMPO Work Product Summary
Technical Assistance
Bicycle & Pedestrian Counts
Orchard Neighborhood Curb Radii — 2009
A- Dorset and Swift Street Signal Optimization—2009
Farrell Street Intersection Study—2008
Dorset Street and Williston Road Corridor Traffic Signal Timing Optimization— 2008
Dorset Street Corridor Study funding assistance— December 2007
Safe Routes to School Lite Program (Chamberlin) —2007
Traffic Impact Study trip estimates—December 2006
Traffic Counts
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) sidewalk accessibility inventory— 2005
➢ Pavement Management Study—2004
Safety
Road Safety Audit Review, Airport Parkway/Lime Kiln Road—2006
Scoping
➢ I-89 Exit 12B —Alignment study complete July 2009
➢ US 2/I-89 Southbound On-Ramp—June 2009
• Vermont Route 116 culvert over Potash Brook—January 2007
➢ Shared Use Path Connection over Muddy Brook (with Williston) —December 2006
• Queen City Park Road Bike/Pedestrian Crossing—July 2005
• Airport Drive—October 2005
• Champlain Path along railroad right-of-way (with Charlotte/Shelburne/Burlington) —
April 2004
Corridor Studies
➢ US 2 Corridor Transportation Management Plan—August 2007
(Burlington, South Burlington, and Williston)
Western Corridor Transportation Management Plan—Project underway
(Charlotte, Shelburne, South Burlington, Burlington, Winooski, Colchester, and Milton)
Transportation for Livable Communities
➢ Stonehedge Streetscape/Landscape and Stormwater Plan—2006 ($10,000)
• New School Access and Circulation Plan—2005 ($12,000)
Transportation Improvement Program
➢ Airport Drive Extension (White St. to Airport Parkway)
o $12.2 million construction project to take place after 2011
➢ Bike Path Repaving
o $160,000 ARRA award
➢ City Center Transportation Improvements
o $6 million in grant funds
➢ Market Street Reconstruction
o $1 million for transportation improvements
Midblock Crosswalks with LED Signage
o $240,000 to install midblock crosswalks at 29 locations
Kennedy Drive Reconstruction (Dorset St. to Williston Rd.)
o $16 million construction project completed in 2007
San Remo Drive Streetscape Improvements
o $330,000 Transportation Enhancement grant in 2005
Shelburne Road Reconstruction
o $13.2 million for construction of South Burlington section
Tilley Drive Path (Tilley Dr. to Community Dr.)
o $250,000 Transportation Enhancement grant in 2007
VT 116 Paving, St. George/Hinesburg Line to Williston Rd. (with St. George)
o $2.75 million paving project in Federal fiscal year 2008
Transportation Action Grant
Cars to people: commercial land regulations transformed
Appendix H:
Resolution to Support the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Recommendations of June 17, 2009
WHEREAS, the efficiency of the nation's transportation infrastructure is threatened by increasing demand for
transportation services, and revenue from traditional funding mechanisms may be unable to keep pace; and
WHEREAS, revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund—the major source of federal highway and transit
funding—are eroding, with recent estimates forecasting a negative balance of more than$14 billion by the
end of fiscal year 2012; and
WHEREAS, historically the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Orgainzation has identified that the
funding needed to address deferred transportation system maintenance and future transportation system
improvements in the regional is greater than the availability of funding; and
WHEREAS, the sustainability of matching funds for state and federally funded transportation projects is of
critical importance to the ability of the region to maintain the existing system and expeditiously advance
improvements to the system; and
WHEREAS, recent analyses conducted as part of the VTrans Long Range Transportation Business Plan
suggests that, over a 20 year period, Vermont's transportation revenue shortfall may be $4.2 billion if the
needs grow at 2 percent inflation rate, and$8.7 billion if needs grow at 5 percent inflation rate; and
WHEREAS, prudent planning mandates that steps be taken to responsibly fund future transportation projects
and programs; and
WHEREAS, nationally, there are a variety of innovative or alternative transportation financing mechanism
being increasingly employed by states, localities, and transportation authorities; and
WHEREAS, "Innovative Finance" for transportation projects and programs is a broadly defined term that
encompasses a combination of techniques and specially designed mechanisms that supplement traditional
financing sources and methods; and
WHEREAS, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization (CCMPO) commissioned a Blue
Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance to identify and make recommendations for viable Innovative
Finance strategies to advance regional transportation needs,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
We the undersigned party support the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Recommendations of June 17, 2009 in order to address the increasing need for transportation services in
Chittenden County and the sustainable matching of funding from state and federal sources to meet those
needs.
Adopted this day of , by:
Municipal Body
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
, Communities working together to
meet Chittenden County's transportation needs
it
C C M p CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
110 West Canal Street, Suite 202,Winooski, VT 05404-2109
(802)660-4071 /(802)660-4079 Fax
www.ccmpo.org/info@ccmpo.org
Member Jurisdictions CCMPO Memo
Bolton To: South Burlington City Councilors
Burlington
Charlotte From: Michele Boomhower, Executive Director
Colchester Cc: Denis Gravelin and Sonny Audette
Essex Junction
Essex Town Date: January 22, 2010
Hinesburg Re: Upcoming CCMPO Director Visit to Your Community
Huntington
Jericho On Monday, February 1, 2010 I will be attending your City Council meeting.
Milton Enclosed you will find the advance materials which I will be discussing with you
Richmond that evening. I would like to invite you to take time to review the materials and feel
St. George
Shelburne free to contact me in advance of the meeting if you have any questions.
South Burlington
Underhill I would like to draw your attention to the report entitled: Overview of the Final
Westford Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative
Williston Finance —Alternatives for Transportation Funding in Chittenden County and
Winooski
Vermont Agency of Vermont. The main objective I would like to accomplish during this visit is the
Transportation involvement of your community in support of the Recommendations of the CCMPO
Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on Innovative Finance. On page 9 of the
Ex Officio Members enclosed report, you will find the final recommendations as adopted by our Board
Chittenden County of Directors on June 17`h, 2009. On November 18th, the Board accepted the
Transportation Authority Resolution to Support the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative
Burlington International Finance Recommendations of June 17, 2009; you will find the Resolution in
Airport
Regional Planning Appendix H of the BRC Overview. We would like to invite your community to
Commission become a supporter of the findings of this report and the recommendations for
Rail Industry innovative financing of transportation projects and programs in our county by
U.S. Department of
Transportation signing on to the Resolution.
Once again, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. I can be
reached by phone at 660-4071 x15 or by email at mboomhower(a�ccmpo.orq.
Enclosures:
1. Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon
Commission on Innovative Finance—Alternatives for Transportation
Funding in Chittenden County and Vermont; 12/28/09.
2. Final Report: 1-89 Exit 12B Financing Options Study; 12/31/09.
3. Annual Community Report of CCMPO Activities
4. 2010-2013 Transportation Improvement Program Summary Report
Overview of the Final
Recommendations and
Activities of the
Blue Ribbon Commission
on Innovative Finance
- '
NA-
Alternatives for Transportation Funding t CCMPO
in Chittenden County and Vermont
Chittenden County
December 28, 2009 Metropolitan Planning
Organization
Communities working together
to meet Chittenden County's
transportation needs
CCMPO
Chittenden County
Metropolitan Planning
Organization
110 West Canal Street
Winooski, VT 05404-2109
t 802-660-4071
f 802-660-4079
www.ccmpo.org/info@ccmpo.org
The preparation of this document has been financed
through transportation planning funds provided by the
U.S.Department of Transportation under the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 s`Century(TEA-21)
and by matching funds provided by Chittenden County's
18 municipalities,the Vermont Agency of Transportation,
and the Chittenden County Transportation Authority.
Prepared by:
Michele Boomhower, Executive Director
With support from
CCMPO Staff
Third Sector Associates
The Snelling Center for Government
Resource Systems Group
BRC &Working Group Members
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the
Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Alternatives for Transportation Funding
in Chittenden County and Vermont
December 28, 2009
Table of Contents
1. Background 4
2. Purpose and Charge of the Blue Ribbon Commission 5
3. Working Groups 5
4. Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations, November 11, 2008 6
A. Intergovernmental Recommendations 6
B. Funding Recommendation 6
C. Project Delivery Recommendations 6
5. Public Outreach 7
6. Recent Statewide Actions Related to the Blue Ribbon Commission Charge 8
7. CCMPO Board Endorses Final Amended BRC Recommendations 9
8. Conclusion 10
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Summary Report Workshop on Innovative Transportation Finance
Appendix B: Innovative Finance Commission: "Why Now? How Will We Do It?"
Appendix C: Peer Workshop on Integrating Innovative Finance with Transportation Planning
Appendix D: Working Group Background Materials
Appendix E: Meeting Notes Reference
Appendix F: Further Innovative Finance Resources
Appendix G: Report of the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Appendix H: Resolution to Endorse CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 3
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the
Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
1. Background
In 2007, it became clear to CCMPO board members and staff that future funding for transportation
infrastructure in Chittenden County and the State of Vermont would continue to be inadequate.
Nationally, an increase in demand for transportation services and a decrease in revenue from existing
funding mechanisms continue to erode available funding. The State of Vermont estimates that over the
next 20 year period, the State's revenue shortfall will be between $3.2 and$7.7 billion.
In order to take control of its funding future, the CCMPO set out to examine possible alternative funding
mechanisms. In June of 2007, the CCMPO hosted a Workshop on Innovative Transportation Finance (see
Appendix A: Summary Report of the Workshop on Innovative Transportation Finance, June 4, 2007). As
a result of this workshop, the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance was formed. This five-
member committee began work in March of 2008 and was charged with providing a set of
recommendations 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.
The Blue Ribbon Commission was assisted by three working groups: Intergovernmental Roles and
Responsibilities Group, Funding Options Group, and the Flexible Standards and Project Delivery Group.
These are each discussed in more detail in this report.
A variety of materials was collected for presentation to the Blue Ribbon Commission. These include a
presentation, Innovative Finance Commission, "Why Now? How Will We Do It?" March 31, 2008
(Appendix B) and Peer Workshop on Integrating Innovative Finance with the Transportation Planning
Process (Appendix C).
In the summer of 2008, the CCMPO commenced the meetings of the Blue Ribbon Commission and its
affiliated Working Groups. This Report will summarize the effort and the final Recommendations of the
Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance as endorsed by the CCMPO Board of Directors, June
17, 2009.
All materials are available at: www.ccmpo.org/finance.
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 4
2. Purpose and Charge of the Blue Ribbon Commission
The Board of the 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."
3. Working Groups
The work and recommendations of the BRC was informed by three working groups, each comprised of
individuals from local, state and federal governments, regional organizations, and the private sector
(Appendix D, List of Participants). The working groups and their charges were:
•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."
These working groups were provided with extensive background materials related to their topical areas
(See Appendix E, Background Materials). The groups met several times to discuss their charges and
develop information and recommendations for the BRC's review. The BRC considered these proposals
and produced seven recommendations:
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 5
4. Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations, November 11, 2008
The BRC,by unanimous vote, made the following recommendations to the CCMPO Board* to be
considered in whole or in part for further action:
A.Intergovernmental Recommendations
1. Promote enabling legislation for Regional Transportation Districts (RTDs).
2. Establish a Chittenden County Regional Transportation District.
B. Funding Recommendation
3. Promote enabling legislation allowing the development of additional funding for regional
transportation needs.
C. Project Delivery Recommendations
4. Promote streamlining of permit processes.
5. Promote streamlining of Right of Way processes.
6. Recommend specific ideas to improve design and construction efficiency.
7. Recommend multi-year project budgeting in the Transportation Bill.
*See Appendix G for Full Final BRC Recommendations
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 6
5. Public Outreach
The following timeline outlines the activities which followed the release of the Blue Ribbon Commission
recommendations to the CCMPO Board. The Board was interested in gaining widespread input from
member municipalities and key community stakeholders, as well as the Vermont Agency of
Transportation (VTrans).
November 19,2008 CCMPO Board was presented with the BRC Recommendations
December 11, 2008 CCMPO Board Chair and Executive Director met with VTrans Secretary and Staff
to discuss VTrans response to the BRC Recommendations
January 7, 2009 Phasing Recommendations were developed by CCMPO Staff
January 12, 2009 Municipal Leaders, Staff and Regionally Interested Parties were provided with the
BRC Recommendations/Phasing Recommendations and invited to participate in a
Public Meeting regarding the Recommendations
February 27, 2009 CCMPO Executive Committee was presented with a summary of the public
feedback to the BRC Recommendations
May 28, 2009 CCMPO Board Chair, Vice Chair and Executive Director met with VTrans
Secretary and Staff to discuss VTrans response to the BRC Phasing
Recommendations
Presentations were made to CCMPO Member Communities and Interested Organizations
following 11/19/08 Release:*
11/20/08 St. George 12/01/08 Winooski,Williston
12/04/08 Jericho 12/15/08 Bolton
01/05/09 Hinesburg 01/13/09 Shelburne
01/19/09 Huntington 01/22/09 Westford
01/26/09 CCRPC 01/27/09 Colchester
05/27/09 CCTA
*Note: Communities visited by the Executive Director prior to 11/19/08 did not receive follow-up visits regarding
the BRC recommendations, however,they were briefed regarding the process during the visits in advance of
11/19/08 and provided final outcome information and invited to participate following the 11/19/08 release of the
final recommendations.
Overall eight community representatives (on behalf of their communities) responded positively to the
overall recommendations, although most were cautionary about moving forward in an expeditious
manner on items related to the formation of the regional district and district based revenue generation.
Two representatives were either not in favor or unsure of the regionalization of structure and revenue
generation and the remaining eight representatives/communities did not provide comment.
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 7
6. Recent Statewide Actions Related to the Blue Ribbon Commission Charge
It is noteworthy that several activities related to the BRC recommendations either arose during the BRC
process or followed the release of the recommendations (in late 2008 and through June 2009):
• Chittenden County Transit Authority(CCTA) and Green Mountain Transit Agency(GMTA)
worked collaboratively to introduce legislation designed to enable regionalized
organizational/revenue generation for transit services (See H. 457, An Act Relating To The
Creation Of Regional Public Transportation Authorities; not to be confused with the idea
envisioned by the BRC process of a Regional Transportation District(RTD)). While this
legislation was introduced late in the session and has not begun to be discussed by Legislative
Committees, it is anticipated to be an active item for discussion during the 2011 Legislative
Session.
• A demonstration project to plan for Innovative Financing of projects was authorized in H. 438:
Sec. 99, Pilot Project For Burlington International Airport; Creative Financing; this project will
plan the financing of a potential interstate interchange at"Exit 12B,"CCMPO will be the lead
convener of this activity.
• Design-Build projects were authorized by the Legislature and approved by the Governor to be
used by VTrans in H. 438: Sec. 84. 19 V.S.A. Chapter 26 is added to read: CHAPTER 26. Design-
Build Contracts.
• Streamlining of the Right of Way Necessity process (through transfer of proceedings from the
Courts to the Transportation Board) nearly made it into law via H. 313, the Vermont Recovery
and Reinvestment Act; in the end a technical correction via Special Session Bill S.1 rerouted
Eminent Domain Necessity/Condemnation Proceedings back to the courts for the time being. It is
anticipated that this will be readdressed in the 2011 session.
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 8
7. CCMPO Board Endorses Final Amended BRC Recommendations
Based on feedback from member municipalities, the public, and VTrans, the CCMPO Board of Directors
unanimously endorsed the Final Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative
Finance at their June 17, 2009 Board of Directors meeting:
Intergovernmental Recommendations 1 & 2:
• (1) Defer the consideration of enabling legislation for Regional Transportation Districts, and the
pursuit of a Chittenden County Regional Transportation District, until the federal Transportation
Bill re-authorization concludes.
[Potential impacts of the reauthorization bill may include the re-categorization of MPO sizes,
resulting in the CCMPO being grandfathered in at its current size designation category, also the
2010 Census may result in the consideration of the CCMPO expanding to encompass a greater
area of service and a categorization bump from small MPO to the Transportation Management
Area (TMA)MPO designation with a continuous service area population of 200,000(this should
not be confused with a Transportation Management Association (TMA)such as the Campus Area
Transportation Management Association(CATMA) which coordinates transportation and
parking services for member entities).]
• (2a) As agreed to by the Joint Executive Committees of the CCMPO and the CCRPC at their
April 16, 2009 meeting; pursue continuing dialog on the merger of organizational activities of the
two Boards that offer mutual benefit.
• (2b) Continue to monitor affiliated legislation to enable regionalized delivery of transit services in
Vermont and Chittenden County.
Funding Recommendation 3:
• (3a) Continue to work collaboratively with partner organizations to implement a plan for Creative
Financing of transportation projects as outlined in H.438, Section 99, the 2010 Transportation Bill
as passed by the House and Senate and enacted by the Governor.
• (3b) Work with VTrans to evaluate the Project Prioritization System scoring function for rating
project implementation ranking to determine if additional factors could be added that would
advance projects based on the application of innovative finance and/or increased economic
activity achieved by a project's implementation. To the extent innovative financing can be
encouraged, it significantly enhances the leveraging of state and federal funds and should be
reflected in the prioritization process.
• (3c) Continue to monitor the federal highway reauthorization legislation for mechanisms that
would address alternate forms of funding transportation projects.
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 9
Project Delivery Recommendations 4-7
• (4)Environmental Permit Process Efficiencies—pursue a dialog with VTrans, VANR, the Natural
Resources Board (re: Act 250) and federal resource agencies to determine where permit process
efficiencies could potentially be applied within the context of existing programs and/or through
legislative changes and report back to the CCMPO board periodically as needed.
• (5) Necessity/Right of Way Process Streamlining—work with VTrans and legislators to move the
Necessity process from the court system to the Transportation Board as was supported in H. 313;
work with VTrans and other partners (such as FHWA, VLCT, VAPDA) to determine if there are
other process optimization activities that could be undertaken to increase the efficiency and
reduce the timeframe for completion of the Necessity process.
• (6a) Design-Build—work with VTrans to implement a Design-Build project in Chittenden County,
as authorized by the 2010 legislature.
• (6b) Local Transportation Facilities Program (LTF) work with member municipalities to develop
and offer Municipal Project Management (MPM) services through the CCMPO to assist in
directing additional LTF projects to the region; work with VTrans to determine if LTF program
management functions for Chittenden County LTF projects could be shifted from VTrans to the
CCMPO.
• (7) Multi Year Budgeting—This element of the BRC Recommendations did not receive positive
feedback from constituents or VTrans; revisiting this item at a future time should be considered.
8. Conclusion
The CCMPO Board of Directors is interested in continuing efforts to advance implementation of the
Final Amended BRC Recommendations. Working towards that goal will involve a comprehensive
outreach effort to the governing bodies of Chittenden County municipalities, as well as CCMPO partner
organizations such as the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) and the Chittenden County
Transit Authority(CCTA). A component of the outreach effort will involve visits with these stakeholders
over the course of the fall and winter of 2009/2010. Visits will provide briefings to the leadership of our
member municipalities and partner organizations, including discussions regarding endorsement* of the
Amended BRC Recommendations dated June 17, 2009. The CCMPO Executive Director will undertake
outreach in coordination with Board representatives.
*See Appendix H, Resolution to Endorse CCMPO BRC Report
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Page 10
Appendix A: Summary Report Workshop on Innovative Transportation Finance
June 4, 2007
*http://www.ccmpo.info/library/innovative finance/IFW report 20070604.pdf
Appendix B: Innovative Finance Commission: "Why Now? How Will We Do It?"
March 31, 2008
*ham://www.ccmpo.info/library/innovative finance/powerpoint20080327 dsjohnstone.pdf
*Appendix C: Peer Workshop on Integrating Innovative Finance with
Transportation Planning
FHWA - Santa Fe, New Mexico
June 8, 2008
http://www.ccmpo.info/library/innovative finance/RSG IF integration report SF 20080608.pdf
*Appendix A-C Materials available at http://www.ccmpo.org/finance/
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Appendix D: Working Group Background Materials*
Funding Options Work Group
The charge of this group was to identify methods and opportunities for increasing the type and amount of
' methods available in Chittenden County and Vermont for funding needed transportation improvements
across all modes.
• Citigroup Innovative Finance Presentation — Vermont Legislature: House Transportation
Committee, December 2007
• Overview of Innovative Transportation Finance Options — RSG White Paper, October 2007
• AASHTO Planning Committee— Peer Exchange Series on State &Metropolitan Transportation
Planning Issues
• FHWA Tolling— Current Toll Road Activity in the U.S.: A Survey and Analysis
• AASHTO at TRB Annual Meeting — Session 222: Long-Term Funding Options
• USDOT—FHWA Innovative Finance Primer
Flexible Standards & Project Delivery Work Group
The charge of this group is to re-examine Vermont's current standards for transportation project design,
engineering, and construction to identify options for applying them in proportion to the nature and needs
of different types of projects. Further, 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
• NY State DOT — Commissioner Presentation, June 2008
• Ways To Get More For Your Money In Transportation Construction — Recommendations from
Associated General Contractors of Vermont To The House & Senate Transportation Committees
of the Vermont Legislature
• Flexible Standards in Transportation Project Development— RSG White Paper, October 2007
• Innovations in Transportation Project Delivery Methods — RSG White Paper, October 2007
• FHWA Public Private Partnerships
• FHWA Public Private Partnerships — Extract from the National Finance Summit
Intergovernmental Roles & Relationships Work Group
Assess the appropriateness of current roles &relationships of the state, regional entities & municipalities
in the planning, delivery & management of transportation projects. They also pursue promising avenues
for redefining roles &responsibilities to make multimodal transportation network development and
management more efficient and cost-effective.
• Selected RMA/RTA Approaches in the U.S., September 2008
• Overview of Intergovernmental Arrangements for Transportation Finance - RSG White Paper,
October 2007
Working Group Background Materials available at htt_p://www.ccmpo.org/finance/
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Appendix E: Meeting Notes Reference*
Blue Ribbon Commission
• Meeting Notes -4 November 2008
• Meeting Notes - 7 October 2008
• Meeting Notes - 13 August 2008
Working Groups
• Flexible Standards & Project Delivery Work Group
o Meeting Notes - 9 October 2008
o Meeting Notes - 25 September 2008
o Meeting Notes - 11 September 2008
• Funding Options Work Group
o Meeting Notes - 23 October 2008
o Meeting Notes - 7 October 2008
o Meeting Notes - 16 September 2008
o Meeting Notes - 9 September 2008
o Meeting Notes - 26 August 2008
o Meeting Notes - 31 March 2008
• Intergovernmental Roles & Relationships Work Group
o Meeting Notes - 17 September 2008
o Meeting Notes - 10 September 2008
o Meeting Notes - 21 August 2008
Meeting Notes available at http://www.ccmpo.org/finance/
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Appendix F: Further Innovative Finance Resources*
Vermont
• Snelling Center for Government
• Vermont Legislative Joint Fiscal Office - Transportation Documents
National
• National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission
• U.S. Chamber Foundation - Future Highway &Public Transportation Financing
• National Cooperative Highway Research Program- Future Financing Options to Meet Highway
and Transit Needs
• AASHTO - Future Needs of the U.S. Surface Transportation System
• Cambridge Systematics - Options in Addressing the Looming Transportation Funding Crisis
• Jack Basso Presentation -. Transportation Funding Summit
• National Surface Transportation Policy& Revenue Commission
• Rockefeller Institute Policy Forum- Transportation in the 21st Century: Where New York Is
Going
* Further Resources available at http://www.ccmpo.org/finance/
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Appendix G: Report of the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative
Finance
Presentation to the CCMPO Board
November 19, 2008
Overview of the Final Recommendations and Activities of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Report of the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on
Innovative Finance
(as presented to the CCMPO Board on 11/19/08)
PREAMBLE
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 Groups2
The work and recommendations of the BRC has been informed by three working groups, 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."
These working groups met several times to discuss their charges and develop information and
recommendations for the BRC's review. The BRC considered these proposals and has produced
seven recommendations, which are listed on the following page.
See Addendum 1 for Blue Ribbon Commission members
2 See Addendum 1 for working group participants
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 2 of 10
Blue Ribbon Commission Recommendations
The BRC, by unanimous vote, makes the following recommendations to the CCMPO Board
which may be considered in whole or in part for further action.
Intergovernmental Recommendations
1. Promote enabling legislation for Regional Transportation Districts (RTDs).
2. Establish a Chittenden County Regional Transportation District.3
Funding Recommendation
3. Promote enabling legislation allowing the development of additional funding for regional
transportation needs.
Project Delivery Recommendations
4. Promote streamlining of permit processes
5. Promote streamlining of Right of Way processes
6. Recommend specific ideas to improve design and construction efficiency
7. Recommend multi-year project budgeting in the Transportation Bill
Intergovernmental Recommendations
Recommendation 1: Legislation should be adopted enabling Regional Transportation
Districts in Vermont
Vermont should enact legislation enabling regions within Vermont to create regional
transportation districts (RTDs). An RTD would correspond to a regional planning commission
territory or, where applicable, a metropolitan planning organization(MPO)boundary as defined
in federal statute. Powers would be vested in an RTD in three phases, with progressively greater
responsibilities in each phase.
Creation and Governance
An RTD would be created by affirmative votes of the governing bodies of the subject
communities. The RTD would have a"whole regioni4 perspective; however the towns voting
affirmatively could proceed without the participation of a town or towns which chose not to
participate.
3 For ease of reference,"Chittenden County"is used to signify the region for the RTD,however,the MPO Boundary
may expand to include adjoining communities outside of Chittenden County after future Censuses as prescribed in
federal statute.
4 The Intergovernmental Roles and Responsibilities Working Group felt strongly that an RTD should be constituted
with a truly regional perspective,rather than as a collection of municipalities with representatives. One approach
might be for all RTD board members to be elected by a majority vote of the select boards in the region,with no
more than two members from any single municipality.
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 3 of 10
The development of any RTD would involve three definitive phases. Each phase would need to
be completed to the satisfaction of the participating governing bodies before the RTD could
proceed to the next phase.
Phase 1 RTD powers:
a) Coordinate closely or merge with the subject regional planning commission and, if
applicable, the metropolitan planning organization;
b) Set all regional transportation priorities that are subject to federal funding;
c) Create a Regional Transportation Facilities (RTF)program to plan,build and maintain
the regionally significant transportation facilities5 within the RTD's jurisdiction;
d) Receive and manage an appropriate share of the federal transportation monies each year,
based on the average of the prior 5 years and a fair and appropriate annual adjustment;
e) Receive and manage an appropriate share of state transportation revenues based on a
formula to be negotiated;
f) Enter into mutually beneficial agreements with member and non-member municipalities
around corridor planning and other issues;
g) Enter into mutually beneficial agreements with private parties for financing some or all
mutually beneficial projects;
h) Participate in Act 250 and other land use planning processes that affect the regional
transportation system;
i) Implement incentive programs to use public transit and alternative modes of
transportation.
Phase 2 RTD powers:
a) Where applicable,undertake other regional transportation-related responsibilities such as
regional transit management and funding, and charge member communities accordingly;
b) Levy and collect user fees and/or taxes within the region, for expenditure on a regional
transit system and on transportation infrastructure development;
c) Levy fees on new development and create special tax districts to support the regional
transportation system.
Phase 3 RTD powers:
a) Issue revenue bonds backed by funding streams developed in Phase 2;
b) Issue general obligation bonds with the credit backing of the member communities.
5 The definition of"regionally significant transportation facility"would be developed by the RTD in collaboration
with regional municipalities and VTrans and pursuant to federal regulations governing MPOs designated as
"Transportation Management Areas"(which the CCMPO current is not).
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 4 of 10
Recommendation 2: Chittenden County should establish a Regional Transportation
District
Under the statutory authorities described in Recommendation 1, the Chittenden County
Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Regional Planning Commission should merge, and
the merged entity's duties should be expanded to include those of a Regional Transportation
District under the new law.
Phase 1,Chittenden Region
a) The RTD would be formally designated as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for
the Census-designated Burlington Urbanized Area and adjacent municipalities
comprising the CCMPO.
b) Chittenden County's obligated federal funding for the 5 years from FY'03 to FY'07
averaged$37,691,000. This amount, with reasonable adjustments based on future federal
funding, would be provided annually by VTrans to the Chittenden RTD.
c) Chittenden County's historical share of state transportation dollars (amount to be
determined) would be provided annually by VTrans to the Chittenden County RTD.
d) Chittenden County's regional transportation priorities will continue to be established
based on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan(MTP) and Transportation Improvement
Program(TIP).
e) The Chittenden County RTD would create a Regional Transportation Facilities program
to plan, build and maintain regionally significant transportation facilities within the
RTD's jurisdiction.
f) The Chittenden County RTD would develop the institutional capacity to handle, either
directly or through consultants, the permitting, engineering, contracting and project
management for new capacity and preservation transportation infrastructure projects.
g) Where applicable, the Chittenden County RTD would enter agreements with
municipalities and private entities to augment the resources needed to plan, build, or
maintain transportation capacity.
Phase 2,Chittenden Region
a) The RTD would propose/levy a regional tax to establish a permanent, stable source of
funding for public transit.
b) The RTD would subsume the regional transit authority.
c) Each year, the RTD would evaluate the additional annual funding requirement, above and
beyond receipts from the federal and state government, to meet both the preservation and
new capacity goals of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan. By 2012, this additional
funding requirement is estimated to be $50 million to $60 million.
d) The RTD would propose/levy a regional tax to meet some or all of the additional
funding requirements of the MTP6, above and beyond the federal and state funding
available under Phase 1.
Phase 3, Chittenden Region
The RTD would consider the use of public debt as a strategy for accelerating the execution of
transportation infrastructure projects.
6 See Addendum 2 for forecast of MTP funding needs through 2025. Projections based on the current MTP,adjusted
for inflation and averaged over the 25-year life of the Plan,suggest that annual system preservation needs in the
region may cost$55 million by 2012. The cost of new capacity investments,including TIP commitments,may
represent an additional$31 million annually by 2012.
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 5 of 10
Funding Recommendations
The BRC recognizes a clear need for additional transportation funding sources to maintain our
existing system and particularly for additional needs related to CCMPO's 2025 Metropolitan
Transportation Plan(MTP). Attached to this document is a list of possible funding sources.? As
such, the BRC recommends the following:
Recommendation 3: A sustainable source of additional funding should be developed for
regional transportation needs
Under Phase 2 of Recommendations 1 and 2, the Regional Transportation District would be
enabled by state law to levy a regional tax or user fee to meet some or all of the additional
funding requirements of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan(MTP) above and beyond the
federal and state funding, and a regional tax to support public transit. Accordingly, the BRC
recommends two dedicated funding sources: one for public transportation and one for
infrastructure development.
Project Delivery and Standards Recommendations
The four remaining recommendations provide a detailed framework for more efficient use of
transportation construction funding.
Recommendation 4:Permitting Process Streamlining
For the permitting process, Vermont should statutorily streamline state permit procedures in
cases where there are little to no environmental impacts associated with a project(referred to as
Categorical Exclusion projects). The streamlining would include,but not be limited to the
following:
a) Coordination of Federal and State environmental and cultural resource approvals, and
elimination of separate,redundant state and local processes;
b) Development of a single coordinated process for all necessary state and local permits;
c) Exemption of projects on existing alignments from an Act 250 permits to limit process
redundancies;
d) Study of the use of wetlands banking;
e) Establishment of permit timelines for action at the state and local levels; and
f) Identification by municipalities of one local permitting authority for projects.
Recommendation 5: Right of Way Process Streamlining
Streamline the Right-of-Way(ROW)process by adopting the federal Uniform Act thereby
eliminating necessity hearings. Appeals should be assigned to a quasi judicial board such as the
Transportation Board. Investigate methods to speed up appraisals and negotiations with
landowners.
7 See Addendum 3: Funding Sources Evaluation
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 6 of 10
Recommendation 6: Design and Construction Efficiency
a) Vermont should increase the use of standardized bridge designs in order to improve the
speed of design and construction, and reduce project costs.
b) Vermont should take full advantage of pre-cast concrete bridge components in order to
get the most out of the Vermont's short construction season and reduce project costs.
c) Vermont should revisit/review the historic bridge requirements.
d) Vermont should pursue the use of design/build contracts for bridge rehabilitations and
replacements, and roadway reconstructions. Successful bidders would be fully
accountable for designing and building to required standards. The purpose would be to
give contractors greater control and predictability over their projects, thereby reducing
costs.
e) VTrans should consider ways to improve bundling of projects in a single contract, for
completion within a set number of years at a fixed price. The goal would be to increase
even further the contractor's ability to plan for work flow, work force recruitment and
training, material acquisition, etc. thereby reducing costs and making costs more
predictable.
f) The state should encourage, where feasible, the turnover of management to local teams
for projects on local transportation facilities.
Recommendation 7:Multi-year budgeting
The Legislature should consider providing multi-year budget approval for construction projects
with annual adjustments based on available revenue to allow for meaningful multi-year planning.
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 7 of 10
LIST OF ADDENDA
ADDENDUM 1: Blue Ribbon Commission Members & Working Group Participants
ADDENDUM 2: Forecast of MTP Funding Needs Through 2025
ADDENDUM 3: Funding Sources Evaluation
11/19/08 CCMPO BRC Recommendations Page 8 of 10
ADDENDUM 1: Blue Ribbon Commission Members &
Working Group Participants
Blue Ribbon Commission
Member Peter Clavelle
Member Jim Condos
Member John O'Kane
Member Bob Penniman
Member Tom Torti
FundingOjtions Work Grou s Dave Roberts,CCMPO Staf
Private Developers Bob Bouchard
LCCC Dawn Francis
Town Reps Jonathan Leopold,Paul Conner
CCTA Chris Cole
VTrans Tom Daniel, Carmen Neveau,Matt Langham
Citizen Marcy Ryan
Legislative Delegation Ted Brady,Jeff Munger,Mary Sprayregen
FHWA Chris Jolly
CCRPC Charlie Baker
VLCT Trevor Lashua
Planner Juli Beth Hinds
Flexible Standards & Project Delivery (Eleni Churchill,CCMPO Staff)
Concrete Industry Mike Coates
VTrans Jim Bush,Al Neveau, Kevin Marshia
Engineers Greg Edwards,Jim Donovan
Community Representatives Sonny Audette,Carol Duncan,Bruce Hoar
VLCT Karen Horn
TAC Representative Andy Legg
FHWA Chris Jolly
Intergovernmental Roles&Relationships Work Group (Christine Forde& Bryan Davis,CCMPO
Staff)
CCTA Chris Cole
Town Managers Chuck Hafter, Sandy Miller
VLCT Trevor Lashua
LCCC Dawn Francis
CCRPC Charlie Baker
BIA Brian Searles
VTrans Mel Adams,Amy Bell
CATMA Meredith Shuft
UTC Lisa Aultman Hall
FHWA Chris Jolly
11/19/08 CC11PO BRC Recommendations Page 9 of 10
ADDENDUM 2: FORECAST OF MTP FUNDING NEEDS THROUGH 2025
1 I i •' Year 2000 Dollars (Millions)
y
if a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
all
‘-'° 1 C)
-(4.)
c)p00) e. ft 0
\\I 1)1 .
1pp6
CL
,'p° (D
T =
9 n m 7.
n
<p,, 1
,-)p,,) I
�p
CL
°4 M
CO
V)pzs 1
in Z
3
1,6
c a CD
"s (I)w °�� ' Az t -.
a, 1p ' -
�9 1. O
g
°�O / / / C
N
O n • C X
1� � " 3 N
c 0
0 1p .�'^ d a n IV
g P.- vp rp ' w' v.
a
CTI
N �y A F
°° p� N 4
0
c
0
44,
2. ADDENDUM 3: FUNDING SOURCES EVALUATION
CCMPO Innovative Finance Blue Ribbon Commission
Funding Options Workgroup
Funding Sources Evaluation
10/25/2008
..
Revenue Ease of RelReimiunship to ,'State(5)or
Stability/ Moltunodnl Est.Annual Chit.Cry. Assumptions/Calculation lions/Calculation Regional IR) Currently Authonn•d'
Potential Funding source Adequacy Predictability Lyuny implement' Feasibility tcunutnlc Revenue(2008) p
Yield at tun tflit.leil,y Implementuli.a
Gasoline Excise(per gallon)Tax 0 0 4 • 4 0 -$1 million le/gallon S State level only
Diesel Excise Tax 0 0 4 • 4 0 <$0.5 million 1 c/gallon S State level only
Indexed Gasoline Excise Tax () 4 0 • 4 0 -$1 million+ lc/gallon+CPI S No
Motor Fuel Sales Tax 4 0 0 • 4 0 -$3 million 1%on gas sales 5 No
Value Added Tax • 4 4 4 4 0 Mid Varies with Industries covered S/R No
Registration Fee • 4 4 • 0 4 $1.2 million $5-$10 per year on each reg vehicle S/R State level only
Personal Property Tax on Vehicles • • 4 4 4 4 $9.10 million $5000/vehicle x 1%tax S/R No
Vehicle Sales Tax 4 4 • • 4 0 $2.4 million 1%-2%on each vehicle sold in CC S/R State level only
Tolling New Lanes/Facilities • 0 • 0 ;.) • Low-Mid Minimal new highway lanes S/R No
VMT Fees • 4 4 0 - • Mid-High Significant VMT in CC S/R No
O
Local Option Sates Tax • • 4 • • 0 $10.20 million 1%on retail sales in CC R Yes w/restrictions
`_
LI Impact Fees 4 4 • • 4 4 Mid-H(gh Regionalized fees>municipal fees R Yes w/restrictions
i; Innovative Financing•Debt • • 4 0 • 4 Mid-High Regionalized debt capacity>muncip capacities S/R Yes w/restrictions
OPublic-Private Partnerships • 4 • 0 4 • Low-Mid Few CC projects approp for PPPs S/R Yes w/restrictions
t� Payroll Tax • • 4 4 • 0 $10-41 million .25%-1%of total annual CC wages S/R No
CC CC Business Energy Tax Credit 4 4 • 4 • • Low-Mid 35%tax credit on eligible private spending 5 No
m Special Asssessment Districts • • • 4 • • Mid-High Similar to successful BID initiatives R ?
C,
r
VKEY: •Excellent 4 Fair 0 Poor
Sc
0
a
A•14IIPA1R , S GINC .
� TR��tiSPORTATION
•
•
ill
a
Yes 1 t.�1 _il. i
I-89 Exit 12B
Financing Options
Study
December 31, 2009
Final Report
Prepared For:
VT Legislature In Accordance With
Section 99 of Act No. 50 (H.438)
Of the 2009-2010 Legislature
On Behalf Of:
Chittenden County Metropolitan
Planning Organization
Prepared By:
Resource Systems Group, and
Michael J. Munson, PH.D, FAICP
DATA 1 ANALYSIS I SOLUTIONS
Report Prepared for:
The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization, in cooperation with the
Vermont Agency of Transportation in Response to Section 99 of Act No. 50(H. 438) of
the 2009-2010 Vermont Legislature
The preparation of this report has been financed in part through grant[s]from the Federal Highway
Administration and Federal Transit Administration,U.S.Department of Transportation, under the
State Planning and Research Program,Section 505 for Metropolitan Planning Program,Section 104(f)]
of Title 23,U.S. Code. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy
of the U.S.Department of Transportation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY E-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT COST AND GENERAL FUNDING SOURCES 2
3.0 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CONTEXT 3
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS 4
5.0 LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS REVENUE ESTIMATES 10
6.0 CASE STUDIES 24
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 27
APPENDIX A: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 31
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 32
APPENDIX B: DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS 33
APPENDIX C: PROPERTY TAXES FOR CHITTENDEN COUNTY MUNICIPALITIES 35
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Estimated Project Costs 2
Table 2: Federal/Non-Federal Funding Proportions by Design Alternatives 3
Table 3: Maximum Bonded Indebtedness Supported by Various Financing Approaches 23
Table 4:Case Study A-Undeveloped Parcel Case Study 25
Table 5: Estimated Impact on Annual Property Tax for Case Study A after Development Occurs 25
Table 6: Non-Residential Tax Rates in Surrounding Municipalities 26
Table 7:Case Study B-Developed Parcel Case Study 26
Table 8:Estimated Impact on Annual Property Tax for Case Study B 26
Table 9: Bond Amount Supported by Different Funding Mechanisms...., 28
Table 10: Exit 12B Funding Source Options 29
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1:Assumed Financing District Limits 11
Figure 2:South Burlington Exit 12B Finance District Growth Assumptions 14
Figure 3:Williston Exit 12B Finance District Growth Assumptions 15
Figure 4:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from So. Burlington Exit 12B Financing District-$0.05 per
Square Foot Assessment 17
IN/
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page i
Figure 5:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from Williston Exit 12B Financing District-$0.05 per Square
Foot Assessment 17
Figure 6:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from So. Burlington Exit 12B Financing District-$0.05 per$100
of Assessed Value 18
Figure 7:Cash Flow for$4,500,000 Bond from Williston Exit 12B Financing District-$0.05 per$100 of
Assessed Value 19
Figure 8:Cash Flow for$3,000,000 Bond Supported by TIF in So.Burlington Exist 12B Financing District 20
Figure 9:Cash Flow for$675,000 Bond Supported by Development Impact Fee in So. Burlington Exit 12B
Financing District 22
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page ii Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -_
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to explore innovative financing options for the
construction of a proposed new interchange between I-89 and VT 116 in the City of
South Burlington,VT (referred to as Exit 12B). The report responds to the
requirements of Section 99 of Act No. 50 (H.438) of the 2009-2010 Legislature,
which charged the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CCMPO) with completing a pilot project to "... examine the potential for a public-
private initiatives program...for the advancing of an interchange on Interstate 89
along Vermont Route 116 in South Burlington..."To undertake this task, the CCMPO
convened an advisory committee in June 2009 that provided information and input
and directed the consultants.
The CCMPO completed a feasibility study in 2008 that found that two design
options -- a modified diamond interchange and a modified single point urban
interchange (SPUI) --would provide acceptable performance.The total estimated
project cost ranges from$33.4 for a modified diamond to $47.5 million for single
point urban interchange, not including right-of-way acquisitions. Under current
law, federal funds may be used for 80% to 90% of these costs.The minimum non-
federal match requirement ranges from a low of$3.3 million to a high of$9.5
million, depending on the design selected and the availability of 80% or 90%
federal funds.
In 2008, the CCMPO's Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation Financing
identified several potentially fruitful sources of additional funding for
transportation projects and operations in the region, including: Local Option Sales
Tax, Impact Fees, Debt Financing (Bonds), Public-Private Partnerships, Special
Assessment Districts, and Tolling.All of these options are discussed in the report.
The following options were selected for analysis because they have the potential to
generate revenue for use in paying down a bond: a Special Assessment District
(based on square footage or assessed value),Tax Incremental Financing District,
Development Impact Fees, and surcharges at the Burlington International Airport.
Local options sales taxes already exist in South Burlington and Williston and have
been designated for other uses. Public/Private partnerships,which require a
transportation facility that can generate revenue (most often with tolls) is not
applicable in this case.
For the purpose of this study, the consultants assumed a financing district that
includes portions in South Burlington and Williston that would benefit from access
to the proposed interchange (Figure E-1). The South Burlington portion includes
the land around the airport. The Williston portion includes the commercial and
mixed use areas around Taft Corners.
Other design alternatives may be selected through the Environmental Impact Statement process that may result in different cost
estimates.
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page E-1
Figure E-1:Assumed Exit 128 Financing District
\,,,,‘ i \-: ,
� South Burlington Portion
s �\ igkiiiirWilliston Portion
/ Two\ \--- - - 4 ,......_____1. i F...4., u ,,,,,
1st, !, \ r
I 11 i
.A iv.. nr
1i*�; �� s� r
,.r .1 , f_ .. ,_
----4'6. AllritAtOP 4 Ord,'it i' ,''' _
4 1
.- .. ,,t ,___._) , . wk..," _.,41.„ .irm-, 0,t4, , )
q , ii ___E Nib._ t,_ - 1,4, 4110 ,_. 41,42.„- , y --, P
••x� � •
Exit 12B✓( ■li� ~ —gig Rive
E i'
0 1-89 Exit 12B Assumed Financing District E R s 6
Table E-1 shows the bond amounts that could be supported by the various funding
mechanisms within each portion of the assumed financing district.
Table E-1:Bond Amount Supported by Different Funding Mechanisms
Financing District
Financing Approach
South Burlington Williston
Special Assessment District'
$1,750,000 $1,750,000
($0.05 per s.f of Floor Area)
Special Assessment District' $1,750,000 $4,500,000
($0.05 per$100 of Assessed Value)
T.I.F. District2 $3,000,000 Not Applicable
Impact Fees3
$675,000 Not Applicable
($500 per P.M. Peak Hour Trip End)
Airport Parking Surcharge
$375,000 Not Applicable
($0.10 on each parking permit)
1.Support from the Town of Williston for a special assessment dedicated to Exit 12B tax is unlikely.
2.South Burlington intends to establish a TIF district for the City Center project.Only one TIF district is permitted per
municipality.Therefore,TIF is not a viable option for Exit 12B.
3.Has potential to double charge developers if used in combination with special assessment tax.
The most likely sources of local revenues are the Special Assessment District
limited to the South Burlington portion of the Exit 12B financing district and
airport surcharges.
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study 1
Page E-2 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
A multi-jurisdictional special assessment district is allowed under state law and has
the potential to generate the largest amount of revenue. However,it is unlikely that
Williston will support an Exit 12B special assessment district because of competing
needs within its own borders. In addition,current state statutes would not allow
revenues generated by a TIF district or development impact fees to be allocated for
projects outside of the municipality.Therefore, revenue generated in Williston by
these means would not be available for Exit 12B.
In South Burlington,the TIF option is not available as a stand alone approach to
fund Exit 12B.South Burlington officials are reserving their one option to establish
a TIF district to support infrastructure needs for the City Center project.
The development impact fee may also be acceptable. However,development impact
fees and the special assessment tax should not be combined because of the
potential to double-charge developers.
In order to fund the potential maximum of$9.5 million in non-federal match,the
special assessment tax would need to be approximately$0.24 per square foot on
non-residential buildings within the assumed South Burlington Exit 12B financing
district.This assessment would increase property taxes on commercial property
within the assumed financing district by about 13%and would make commercial
properties in South Burlington noticeably less competitive with properties in
Williston and Essex. Based on an informal survey of commercial property owners
in the assumed financing district,$0.05 per square foot was considered a
reasonable assessment.A$0.05 per square foot assessment would increase total
property taxes in the South Burlington Exit 12B financing district by about 3%and
would have little or no impact on the competitiveness of properties outside of the
financing district.
A special assessment tax rate of$0.05 per square foot in combination with a
surcharge on parking at the Burlington International Airport could contribute
approximately$2.1 million towards the cost of constructing Exit 12B.The balance
of funds required will depend on the final design selected for the interchange and
whether 80% or 90% federal funding would be available for the project.Table E-2
on the following page presents a funding plan that accounts for these variables.It
assumes that any gap in the non-federal match will be covered using funds from the
State's highway trust fund (although there are no guarantees that those funds will
be available).
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page E-3
Table E-2:Exit 128 Funding Plan Options
80%Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
80%Federal $ 26,667,520 $ 37,969,971
Exit 12B Special Assessment $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
Airport Parking Surcharge $ 375,000 $ 375,000
State Highway Trust Fund $ 4,541,880 $ 7,367,493
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
90%Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
90%Federal $ 30,000,960 $ 42,716,218
Exit 12B Special Assessment $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
Airport Parking Surcharge $ 375,000 $ 375,000
State Highway Trust Fund $ 1,208,440 $ 2,621,246
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
Note: Project cost estimates may change as a result of the EIS process.
This study presents the revenue that could potentially be generated by a variety of
locally initiated funding mechanisms.The most viable options appear to be the
Special Assessment District and surcharges at the Airport. Both options will require
local approval. In order to establish a special assessment district,the South
Burlington City Council will need to (1) decide that it supports the concept and (2)
seek approval by a majority of the voters of the municipality.The special
assessment district could also be established if the owners of all property located in
the proposed district agree to the special assessment; a much less likely scenario.
Fees at the airport must be approved by the Airport Commission.
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page E-4 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to explore possible innovative financing options for the
construction of a proposed new interchange between I-89 and VT 116 in the City of
South Burlington,VT (referred to as Exit 12B). This report provides background
information on the project and its costs, describes the national transportation funding
context, describes several local mechanisms that could be used to fund a portion of the
project and estimates their potential contribution towards its costs,and presents case
studies to show how the most likely funding mechanisms could affect specific
properties.
In 2007,it became clear to the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization
board members and staff that future funding for transportation infrastructure in
Chittenden County and the State of Vermont would continue to be inadequate.
Nationally,an increase in demand for transportation services and a decrease in revenue
from existing funding mechanisms continue to increase the gap between needs and
resources.According to the Vermont Long Range Transportation Business Plan,the
State of Vermont estimates that over the next 20 year period,the State's revenue
shortfall will be between$4.2 and$8.7 billion, unless new federal or state revenue
streams are identified.
In order to take control of its funding future,the CCMPO set out to examine possible
alternative funding mechanisms. In June 2008,the CCMPO hosted a Workshop on
Innovative Transportation Finance.As a result of this workshop,the Blue Ribbon
Commission on Innovative Finance was formed.This five-member committee began
work in March of 2008 and was charged with providing a set of recommendations
regarding viable innovative finance strategies to advance the region's transportation
needs,including all modes as well as the necessary connections with land use,
economic, environmental and quality of life needs.
Realizing the potential of alternative funding mechanisms,the Vermont Legislature
charged the CCMPO a follows:
"A pilot project to examine the potential for a public-private initiatives program shall be pursued
for the advancing of an interchange on Interstate 89 along Vermont Route 116 in South
Burlington..."
In order to undertake this task, the CCMPO convened an advisory committee in June
2009.The advisory committee included representatives from the City of South
Burlington,Vermont Agency of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
Burlington International Airport,CCMPO,and several land owners and developers with
property near the proposed interchange. In addition, meetings were held throughout
the process with the Town of Williston Manager and Planning Director to brief them on
the project and obtain input with regards to components of the project which might
impact the Town of Williston and its tax payers.A list of advisory committee members
is attached in Appendix A.
VIP
Exit 126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
-A.. Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 1
The advisory committee met several times during the fall of 2009.At the
recommendation of the advisory committee,the CCMPO hired Resource Systems Group,
Inc.and Michael J. Munson, PhD, FAICP to conduct this study under the direction of and
with support from the project advisory committee.
2.0 PROJECT COST AND GENERAL FUNDING SOURCES
The 1-89 Exit 12B Alignment Study1 provides a feasibility analysis of different design
options for the proposed interchange between I-89 and VT 116 in South Burlington.
The study concludes that a modified diamond interchange and a modified single point
urban interchange (SPUI) are the two design options that would provide acceptable
performance. Conceptual plans and costs were prepared for these two design options.
The total project costs are presented in Table 1 and have been updated to include the
cost to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The cost estimates
presented below do not include right-of-way acquisition and may change as a result of
the EIS process.Additional details on the cost estimates are available in the 1-89 Exit
12B Alignment Study.
Table 1:Estimated Project Costs
Modified Single Point Urban
Item Diamond Interchange
Estimated Construction Costs $ 18,334,000 $ 27,164,040
Contingiency(15%) $ 2,750,100 $ 4,000,000
Environmental Impact Statement $ 4,000,000 $ 4,074,606
Preliminary Engineering(20%) $ 3,666,800 $ 5,432,808
Project Management(10%) $ 1,833,400 $ 2,716,404
Right-of-Way Acquisition Not Included Not Included
Construction Engineering(15%) $ 2,750,100 $ 4,074,606
Total Project Costs $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
Note:Estimated project costs may change as a result of the EIS process.
Projects on the Interstate are eligible to be funded through two federal programs
administered by VTrans:
• Interstate Maintenance Program (IM): Provides up to 90% federal transportation
funding for resurfacing, restoring, rehabilitating and reconstructing the Interstate
Highway System; and
• Surface Transportation Program (STP): Provides up to 80% federal
transportation funding for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the
National Highway System (NHS),bridge projects on any public road, transit
capital projects, and bus facilities. STP funds may be"flexed"between different
1"1-89 Exit 128 Alignment Study,Existing Conditions,Traffic Analysis,Geometric Alternatives and Expected Costs and:Supplemental
Memo—Alternative Analysis",prepared by Resource Systems Group for the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization,
Final Report-July 2009.The report is available on the CCMPO's web site
http://www.ccmpo.us/library/scoping/Exit12B alignment study/
IrIP
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 2 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -A.
funding categories within certain limitations. Exit 12B is eligible for STP funds
because the Interstate is part of the NHS.
Federal funds are allocated to states according to established formulas and may be
supplemented by earmarks secured by Vermont's Congressional delegation. Non-
federal portions of Interstate project costs (ranging from 10-20%) are typically covered
by the State of Vermont using funds from the state's transportation trust fund approved
by the Legislature each year in the capital program. Financing options for Exit 12B are
of interest to the Legislature because of the potential to reduce the need for state and
federal funding of the project. Depending on the final design alternative selected and
the program under which the project is funded, the non-federal match requirements
range from a low of approximately$3.3 million to a high of$9.5 million (Table 2).
Table 2:Federal/Non-Federal Funding Proportions by Design Alternatives
80%Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
80%Federal $ 26,667,520 $ 37,969,971
20%Non-Federal Match $ 6,666,880 $ 9,492,493
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
90%Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
90%Federal $ 30,000,960 $ 42,716,218
10%Non-Federal Match $ 3,333,440 $ 4,746,246
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
3.0 NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING CONTEXT
The federal surface transportation authorization bill, currently pending in Congress,
will probably increase the overall amount of federal funding allocated to highways,
transit, non-motorized modal facilities and freight infrastructure. The following
discussion is based on an initial bill which will be subject to significant change as the
reauthorization process proceeds.
The draft bill Congressional committees are now considering would, if approved as
currently written; authorize a total of about$450 billion over six years, plus an
additional $50 billion for high-speed rail, representing an increase of about 70 percent
from the now-expired SAFETEA-LU authorized funding levels. At the same time,
Congress is likely to consolidate and/or eliminate up to 75 currently separate highway
and transit funding programs. These would be merged into four"core" funding
categories: "State of Good Repair," Safety, Capacity (highway and transit) and
Congestion Reduction/Greenhouse Gas Mitigation. There is also likely to be an
increased emphasis on inter-state freight corridors, reducing congestion and increasing
mobility in major metropolitan areas and environmentally-beneficial projects and
programs. The consolidation of funding programs and emphasis on major goals may
IM4
9Exit
12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 3
lead to enhanced flexibility for states and funding recipients in the specifics of how
federal funding is spent.
An important additional theme that overlays the new transportation bill is
"performance-based planning." In recent years, Congress, USDOT,several federal
commissions and other key groups have called for a"fundamental transformation" in
the way federal transportation dollars are spent,transitioning to a focus on projects
and programs that offer the best return on investment in the context of national goals
and priorities. In other words,the pending bill may reorient federal spending rules so
that federal funding is focused mainly on projects and investments that best serve the
national interest. To achieve this, Congress will likely mandate that DOTs and MPOs use
performance-based planning and project selection methods,tied directly to a set of
mandatory national performance measures written into law or regulation.
For a project of regional importance such as Exit 12B,these changes may have two
related consequences. First, assuming a set of performance measures will be mandated,
any project seeking federal funding may need to "prove itself" in the context of showing
positive impacts in the various performance categories. Congress or USDOT could
conceivably require that project candidates for federal funding be prioritized and
selected based on how they perform vis-à-vis the mandatory performance measures.
Second, for any project that does not perform well under the performance measures,
non-federal funding will become increasingly important, since the probability of
accessing highly competitive federal funding sources will decline.
The stakeholders in the Exit 12B development process have rightly recognized the need
for identifying and securing non-traditional, non-federal sources of funding to help
enhance the project's feasibility. In 2008,the CCMPO's Blue Ribbon Commission on
Transportation Financing identified several potentially fruitful sources of additional
funding for transportation projects and operations in the region,including: Local
Option Sales Tax, Impact Fees, Debt Financing (Bonds), Public-Private Partnerships,
Special Assessment Districts, and Tolling. The Vermont State Legislature has already
authorized several of these methods, although the methods may require additional
legislative refinement to ensure their applicability and longevity. Others, particularly
tolling and public-private partnerships, are significantly more complex and would
require more study and legislative discussion before the CCMPO or others could take
any substantive action.
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS
This section of the report defines and provides a brief discussion of the local funding
options and their applicability relative to Exit 12B and presents an overview of
organizational and institutional arrangements that could be established to move the
project forward.
There are two basic categories of local revenue sources. The most common are those
that draw from the entire community and are generally used to provide services and
facilities used by the entire community. Examples include general property tax
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study11144
Page 4 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -a
revenues and, in Vermont, local option sales tax revenues. Local property taxes provide
funding for most municipal facilities and services and are currently stretched to the
point where approval of increases is difficult to obtain. South Burlington and Williston
have adopted local option sales taxes (and rooms and meals taxes),but in both cases
the revenues are formally dedicated to reducing property tax burdens. Finally, since
the benefits of the Exit 12B project are fairly well concentrated on a delineated service
areal, general revenue streams are not seen as having potential for innovative funding
approaches.There are, however, several possible district approaches for enhancing the
municipal (i.e. not State or Federal) tax revenue stream.
4.1 Special Assessment Districts
A municipality may establish a special assessment district to fund specific
infrastructure improvements that benefit primarily the properties within the district, in
accordance with 24 V.S.A., Chapter 87. A special assessment district must be approved
by a majority of the voters of the municipality unless the owners of all property located
in the proposed district agree to the special assessment. The assessment may be based
on assessed value, frontage, lot area, floor area, or any other measure that effectively
links the amount of the assessment to the benefits received by the property. The
assessment will apply to the property as it exists at the time the special assessment is
established, and will apply to those properties in subsequent years as new development
takes place, until all costs for the specified infrastructure improvements have been paid,
or until any expiration date included with the establishment of the special assessment.
Thus, the special assessment district will have an initial annual cash flow that will grow
as new development takes place.
As noted below, two or more municipalities may establish an inter-municipal compact
for the purpose of funding an infrastructure improvement, in which each is authorized
to use a special assessment district as a means of raising its specified share of the costs
of the improvement.
4.2 Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) Districts
In many cases an infrastructure project is intended to enable new development which
could not occur without the infrastructure. The new development adds to the
municipality's property tax base and thus generates an incremental increase in
property tax revenues. Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) is a mechanism that captures
some or all of the increment in tax revenues and dedicates it towards paying for the
infrastructure investment that enabled the development. A TIF district does not change
the local tax rate or the tax revenues generated by the new development. It simply
diverts the tax revenue increment from other government services to the infrastructure
project. TIF relies on the incremental increase in tax revenues created as new
CCMPO model runs estimate that of the traffic that will use Exit 12B,54%will start or stop within the delineated service area,34%will
start and stop elsewhere within the two municipalities,and 12%will start and stop from outside of the two municipalities.
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 5
development occurs. Since the rate of growth created by new development is
uncertain,the potential cash flow generated by a TIF district is also difficult to predict.
In Vermont there are two separate local property taxes that are potentially impacted by
TIF: The local municipal property tax,and the education property tax(which includes
both a local and a statewide component).
In South Burlington,the TIF option is not available as a stand alone approach to fund
Exit 12B.South Burlington officials are reserving their one option to establish a TIF
district to support infrastructure needs for the City Center project.
Municipal property Tax Incremental. As a general rule, the municipal property tax
represents roughly 25 to 30 percent of total property taxes.Vermont municipalities
have the ability to create a TIF district and redirect the increment in municipal property
tax revenues to pay for the needed infrastructure at any time, in accordance with 24
V.S.A., Chapter 53, Sub-Chapter Vl.
Education property Tax Incremental (both the local and the statewide portions). The
balance of property taxes (70-75%) are for education.Before a municipality may
establish a TIF for the purposes of diverting education property tax revenue increments
towards infrastructure funding,it must first obtain approval from the Vermont
Economic Progress Council (VEPC),in accordance with 32 V.S.A., Chapter 135. At
present only a limited number of municipalities may be awarded VEPC approval. The
approval criteria are quite rigorous and the TIF revenues may not be used for
infrastructure improvements outside of the TIF district. Also,the statute limits the
portion of the education tax revenue increment that may be used for infrastructure
financing to 75 percent.
Unlike the special assessment district,TIF revenues may only be used for projects
within the municipality.Therefore, the TIF option is limited to the City of South
Burlington and can not be applied to Williston.
Even in the South Burlington portion, it is recognized that the use of TIF revenues for
infrastructure improvements means that the revenues are not available for other city or
school services. It may be prudent to consider the use of only a portion of the maximum
allowable revenue stream that could be generated by a TIF district.
4.3 Development Impact Fees
Impact fees are levied on new development to offset the cost of providing infrastructure
needed to address increased demand from the development(per 24 V.S.A.;Chapter
131). Only the portion of infrastructure projects that actually provide increased
capacity to accommodate new development are eligible,for impact fee funding. The fees
are collected when new development obtains zoning permits. Since the timing of new
development is uncertain,the flow of impact fee revenues is also difficult to predict.
Infrastructure projects that accommodate demands from development outside of the
'According to VEPC staff,it may not be permissible to implement a TIF solely for municipal tax revenues without VEPC approval.Further
clarification is necessary on this issue.
VIP
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 6 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
host municipality are not covered by development impact fees, nor are infrastructure
projects aimed at remedying existing service deficiencies.Thus,impact fee revenues are
unlikely to cover 100 percent of the cost of an infrastructure project.
Development impact fees may be applied on a municipal wide basis to fund
infrastructure improvements that serve the entire community,or may be applied to a
smaller district or area which will specifically benefit from the proposed infrastructure
improvement.
It is necessary to develop formulae for impact fees that specifically link the demands
from development to the cost for the infrastructure improvement. For transportation
infrastructure,this is typically expressed as a cost (or fee) per PM Peak Hour trip
generated by new development. If the revenues are not spent on the planned
improvement within six years of being collected,they are to be returned to the then
owners of the development from which they were collected.
It is not at all clear that a municipality may impose impact fees for the purpose of
funding a portion of an infrastructure improvement located outside of that
municipality's boundaries. It is possible that such an approach may be established
through the use of an inter-municipal compact. If this approach is to be pursued,it is
recommended that legal advice be obtained.
4.4 Local Options Sales Tax
South Burlington and Williston have a 1% local option sales tax and a 1%local options
meals and alcoholic beverage tax.These taxes were approved by the voters for use in
the general fund as a means to help reduce property taxes.As a result,local options
sales taxes are not an option to help fund Exit 12B. There was no discussion at the
Advisory Committee level with regards to seeking a direct contribution from private
parties to fund the implementation of this project. Further discussions with interested
investors could be pursued as the project development process proceeds.
4.5 Private Contributions (cash or in-kind)
While cash contributions from private parties may not be used for local education
expenditures,there is nothing to prevent private parties from making cash or in kind
contributions for needed infrastructure improvements. Such contributions should be
clearly set aside and used only for the designated infrastructure improvement.
4.6 Institutional Contributions
In some cases there may be one or more institutions,that are neither private nor
associated with the host municipality,that stand to benefit from a proposed
infrastructure improvement. If so,it is reasonable for the institutions to agree to
provide some of the funding for the improvement. Middlebury College has agreed to
provide a significant portion of the cost of a new bridge in that community.St. Michaels
College has agreed to fund a portion of a planned campus connector in Colchester.The
Campus Area Transportation Management Association,which serves Champlain
Exit 126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 7
College, Fletcher Allen Health Care, UVM and the Red Cross has participated in a variety
of transportation projects in the Burlington area. In the case of Exit 12B,two such
institutions have been identified: The Burlington International Airport(BVT),and the
Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) based adjacent to the airport.
The Burlington International Airport(BTV).
Exit 12B will provide direct access from I-89 to the airport via Hinesburg Road,
Kennedy Drive and Airport Drive. There is little question that this will benefit the
airport. BTV's participation in funding the improvement,however, is limited by federal
constraints on using airport derived revenues for off-airport improvements. Initial
conversations have identified three possible mechanisms for generating funds to
support the project: 1) a surtax(for lack of a better word) on parking fees, 2) a surtax
on car rental fees,and 3) a dedicated increase in the payment in lieu of taxes that BTV
makes to the City of South Burlington. All of these merit additional exploration.
The Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG).
The Air Guard is headquartered adjacent to the airport to the north and east. At present
the degree to which Exit 12B will increase accessibility to VTANG facilities is unclear.
Federal funds from the Department of Defense have been used to pay for transportation
facilities that provide direct access to a material base or other facilities.This option was
discussed with officials from the Burlington International Airport. Because Exit 12B
would not provide direct or exclusive access for the Air Guard facilities, it is probably
not eligible for DOD funding.
4.7 Organizational or Institutional Arrangements
Infrastructure projects are generally administered by either a municipality or a state
agency. Joint funded projects are generally administered by a state agency. In either
case,the usual process involves doing the necessary preliminary planning and design,
completing the required Environmental Impact Statement(EIS),completing
construction documents,soliciting bids, letting a contract,construction and contract
supervision,and acceptance of the completed project. There are several alternatives
that may be considered,all of which will require concurrence of FHWA and VTrans:
Design-Build
After completion of the EIS, a single party may be contracted to prepare final design and
build the project. This approach has the potential to compress the design and
construction periods,and could therefore potentially save money. Also,by using only a
single contractor,internal efficiencies may reduce total project costs.While design-
build may help reduce cost,it is not a revenue generator and it would not be prudent at
this point in the process to make any assumptions about how much money or time
could be saved using this approach.When construction is complete,the project is
turned over(such as a turn-key project) to the relevant public agency for long term
ownership/operation.
riP
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study
Page 8 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
Private Sector Investments in Transportation Projects
In some cases a private party may choose to invest in some or all of a transportation
project with the expectation of making profit upon the project's completion.The
completed project may be sold to a public agency,may be leased to a public agency on a
"lease to own"basis, or the private party may be able to recoup its investment through
user fees (e.g.privately owned toll roads).This practice has been applied for toll roads
where a private investor may build and then operate the facility with the goal of
generating enough revenue to for debt service and to make a profit. It is not appropriate
for a new interchange because the means of generating revenue, a toll,is not practical
for Exit 12B for a number of reasons.
Inter-municipal Organizations
Some projects which benefit or serve more than one municipality may be owned,
operated and/or administered by some form of inter-municipal organization. Examples
include:
Transportation Management Association (TMA) established specifically to own and
operate transportation facilities.A Vermont example is the Campus Area
Transportation Management Association (CATMA),the TMA for the Hill Institutions in
Burlington (Fletcher Allen Health Care, UVM,Champlain College and the Red Cross).
CATMA is a nonprofit, employer-based organization formed in 1992 to enable its
members to share resources as well as jointly plan,develop,and manage all
transportation and parking programs,infrastructure,and associated facilities.TMAs
typically manage Transportation Demand Management programs such as rideshare
matching services and guaranteed ride home,subsidized and free transit passes,
bike/walk reward program,incentives to park off-site,and flex time polices.TMAs,like
CATMA,also form partnerships with municipalities and other public agencies to help
fund, operate and manage transportation projects. Reconstruction of Main Street in
Burlington and the soon to be constructed third lane at the Main Street/Staples
intersection in South Burlington are two examples where a TMA has supported
transportation infrastructure projects.
Inter-municipal agency established by member municipalities such as the Chittenden
County Transportation Authority(CCTA) or the Champlain Water District(CWD).
Inter-municipal contracts (per 24 V.S.A.,Chapter 122) established by the effected
municipalities specifically to own and administer a specific facility(e.g.the Tri-Town
wastewater treatment plant in Essex Junction) or to establish lands for specific
development such as an industrial park. The contract may set forth how the
municipalities will raise monies,collect and disburse tax revenues,manage facilities,
etc.
If such inter-municipal agencies are able to pursue more expeditious procedures for
planning,designing and constructing the needed infrastructure improvement,their use
may reduce the total cost of the improvement or the time needed to implement the
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
-� Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 9
improvement. Some administrative capability will be required,both for the planning,
design and construction period, and for long term operation.
Combinations
Combinations of the above are certainly possible. For instance, an organization created
by inter-municipal compact may have the project built on a design/build, lease to own
basis. The organizational form should be selected to reduce construction time or
construction costs, or both. Whatever organizational form is used, it is obviously
necessary for it to have a revenue stream sufficient to offset the project's costs.
5.0 LOCAL FUNDING OPTIONS REVENUE ESTIMATES
This section of the report estimates the potential funding contributions for each option
described in Section 4.0.The Special Assessment Districts,Tax Incremental Financing
Districts and Development Impact Fee options are all based to some degree on general
assumptions regarding the limits of a financing district and the rate of growth.The
general assumptions are described below followed by cash flow estimates for each
option.
5.1 General Assumptions
5.1.1 Financing District Delineation and Characteristics
Underlying the analyses in this study is the general premise that some of the costs of the
interchange should be borne by the properties that stand to benefit from the improved
access provided by the interchange, and that the contribution from these properties
should, in some sense, reflect the degree to which they would benefit.Towards this end,
the first step was to geographically delineate an area that included most, if not all, of the
properties that would benefit (i.e., see improved accessibility) from the proposed
interchange.
The delineation was based on input from members of the advisory committee.As
shown in Figure 1, the delineated financing district includes a portion in South
Burlington and a portion in Williston. The South Burlington portion includes the land
around the airport. The Williston portion includes the commercial and mixed use areas
around Taft Corners. The limits reflect the perception that the proposed interchange
would reduce traffic on the existing Exit 12, thus improving accessibility to the growing
Taft Corners commercial center.
To a large extent,the delineation followed the boundaries of zoning districts. Most
zoning districts in the service area are identified for commercial or industrial
development in South Burlington, and also include mixed use areas in Williston.
Although there are residential areas within the limits of the assumed financing
district,they are not included in the calculation of revenues.
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 10 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
RSG estimated the origins and destinations of the traffic that would use Exit 12B using
data from the CCMPO's regional transportation model. The analysis suggests that the
proposed financing district generates a majority of the traffic that would use the
interchange.The estimated origins and destinations of traffic using Exit 12B include:
• 54% beginning or ending in the assumed financing district;
• 34%beginning or ending elsewhere in the South Burlington and Williston; and
• 12% beginning or ending outside of the two municipalitiesl.
Figure 1:Assumed Financing District Limits2
1ya
0` V\ - " 0 Potential Exal2BFinanciigDistuct
/ ,.�
I I1 South Burlington Pommn
r _ �-- ,
Williston Poroon
'1= , . ii ��
/ ' 1 ,
‘
, -..--,,_\ \ v , H iiitiRL:, ...)p,pU. ,„, we //ir--1 s,;-.- _Al;
\ .--- ,., , ..:- gr - tl'AVI 'V i .0.11,
(-- -10 N / ..i.'irn nr..i
jf a..-LI t
4 115:4 lit ifhttilr / k--- - I'
t._ j , .4„1, AIL ,i.48410.v. ....zpv-a ,4.,, 7 , , /
_ ...., ..,.. •Ish .1`..,. •„iti4 , / ._.
1 ..... ---s slows,-, ,ir -7---- ....4____L, ____,:.,_, ..,,..\ ,________i
e___> ,__\
,..,... _.:,.______
______, . , --, ,___,. ,
,f, cs,%.,,,,,..
e0 25 Potential Financing District Pes a s c
I IMdes
1 inch equals 0S miles Exit 12e Financing Plan ,yopywr m 2009
I These percentages were estimated using output generated by the CCMPO's regional transportation model as part of the Exit 12B
Alignment Study.
2 Residential areas do exist within the limits of the financing district shown in Figure 1.However,residential uses have been excluded in
the calculation of potential revenues.
KV4
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
&lid\ Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 11
Financing District Data Sources
A data file created by the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)
for its 2003 Regional Build Out Analysis provided a starting point for this study. The
data file was based on individual parcels and included data on existing development,
zoning, parcel size, development constraints,and maximum potential build out. Each
parcel also had a distinct I.D.number keyed to each municipality's property tax records.
RSG created a data file of all parcels within the delineated Exit 12B Service Area and
added the current assessed value from the 2009 municipal grand list records (provided
by municipal listers) by cross-referencing the parcel I.D.numbers.
Given the time span between the CCRPC build-out data and the 2009 assessed value
data,there a few discrepancies where parcels appeared in one data file but not the
other. These discrepancies were individually checked,and retained or deleted as
appropriate. In addition,known development since 2003 was identified and added to
the data base totals using information compiled by RSG through a number of relevant
corridor studies and as summarized in the Exit 12B Alignment Study.
The result was a data file (EXCEL Spreadsheet) of all parcels in the delineated service
area. The file was easily separated the South Burlington and Williston portions of the
assumed financing district.Altogether,the financing district contains 551 individual
parcels and covers almost 3,275 acres of land.
Characteristics of the South Burlington Portion
The South Burlington portion of the financing district contains 220 parcels and covers
1,847.37 acres of land. The area contains 96 existing dwelling units and 1,942,460
square feet of non-residential building space. The total assessed value (2009) of all
parcels in this portion of the service area is $186,225,000. If this is averaged over only
the non-residential building floor are,the value is $95.36 per square foot.
The 2003 CCRPC Build out Analysis indicated that the parcels in this portion of the
service area could ultimately contain an additional 347 dwelling units and/or an
additional 10,236,552 square feet of non-residential building space. If the non-
residential build-out were spread over a hundred year period,it would average 102,366
additional square feet per year. This annual increment amounts to just over six percent
of the existing floor area. This rate of growth is clearly not a realistic expectation in the
shorter term of twenty to thirty years. A much more modest growth scenario is
suggested below.
By sorting on the amount of non-residential floor space on each parcel,it is possible to
examine those parcels that are currently developed. This information might serve as a
guide to what might occur on the undeveloped parcels. In the South Burlington portion
of the service area, a total of 82 parcels currently contain non-residential building
space. These parcels consist of 1,012.4 acres and contain the entire 1,942,460 square
feet of building space. This represents a Floor Area Ratio (FAR is a common measure of
development density or intensity) of 0.044,which is very low.
31 December 2009 Exit 128 Financing Options Study
Page 12 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
•
The assessed value of these 82 parcels totals $118,949,200,for an average of$63 per
square foot,which is also quite low.
The remaining 138 parcels contain a total of 834.97 acres with a total assessed value of
$67,275,800.
Characteristics of the Williston Portion
The Williston portion of the financing district contains 331 parcels and covers 1,427.16
acres of land. The area contains 231 existing dwelling units (reflecting the mixed use
zoning in portions of the service area) and 2,033,346 square feet of non-residential
building space. The total assessed value (2009) of all parcels in this portion of the
service area is $582,109,320. If this is averaged over only the non-residential building
floor are,the value is$286.28 per square foot.
The 2003 CCRPC Build out Analysis indicated that the parcels in this portion of the
service area could ultimately contain an additional 1,081 dwelling units and/or an
additional 21,328,821 square feet of non-residential building space. If the non-
residential build out were spread over a hundred year period,it would average 213,288
additional square feet per year. This annual increment amounts to just over ten percent
of the existing floor area. This rate of growth is clearly not a realistic expectation in the
shorter term of twenty to thirty years. Again,a much more modest growth scenario is
suggested.
By sorting on the amount of non-residential floor space on each parcel, it is possible to
examine those parcels that are currently developed. This might serve as a guide to
what might occur on the undeveloped parcels. In the Williston portion of the service
area,a total of 105 parcels currently contain non-residential building space. These
parcels consist of 413.17 acres and contain the entire 2,033,346 square feet of building
space. This represents a Floor Area Ratio (FAR is a common measure of development
density or intensity) of 0.113 which,while higher than in the South Burlington portion,
is still quite low.
The assessed value of these 105 parcels totals$272,302,370,for an average of $133.92
per square foot.
The remaining 226 parcels contain a total of 1,013.99 acres with a total assessed value
of$359,806,950.
5.1.2 Growth Assumptions
Growth expectations over the thirty year period are necessarily somewhat uncertain.
As a starting point, the development expectations built into the most recent CCMPO
transportation model were examined.The development assumptions were initially
compiled as part of the Circumferential Highway EIS for use in modeling different
alternatives.The Circumferential Highway consultants contacted planners in each
Chittenden County municipality and asked them to identify and describe anticipated
development projects.The list was updated and refined by RSG in Burlington,South
Burlington,Williston and Essex through various planning studies completed between
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 13
2006 and 2009 including the US 2 Corridor Management Plan, Route 15 Corridor
Management Plan, Dorset Street Corridor Plan and the Exit 12B Alignment Study.
Appendix B presents the list of assumed development projects.
Non-residential development within the applicable Transportation Analysis Zones
(TAZs) was identified.
It was assumed that the anticipated development would occur within the delineated
service area,but that its timing would be influenced by the construction of Exit 12B as
follows:
• It is assumed that the base line growth is 1.0 percent per year;
• Construction of Exit 12B will start in about eight years;
• In anticipation of the new interchange,developers will begin accelerating projects
so that the annual growth rate increases to 1.5 percent per year starting about
three years before the interchange is constructed;
• The annual growth rate increases to 2.0 percent per year for approximately 8-10
years following completion,and then
• The growth rate returns to 1 percent per year.
This up-tick in development will be steeper at both ends in south Burlington than in
Williston. The resulting trend in new non-residential floor space is shown in Figures 2
and 3,below.
Figure 2:South Burlington Exit 128 Finance District Growth Assumptions
South Burlington
Annual Growth in Non •Residential FloorArea
60,000 - —
40,000 / \ —Non-Residential
20,000 FloorArea
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 14 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
Figure 3:Williston Exit 12B Finance District Growth Assumptions
W illis ton
Annual Growth in Non -Residential FloorArea
60,000 40,000 — — '
20,000 • �------- - —Non-Residential
FloorArea
0 - , I - I I
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
5.2 Cash Flow Analyses
The purpose of this analysis is to explore methods of allocating part of the cost of
constructing the new interchange among the properties that would benefit from that
interchange,and to determine how much of the total cost of that project can be
supported by these levies. To do this,it was necessary to develop estimates of the
annual revenues that might be generated by the various approaches. Ultimately, each of
the financing approaches will be measured in terms of the amount of bonded
indebtedness that could be supported by its estimated stream of revenues.
Four different district-wide revenue approaches were considered: two versions of a
Special Assessment District,a Tax Incremental Finance District(in South Burlington
only),and Development Impact Fees. In addition, the possibility of a small surcharge on
parking at the Burlington International Airport was explored. In all cases,the
expenditure side of the analysis was based on a typical bond repayment schedule that
assumes interest only in the first year. Bond variables typically include the bond
principal,the bond term,the bond interest rate,and the year in which the bond
payments begin. For this analysis,a bond term of twenty years and an interest rate of 5
percent were assumed. Thus,variations in the principal and the time between the
creation of the district and the onset of bond payments were explored to determine the
maximum amount of bonded indebtedness that could be supported by the revenue
stream.
5.2.1 Special Assessment District: Assessment on Non-Residential Floor Area
Under the Special Assessment District approach, a municipality may delineate a district
or service area that includes most, if not all, of the properties that will benefit from the
proposed infrastructure improvement. Then the municipality may,with approval of the
voters,levy a special assessment against all property within the assessment district. A
vote is not required if 100 percent of the property owners within the proposed district
agree to participate. The special assessment may be based on the assessed value of the
VIP
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by R5G and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 15
property in the district or on some other measure that the municipality feels is
appropriate. In this case, two measures are explored,a special assessment against all
enclosed building space within the district,and a special tax assessment against the
assessed value of all property in the district.
Under the provisions of inter-municipal compacts,it is possible to consider a service
area that extends across municipal boundaries. It would be necessary for both
municipalities to agree to a compact that authorized raising money via a Special
Assessment District,and then for the voters in each district to authorize the appropriate
districts and assessments.
South Burlington Portion
The South Burlington Exit 12B Special Assessment District was assumed to include all
land in the service area that is inside the City. This includes 220 parcels containing just
over 1,300 acres. The total existing non-residential floor area is 1,942,460 square feet.
The total assessed value of these parcels,in 2009,was $186,225,000. Developers that
participated in the Advisory Committee conducted an informal survey of commercial
property owners in the financing district and found that$0.05 per square foot was
considered a reasonable assessment.
Using the approach of levying a special assessment of$0.05 on every square foot of
non-residential floor area,an annual revenue flow was estimated. Starting with the
2009 figure of 1,942,460 square feet of floor area,this approach would generate
$97,123 for the first year. Assuming that a bond is issued five years after the district is
established; and assuming that growth occurs as described above;the revenue flow
from this special assessment could support a bond of$1,750,000 as shown graphically
in Figure 4.
The revenue increment increases relatively slowly,but linearly. The longer the period
between the establishment of the special assessment district and the first bond
payment,the larger the bond that can be retired by the revenue flow. By pushing the
bond back eight years after the establishment of the district, the revenue stream will
support$2,000,000 in bonded indebtedness
IrIPP
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study
Page 16 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
Figure 4:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from So.Burlington Exit 128 Financing District-$0.05 per Square Foot Assessment
$5,000,000
$4,000 ,000
—Cumulative Revenues
$3 ,000 ,000
$2 ,000 ,000 C um ulative Debt
$ 1 ,000,000 -- -------
Service
$0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
Williston Portion
The Williston Special Assessment District was assumed to include all land in the service
area that is inside the Town of Williston. This includes 331 parcels containing just over
1,800 acres. The total existing non-residential floor area is 2,053,346 square feet. The
total assessed value of these parcels, in 2009,was $582,109,320. Using the approach of
levying a special assessment of$0.05 on every square foot of non-residential floor area,
an annual revenue flow can be estimated. Starting with the 2009 figure of 2,053,346
square feet of floor area,this approach would generate $101,667 in the first year.
Assuming that a bond is issued five years after the district is established; and assuming
that growth occurs as described above; the revenue flow from this special assessment
could support a bond of$1,750,000 as shown graphically in Figure 5. The revenue
• increment increases relatively slowly, but linearly. The longer the period between the
establishment of the special assessment district and the first bond payment, the larger
the bond that can be retired by the revenue flow.
Figure 5:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from Williston Exit 128 Financing District-$0.05 per Square Foot Assessment
$5,000,0001
4000000
' —Cumulative Revenues
$3,000,000
$2,000,000 Cumulative Debt
$1 ,000,000 - _ Service
$0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
are
MExit
126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 17
5.2.2 Special Assessment District: Assessment on Assessed Value
This approach is similar to that described above,except that the special assessment of
$0.05 is applied to $100 of assessed value instead of square footage on property inside
the district'.
South Burlington Portion
The South Burlington Special Assessment District includes all land in the service area
that is inside the City. This includes 220 parcels with a total assessed value of
$186,225,000. If an assessment rate of$0.05 is assumed,the initial annual revenue will
be$95,325. This revenue will grow as new development takes place. It is assumed that
new non-residential development will have an assessed value of$110 per square foot,
and that this unit value will increase by two percent each year. By the end of the
analysis period,the annual revenue will have grown to$171,134. Assuming that a bond
issue was established five years after the district is established,the revenue flow from
this special assessment could support a bond of$1,750,000 as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6:Cash Flow for$1,750,000 Bond from So.Burlington Exit 128 Financing District-$0.05 per$100 of Assessed Value
$5,000,000
$4,000,000 ' —Cumulative Revenues
$3,000,000
$2,000,000 j C um ulative D ebt
$1 ,000,000 1 — — • Service
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
Williston Portion
The Williston Special Assessment district includes 331 parcels with a total assessed
value of$582,109,320. Using the same assumptions for the growth of the assessed
value as described for the South Burlington portion,the annual revenue for a special
assessment of$0.05 will start at$291,055 and increase to$377,432. If bond payments
begin five years after the special assessment district is created,a bond of$4,500,000
can be supported as shown in Figure 7.
1 This special assessment of$0.05 would be on top of each municipality's total local tax rate for non-residential development. In 2008
(the last year for which data are available)the South Burlington total tax rate was$1.6994 and the Williston total rate was$1,6479. See
Appendix C of this report for a table of tax rates in other Chittenden County municipalities.
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 18 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
Figure 7:Cash Flow for$4,500,000 Bond from Williston Exit 12B Financing District-$0.05 per$100 of Assessed Value
$12,000,000
$ 10,000,000 -_- - -
$8,000,000 - - - -______ —C um ulative Revenues
$6,000,000
$4,000,000 — - — — C um ulative DR
Debt
$2,000,000 Service
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 2 2 2 5 2 8 31
Year
5.2.3 Tax Incremental Financing District (TIF)
The analysis of TIF potential begins with the assumed Exit 12B financing district. Under
current statutory provisions,Williston is not allowed to use TIF revenues to fund
infrastructure projects outside of the municipality or its TIF district. Thus,the TIF
analysis need only be completed for the South Burlington portion of the service area.
For all of the parcels included in the South Burlington portion of the service area,the
current (2009) assessed value was determined from municipal tax records. The total
assessed value is$186,225,000. The City's municipal tax rate is reported to be 0.3437,
and the Non-residential education tax rate is reported to be 1.35571. Multiplying these
tax rates by the assessed value in the service area (after first multiplying by 0.01),
yields the following base estimates of annual tax revenues:
1. Municipal Tax Revenues: $64,005.53
2. Non-residential Education tax revenues: $252,465.23
The TIF concept requires that the grand list be frozen at the base level for the life of the
district,that revenues generated by applying the current tax rates to that grand list
continue to be used for those purposes, and that revenues generated by applying those
tax rates to any increment in the grand list value due to new development be redirected
as follows:
1. The entire increment in municipal tax revenues may be used to pay off bonds
issued to fund the infrastructure needed to support the new development; and
2. Up to 75 percent of the increment in education revenues may be used to pay off
bonds issued to fund the infrastructure needed to support the new development.
At least 25 percent of the increment in education revenues must be directed to the
education trust fund for education purposes.
1 See Appendix C of this report for a table of tax rates in other Chittenden County municipalities.
PrIP
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Aialli Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 19
While the above requirements represent the maximum Tax Incremental revenues that
may be applied to infrastructure projects, it is understood that this represents a
significant diversion of potential revenues from other municipal and education
activities.To reflect this competition,this analysis assumes that only 50 percent of both
the municipal and education tax revenue increment are directed to the Exit 12B project,
and leaving the remaining half of the revenue increments for city and school services.
In the analysis that follows,both the maximum and the assumed revenue stream will be
shown.
The revenue stream is estimated as follows. Starting with the total 2009 assessed value
in the district annual increments in assessed value are estimated as described above for
the special assessment using assessed value.The municipal and education tax rates are
applied to the increment in assessed value (it is assumed that these tax rates will
remain constant). The maximum annual revenue stream is based on an annual revenue
equaling 100 percent of the annual increment in municipal tax revenues plus 75
percent of the annual increment in education tax revenues. The assumed annual
revenue stream is based on an annual revenue equaling 50 per cent of the annual
increment in municipal tax revenues plus 50 percent of the annual increment in
education tax revenues.
These revenue streams are then compared to the expenditure flow of various bond
scenarios to begin to sense how much bonded debt could be supported by the TIF
revenues. Figure 8 shows that a TIF in the South Burlington portion of the service area,
using the assumed revenue stream rather than the maximum revenue stream, could
support a bond of$3,000,000 if the bond payments began seven years after the
establishment of the TIF district.
Figure 8:Cash Flow for$3,000,000 Bond Supported by TIF in So.Burlington Exist 128 Financing District
$35,000,000
' l$30,000,000 —Assumed Cumulative
� -
$25,000,000
Revenues
$20,000,000 — ____ -__ ___ Cumulative Debt
$ 15,000,000 Service
$ 10,000,000 —Max cumulative
$5,000,000
1 revenues
$0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
5.2.4 Development Impact Fees
As authorized in 24 V.S.A., Chapter 131, municipalities may assess Development Impact
Fees on new development that generates demand for expanded facilities. Both South
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 20 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP - N
Burlington and Williston currently assess municipal-wide impact fees for
transportation improvement projects,but in neither case is the Exit 12B project listed
as a project included in the impact fee calculations. In South Burlington, the Exit 12B
project is included in the City's Capital Budget and Program, but was not included in the
impact fee calculations because the timing of the project was uncertain and because it
was desired to moderate the increase in the fees adopted at that time (2007).
Williston also recently updated and adopted new development impact fees. In Williston,
the development impact fees originally proposed (which included Exit 12
improvements) were reduced substantially before adoption in order to moderate the
increase over prior fees. Because of this political reality plus the uncertainty of whether
or not a municipality may levy impact fees for a project located outside of its
jurisdiction, the impact fee option is explored only for the South Burlington portion of
the service area.
The South Burlington city-wide Transportation Impact Fee formula was examined and
tentatively modified to include the full City share of the Exit 12B costs. For the purpose
of this analysis, the non-federal funding requirement is assumed to be $9.5 million
which is based on the single point urban interchange design and 80% federal funding
(see Table 2 on page 3). This assumptions results in the base city-wide transportation
impact fee increasing from $999.86 per P.M. Peak Hour Trip End to $1,844.52 per P.M.
Peak Hour Trip End. This increase of$844.66 in the city-wide fee would be applied to
all development in the City, not just to development in the delineated service area.
Since some three quarters of the South Burlington based traffic using the new
interchange is expected to start or stop inside the assumed financing district, it seemed
unlikely that the City would impose this large of an increase in the city-wide impact fee
for a project that serves primarily only a portion of the City.
An alternative approach was to consider a district-wide impact fee that applied only to
new development in the South Burlington portion of the assumed Exit 12B financing
district. In this case a smaller portion of the total costs are included in the analysis, and
the resultant net fee was approximately$500 per P.M. Peak Hour Trip End. This would
be added to the city-wide fee that would also be paid by new development in the
assumed Exit 12B financing district. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that
the City will impose a district-wide impact fee specifically for Exit 12B of$500 per P.M.
Peak Hour Trip End.
The cash flow analysis begins with the previously described growth assumptions.
These annual estimates of new non-residential floor area were converted to new P.M.
Peak Hour Trip Ends using an average trip rate of 2.5 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends per
1,000 square feet of building space. The new trip ends generated annually were then
multiplied by the estimated net impact fee per trip end ($500), to yield the annual
impact fee revenue. The estimated annual impact fee revenues start at just over
$24,000, increase to a high in the mid $60,000 range, and then drop back to the low
$30,000 range. By allowing a seven year lead time between the imposition of the fees
and the onset of bond payments,this revenue stream can support a bond of$675,000.
This is shown in Figure 9.
Exit 126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 21
Figure 9:Cash Flow for$675,000 Bond Supported by Development Impact Fee in So.Burlington Exit 12B Financing District
$1.400.000
$1 200_000
$1 000,000 —Cumulative Revenues
$800,000
$600,000 Cumulative Debt
$400,000 Service
$200.000
SO
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31
Year
5.2.5 Airport Parking Surcharges
Discussions with airport officials indicated that the airport operates under federal
regulations which limit the use of aviation related revenues to on-site efforts (revenue
from tickets and fees paid by airlines for access to the facilities). As a result, aviation
revenues are not available to help fund the Exit 12B project. It might, however,be
possible to consider non-aviation related revenues such as surcharges on parking or on
car rentals. At this time, data necessary for evaluating a surcharge on car rentals has
not been obtained. Some data have been obtained relating to parking charges.
Nonetheless, it is possible to estimate a potential stream of revenues based on a
surcharge of$0.10 on each revenue generating parking permit issued.
The airport parking facility processes, on average, 25,000 parking permits each month.
Of these, 17,000 are revenue permits. Over a year,this amounts to 204,000 revenue
permits. Instituting a surcharge of$0.10 on each parking permit would yield an annual
revenue of$20,400. By assuming that parking customers will increase by an average of
•
one percent per; year, a long term stream of parking surcharge revenues can be
generated. Using the same procedures described for the other financing techniques,it
was determined that this revenue stream could support a total of$375,000 in bonded
indebtedness. A higher surcharge could support a proportionately higher level of
bonded indebtedness.
The Burlington International Airport Commission has the authority to impose such a fee
without any additional (or prior) approval from the City Council, Public Works
Commission, etc. The Airport Commission is an independent entity that acts with the
advice and consent of commissioners' respective elected bodies (Burlington and So.
Burlington). In a recent, the airport commission voted in December 2009 to raise
parking fees (along with other related fees) in the next couple of months. This action
required no input or approval from any other municipal council, board or commission.
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study M4d
Page 22 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
5.2.6 Cash Flow Analysis Summary and Conclusions
All of the analyses described above were based on an assumed growth scenario that
seems reasonable at this time. The Special Assessment District analyses were based on
a relatively modest assessment rate. The Tax Incremental Financing analysis assumes
that only a portion of the maximum potential revenues would be diverted to support
the Exit 12B project. The Development Impact Fee analysis included a fairly complete
derivation of appropriate impact fees. The parking surcharge is base on current levels
of parking activity. In all cases, the analysis determined the maximum amount of
bonded indebtedness that could be supported by the estimated revenue streams. The
results described above are summarized in Table 3.
Table 3:Maximum Bonded Indebtedness Supported by Various Financing Approaches
Financing District
Approach
South Burlington Williston
Special Assessment District'
- — $1,750,000 $1,750,000
($0.05 per s.f of Floor Area)
Special Assessment District'
$1,750,000 $4,500,000
($0.05 per$100 of Assessed Value)
T.I.F.District2 $3,000,000 Not Applicable
Impact Fees3
$675,000 Not Applicable
($500 per P.M.Peak Hour Trip End)
Airport Parking Surcharge
) $375,000 Not Applicable
($0.10 on each parking permit
1.Support from the Town of Williston for a special assessment dedicated to Exit 1213 tax is unlikely.
2.South Burlington intends to establish a TIF district for the City Center project.Only one TIF district is permitted per
municipality.Therefore,TIF is not a viable option for Exit 12B.
3.Has potential to double charge developers if used in combination with special assessment tax.
5.2.7 Municipal Review
A meeting was held with representatives of the two municipalities to illustrate the
findings presented above and to assess their responses to the various financing
approaches. In general,both municipalities noted that they already used impact fees
for transportation improvements and were unlikely to impose additional fees on
development in their portions of the service areas. South Burlington also indicated that,
since the State allows only one Tax Incremental Financing District per municipality, the
City would prefer to use that to support its City Center development plans. Williston
officials also pointed out that there are transportation needs in their Town that may be
suitable for funding via a Special Assessment District made up of a part of the Exit 12B
service area, and that it may not be practicable for the Town to do both.
The bottom line is that only the Special Assessment District based on the South
Burlington portion of the assumed financing district (see Figure 1 page 11) is the only
municipal mechanism that seems to have any realistic chance of being applied. A
discussion of local property owners indicated a clear preference for the Special
Assessment District based on non- residential floor area since it would not apply to
undeveloped land that was not producing revenues.
Exit 126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
-A.. Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 23
5.2.8 Special Assessment Sensitivity Analysis
As noted in the proceeding section, a Special Assessment district within South
Burlington is the one financing option that may be acceptable at the local level.The
analysis of the potential revenue that could be generated by a Special Assessment tax
assumes that the tax would be established at$0.05 per square foot (See Section 4.1).
With a$0.05 tax,the South Burlington portion of the financing district would support a
bond of$1.75 million. However,the non-federal share of the Exit 12B project maybe as
much as $9.5 million.
A final iteration of the analysis therefore,was to assume that it was necessary to
support a bond sufficient for$9.5 million of the non-federal share of the project costs
through a special assessment on the South Burlington portion of the financing, and to
estimate the level of assessment that would be required. Assuming a lag of five years
between the establishment of the district and the onset of debt service payments,the
required assessment would be$0.28 per square foot. If the bond were deferred until
eight years after the district begins accumulating revenues,the required assessment
rate would be$0.24 per square foot of building space.
6.0 CASE STUDIES
The analyses of the various scenarios have focused on aggregate revenue streams for
the respective portions of the financing districts and the amount of bonded
indebtedness those streams could support. To make it more apparent what the various
scenarios might mean to individual properties,the special assessment rates have been
applied to two sample properties within the South Burlington Exit 12B financing
district based on information provided by Pizzagalli Properties. One is a property that
is currently developed, and one is not yet developed. Each of these properties was run
through the cash flow models described above.
Table 4 presents the results for the undeveloped parcel case study. The parcel area is
15.07 acres and is currently assessed at$580,000. The build-out of 58,000 square feet
is assumed to occur in year 7.The total assessed value of the new building was
estimated based on$110 per square foot in year 1,increasing at an annual rate of 2
percent to year 7, resulting in a unit value of$121 per square foot in year 7.
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 24 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
Table 4:Case Study A-Undeveloped Parcel Case Study
Special Assessment District with an assessment of$0.05 per square
foot(supports$1.75 million bond)
Annual payments during years 1 through 6: $ -
Annual payments during years 7 through 33: $ 2,900
Cumulative payments over 33 years $ 78,300
Special Assessment District with an assessment of$0.24 per square
foot(supports$9.5 million bond)
Annual payments during years 1 through 6: ' $ -
Annual payments during years 7 through 33: { $ 13,920
Cumulative payments over 33 years $ 375,840
Special Assessment District with assessment of$0.05 per$100 of
assessed value(Supports$1.75 million bond).
Annual payments during years 1 through 6: $ 290
Annual payments during years 7 through 33: $ 3,522
Cumulative payments over 33 years $ 122,786
Development Impact Fee based on 2.5 trips per 1,000 sf,and$500
fee per trip(Supports$0.675 million bond).
Annual payments during years 1 through 6: $One time payment in year 7 $ 72,500
Annual payments during years 7 through 33: $
Cumulative payments over 33 years _ $ 72,500
Developers on the Advisory Committee were concerned that any type of special
assessment would make a property they own in South Burlington less competitive with
properties in surrounding communities. Table 5 shows how the special assessment
options would impact annual property taxes once the parcel is developed.The
equivalent tax rate combines the baseline and special assessment tax into one overall
tax rate per$100 of assessed value that can then be compared with the non-residential
tax rates in surrounding communities presented Table 6.
Table 5:Estimated Impact on Annual Property Tax for Case Study A after Development Occurs
Annual Impact of Baseline Total Property Percent EquivalentTax Rate
Financing Scenario Financing Scenario Property Tax' Tax Increase (Per$100 of Assessed
Value)
Special Assessment of$0.05 per sf $2,900 $119,706 $122,606 2% 1.7406
(Supports$1.75 million bond)
Special Assessment of$0.24 per sf $13,920 $119,706 $133,626 12% 1.8970
(Supports$9.5 million bond)
Special Assessment of$0.05 per$100
Assessed Value(Supports$1.75 million $3,522 $119,706 $123,228 3% 1.7494
bond)
1.(S.Burlington Non Residential Tax Rate=1.6994/$100 assessed value)x(Assessed Value of 58,000 sf case study building=58,000 sf x$121/sf)
Exit 126 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 25
Table 6:Non-Residential Tax Rates in Surrounding Municipalities
Non-Residential Tax
Municipality Rate(Per$100 of
Assessed Value)
Burlington 2.1264
Colchester 2.5958
Essex Town 1.7304
Williston 1.6479
Table 7 presents the results for the developed parcel case study.The parcel is 4.52
acres and containing a 30,000 square foot building. The assessed value is $3,217,400.
Table 8 shows the impact on annual property taxes.
Table 7:Case Study B-Developed Parcel Case Study
Special Assessment District with an assessment of$0.05 per square
foot(supports$1.75 million bond)
Annual payments during years 1 through 33: $ 1,500
Cumulative payments over 33 years I $ 49,500
Special Assessment District with an assessment of$0.24 per square
foot(supports$9.5 million bond)
Annual payments during years 1 through 33: $ 7,200
Cumulative payments over 33 years $ 237,600
Special Assessment District with assessment of$0.05 per$100 of
assessed value(Supports$1.75 million bond).
Annual payments during years 1 through 33: $ 1,609
Cumulative payments over 33 years 1 $ 53,087
Development Impact Fee based on 2.5 trips per 1,000 sf,and$500
fee per trip.Existing development not subject to impact fees unless
it expands.
One time payment in year 7 $ -
Annual payments during years 7 through 33: $ -
Cumulative payments over 33 years $ -
Table 8:Estimated Impact on Annual Property Tax for Case Study B
Annual Impact of Baseline Total Property Percent EquivalentTax Rate
Financing Scenario Financing Scenario Property Tax' Tax Increase Per$100 of Assessed
Value)
Special Assessment of$0.05 per sf $1,500 $54,676 $56,176 3% 1.7460
(Supports$1.75 million bond)
Special Assessment of$0.24 per sf $7,200 $54,676 $61,876 13% 1.9232
(Supports$9.5 million bond)
Special Assessment of$0.05 per$100
Assessed Value(Supports$1.75 million $1,609 $54,676 $56,285 3% 1.7494
bond)
1.(S.Burlington Non Residential Tax Rate=1.6994/$100 assessed value)x(Assessed Value of 30,000 sf case study building is$3,217,400 from tax records)
Since the two case studies are of different sizes and contain differing amounts of
development, it is not appropriate to compare the fees estimated for one parcel with
those estimated for the other. It may, however,be useful to compare the estimated fee
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study1144
Page 26 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP &Ai\
on one parcel under one scenario with the estimated fee on the same parcel under
another scenario. It may also be useful to use these examples as a sort of reality test as
to how palatable any of the scenarios might be to property owners.
The case studies are presented to help the developers on the Advisory Committee think
about how the financing scenarios may affect their specific properties.The financial
impacts will vary significantly based on the building size,assessed value and
development timing for a specific property. However,the case studies suggest that the
$0.05 special assessment tax based either on square footage or assessed value has a
relatively minor impact. Relative to property taxes, commercial properties within the
South Burlington Exit 12B financing district would continue to be less competitive with
properties in Williston, comparable to properties in Essex and much more competitive
than properties in Colchester and Burlington.
If the entire non-federal share of the project cost(up to $9.5 million) is covered with a
special assessment tax, the impact on annual property taxes would be significant.
Properties within the South Burlington Exit 12B financing district would be at a
noticeable competitive cost disadvantage to properties in Williston and Essex Town.
However, even with an effective increase in property taxes of about 12%, properties
within the South Burlington Exit 12B financing district would continue to have lower
property taxes than similar commercial properties in Colchester and Burlington.
7.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study is to explore possible innovative financing options for the
construction of a proposed new interchange between I-89 and VT 116 in the City of
South Burlington, VT (referred to as Exit 12B). This report provides background
information on the proposed Exit 12B project and its costs, describes the national
transportation funding context, describes several local mechanisms that could be used
to fund a portion of the project and estimates their potential contribution towards its
costs, and presents case studies to show how the most likely funding mechanisms could
affect specific properties.
The total estimated project cost ranges from $33.4 for a modified diamond to $47.5
million for single point urban interchange, not including right-of-way acquisition. Under
current law, federal funds may be used for 80% to 90% of these costs.The minimum
non-federal match requirement ranges from a low of$3.3 million to a high of$9.5
million, depending on the design selected and the availability of 80%or 90% federal
funds.
The funding mechanisms with potential to generate a revenue stream include Special
Assessment Tax Districts (based on square footage or assessed value),Tax Incremental
Financing District, Development Impact Fees, and fees at the Burlington International
Airport for parking. Table 9 presents a summary of the bonds that could be supported
using revenues generated by these funding mechanisms.
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 27
Table 9:Bond Amount Supported by Different Funding Mechanisms
Financing District
Financing Approach
South Burlington Williston
Special Assessment District'
$1,750,000 $1,750,000
($0.05 per s.f of Floor Area)
Special Assessment District' $1,750,000 $4,500,000
($0.05 per$100 of Assessed Value)
T.I.F.District2 $3,000,000 Not Applicable
Impact Fees3
$675,000 Not Applicable
($500 per P.M_Peak Hour Trip End)
Airport Parking Surcharge $375,000 Not Applicable
($0.10 on each parking permit)
1.Support from the Town of Williston for a special assessment dedicated to Exit 12B tax is unlikely.
2.South Burlington intends to establish a TIF district for the City Center project.Only one TIF district is permitted per
municipality.Therefore,TIF is not a viable option for Exit 12B.
3.Has potential to double charge developers if used in combination with special assessment tax.
The most likely sources of local revenues are the Special Assessment Tax limited to the
South Burlington portion of the Exit 12B financing district and airport surcharges.
A multi-jurisdictional special assessment district is allowed under state law and has the
potential to generate the largest amount of revenue. However,based on conversations
with Town officials, it is unlikely that Williston will support an Exit 12B special
assessment district because of competing needs within its own borders. In addition,
current state statutes would not allow revenues generated by a TIF district or
development impact fees to be allocated for projects outside of a municipality.
Therefore, revenue generated in Williston by these means would not be available for
Exit 12B.
In South Burlington,the TIF option is not available as a stand alone approach to fund
Exit 12B.South Burlington officials are reserving their one option to establish a TIF
district to support infrastructure needs for the City Center project. It is possible that the
City Center TIF district could include Exit 12B along with other related infrastructure.
Estimating the revenue that could be generated for Exit 12B in that scenario is beyond
the scope of work for this study. Presumably,the potential revenue would be less than
the $3,000,000 estimated for an Exit 12B specific TIF district.
The development impact fee may also be acceptable. However,development impact
fees and the special assessment tax should not be combined because of the potential of
assessing developers twice for Exit 12B.
In order to fund the potential maximum non-federal match of$9.5 million,the special
assessment tax would need to be approximately$0.24 per square foot on non-
residential buildings within the assumed South Burlington Exit 12B financing district.
This assessment would increase property taxes by about 13%on commercial property
within the financing district and would make commercial properties in South
Burlington noticeably less competitive with properties in Williston and Essex.
Developers that participated in the Advisory Committee conducted an informal survey
of commercial property owners in the assumed financing district and found that$0.05
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study
Page 28 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -A\
per square foot was considered a reasonable assessment.A$0.05 per square foot
assessment would increase total property taxes in the South Burlington Exit 12B
financing district by about 3% and would have little or no impact on the
competitiveness of properties outside of the financing district.
A special assessment tax rate of$0.05 per square foot in combination with a surcharge
on parking at the Burlington International Airport could contribute approximately$2.1
million towards the cost of constructing Exit 12B. The balance of funds required will
depend on the final design selected for the interchange and whether 80% or 90%
federal funds would be available for the project. Table 10 presents a funding plan that
accounts for these variables. It assumes that any gap in the non-federal match will be
covered using the funds from the State's highway trust fund (although there are no
guarantees that those funds will be available).
Table 10:Exit 128 Funding Source Options
80% Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
80%Federal $ 26,667,520 $ 37,969,971
Exit 12B Special Assessment $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
Airport Parking Surcharge $ 375,000 $ 375,000
State Highway Trust Fund $ 4,541,880 $ 7,367,493
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
90% Federal Funding Scenario
Modified Single Point Urban
Funding Source Diamond Interchange
90%Federal $ 30,000,960 $ 42,716,218
Exit 12B Special Assessment $ 1,750,000 $ 1,750,000
Airport Parking Surcharge $ 375,000 $ 375,000
State Highway Trust Fund $ 1,208,440 $ 2,621,246
Total $ 33,334,400 $ 47,462,464
Note: Project cost estimates may change as a result of the EIS process.
This study presents the revenue that could potentially be generated by a variety of
locally initiated funding mechanisms. The most viable options appear to be the Special
Assessment District and surcharges at the Airport. Both options will require local
approval. In order to establish a special assessment district, the South Burlington City
Council will need to (1) decide that it supports the concept and (2) seek approval by a
majority of the voters of the municipality.The special assessment district could also be
established if the owners of all property located in the proposed district agree to the
special assessment; a much less likely scenario. Fees at the airport must be approved by
the Airport Commission.
Exit 128 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 29
This page left intentionally blank.
114d31 December 2009 Exit 128 Financing Options Study
Page 30 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -M
APPENDIX A: ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
First Name Last Name Organization
Amy Bell VTrans
Michele Boomhower CCMPO
Bob Bouchard Pizzagalli
Paul Conner City of S.Burlington
Christine Forde CCMPO
Denis Gravelin S.Burlington
Chuck Hafter S.Burlington
John thick Technology Park
Christopher Jolly FHWA
Heather Kendrew BIA
Evan Langfelt Technology Park
Bob McEwing BIA
Jeff Nick JL Davis Realty
Stephanie O'Brien O'Brien Brothers Agency
Brian Searles BIA
John Zicconi VTrans
In addition to members listed above, meetings were held throughout the process with
the Town of Williston Manager and Planning Director.to brief them on the project and
obtain input with regards to components of the project which might impact the Town of
Williston and its tax payers.
NV4
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 31
This page left intentionally blank.
31 December 2009 Exit 128 Financing Options Study04111
Page 32 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP &Ali\
APPENDIX B: DEVELOPMENT ASSUMPTIONS
TAZ S.Burlington Project Description-
from Dorset St Corridor Project Housing Employment I Commercial
Total Square Total More Notes-base data from Dorset St Project and I or updated late October 2007 as
by'10 by'15 Total HU Breakdown/notes Feel by'10 by'15 Employment noted
113 O'Brien Residential Development 110 110 220 0
114 Piezigalli Tilley Drive Office Park All office Med-Low 350,000 290 345 635 discussion with Bob Bouchard,Pizzagalli Properties,10/07,includes 2 bldgs built,1 near
completion.Employment scaled 350/210 for add'I s.f,added.Assume 1/4 by'10 and done
by 15
117 Gregory Drive Commercial 0 0 0 Light Industrial 18,700 18,700 0 34 Per J.B.Hinds June 5,2006 phone call One vacant parcel aprox building size=110X170
121 Technology Park 300 KSF office,55 Metl-Low 355,000 161 484 645 s f.verified by Abby Lisius,Trudell CE 11/1/07,includes 1 bldg just completed(72k),1
KSF light industrial under constr.(54.5k)assume 1/4 by 10,3/4 by 15
Totals 220 723,700 1,314
TAZ S.Burlinnton Assumptions from Office SF Retell SF Total Source
the Clrc Highway by'10 by'15 Total HU by'10 by'15 Employment
113 Snyder Lancaster 70 70 Completed 2006
116 LISP,Inc. 69050 Med-Low 173 173 Completed 2006
131 Avalanche Development 8900 Med-Low 22 22 City Planning Dept.4/06
131 Gravelin 10000 Med-Low 25 25 City Planning Sept.4/06
TAZ other South Burlington Projects, Percent Enplanemnt Notes
from US2 Corridor Study Growth 2000-2030 Total
by'10 by 15 Employment
86 Burlington Into I Airport(BTV) 96% See BIA worksheet-Trip gen based on ALP projected enplanemenl growth
108 BTV South Development 600 600 See BIA worksheet-S Development Master Planning assumptions
TAZ Williston projects by'10 by'15 Total HU Hotel Rooms Commercial I Employment Notes I descriptions
Total All projects updated 10-26-07 w/data provided by Lee Nellis/Town Planner
(sq feet) by 10 by'15 Employment
181 Industrial/Commercial Low 15,000 25 25 commercial-industrial.Flexible building(Munson)
183 Industrial/Commercial Low 100,000 167 167 Induslnal(Robearge)
191 Industrial/Commercial Low 40,000 67 67 Commerical/Industrial(site 6 on may)
195 Industrial/Commercial Low 40,000 67 67 Industrial(site 5 on may)
180 condos/Townhouses 356 356 _ residential/Finney Crossing
180 Specially Retail Med-High 25,000 50 50 retail/Finney Crossing
180 General Office Med-Low 25,000 • 83 83 non-retail commercial/Finney Crossing
164 Block between Shunpike Road and Parcel is about 50 acreas.There is about 50 acres between Marshall,Brownell,and
US 2 next to Muddy Brook Shunpike that has approx 170 ksf light commercial.I am assuming this parcel will develop
110,000 in a similar manner
185 Hamlet by Village Association- 110 110
Zephyr Drive -
186 General Office Mad-Low 50,000 167 167 office/Blair Park
188 Drug Store Med-High 30,000 60 60 retail/Judge(North)/drug store
188 condos/Townhouses 60 50 110 - Village Associates
193 Drug Store Med-High 10,000 20 20 retail/Jeff Davis Expansion,north side/Drug Store
193 Restaurant High 7,000 23 23 restaurant.High-turnover sit down.Texas Roadhouse
197 General Office Med-Low 10,000 33 33 office/MTP
197 Specially Retail Med-High 10,000 20 20 retail/MTP
197 condos/Townhouses 123 123 - residential/Senacal development
197 General Office Med-Low 81.000 270 270 Office/Seneca'
197 condos/Townhouses 50 50 - Lapierre/78 acres of land,very wet.Maybe 30 acres to develop
198 Restaurant Med-High 5.000 17 17 restaurant/Jeff Davis
199 condos/Townhouses 50 50 _ residential/Davis transfer of commercial to residential
199 Retail/Commercial store Med-High 130,000 433 433 Retail-stand alone store
202 General Office Med-Low 40,000 133 133 General Office/Jeff Davis
202 Specially Retail Med-High 20,000 40 40 retail/Jeff Davis Expansion
205 General Office Med-Low 70,000 233 233 single use office complex(Oimonda R&D facility)
202 condos/Townhouses 100 100 - Davis residential
202 Hotel 200 Hotel 200 200 Hotel
Exit 128 Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 33
-� v
:c 'Ititt, 14 '-' __,,- .
(� »?? J226 f
di
217
nokA.' 44
•89 ®,,,, ....3 /
Itipti,
eV pi,
iiii * • . I. .I tti,
i ‘ 168
165/ .7
,e.., 1 1620,6-11r$
- .;._,„,....... Si out. ft,
4\111ruilliVo litirlif .,
—"I 169191V-4
T3
. \ .
10= �
.fflipi, ipir
ply% 04 V105 .,,,,t,„ 4 �U,1 :
:.7
120 � t
1,
,�`-1�aUMW:Il 003 3
2 7 1 8 0 e41111
127 la
Ilair y
' . -""•••••.............„., iii: 4101r44,1 di‘v, kit,. .,„ . ,.
1 . .—� 2m�
013sl*.
-__ '
t
111 143 " /
( 06 1201„....., r
I
149 150 20$
Legend CCMPO Model
e o.5 Transportation Analysis Zones a R S Q...
I Miles o TAZ Boundary
I I Potential Exd 12B Financing 0 strict Exit 12B Financing Plan November 17,2009
31 December 2009 Exit 12B Financing Options Study
Page 34 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP
APPENDIX C: PROPERTY TAXES FOR CHITTENDEN COUNTY
MUNICIPALITIES
TABLE A-1
SUMMARY OF LOCAL TAX RATES IN CHITTENDEN COUNTY
Homestead Non-Residential Municipal Total .
Municipality Education..Tax Education Tax Tax Non-Residential Tax
Bolton 1.2454 1.3325 0.5407 1.8732
Buels Gore 0.7387 1.1547 0.5 1.6547
Burlington 1.1094 1.4564 0.67 2.1264
Charlotte 1.2535 1.2489 0.1863 1.4352
Colchester 1.5651 1.8628 0.733 2.5958
Essex Town 1.3571 1.3292 0.4012 1.7304
Essex Junction 1.3233 1.3297 0.3212 1.6509
Hinesburg 1.3477 1.3339 0.4482 1.7821
Huntington 1.3079 1.415 0.6792 2.0942
Jericho(Central School) 1.2382 1.3736 0.4513 1.8249
Jericho(ID School) 1.2329 1.3701 0.4513 1.8214
Milton 1.1105 1.2886 0.3938 1.6824
Richmond 1.1438 1.3062 0.5098 1.816
St.George 1.8486 2.1451 0.3172 2.4623
Shelburne 1.159 1.2207 0.3222 1.5429
South Burlington 1.3547 1.3557 0.3437 1.6994
Underhill(Central School) 1.201 1.3369 0.4379 1.7748
Underhill(ID School) 1.2097 1.3443 0.4379 1.7822
Westford 1.6169 1.8398 0.6167 2.4565
Williston 1.3274 1.4479 0.2 1.6479
Winooski 1.1086 1.3002 0.79 2.0902
1:4,4
Exit 12B Financing Options Study 31 December 2009
-� Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP Page 35
This page left intentionally blank.
31 December 2009 Exit 126 Financing Options Study
Page 36 Prepared by RSG and Michael J.Munson,PhD,FAICP -�
Resolution to Support the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Recommendations of June 17, 2009
WHEREAS,the efficiency of the nation's transportation infrastructure is threatened by increasing demand for
transportation services, and revenue from traditional funding mechanisms may be unable to keep pace; and
WHEREAS, revenues to support the Highway Trust Fund the major source of federal highway and transit
funding are eroding,with recent estimates forecasting a negative balance of more than $14 billion by the
end of fiscal year 2012; and
WHEREAS, historically the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization has identified that the
funding needed to address deferred transportation system maintenance and future transportation system
improvements in the regional is greater than the availability of funding; and
WHEREAS, the sustainability of matching funds for state and federally funded transportation projects is of
critical importance to the ability of the region to maintain the existing system and expeditiously advance
improvements to the system; and
WHEREAS,recent analyses conducted as part of the VTrans Long Range Transportation Business Plan
suggests that, over a 20 year period, Vermont's transportation revenue shortfall may be $4.2 billion if the
needs grow at 2 percent inflation rate, and$8.7 billion if needs grow at 5 percent inflation rate; and
WHEREAS,prudent planning mandates that steps be taken to responsibly fund future transportation projects
and programs; and
WHEREAS, nationally, there are a variety of innovative or alternative transportation financing mechanism
being increasingly employed by states, localities, and transportation authorities; and
WHEREAS, "Innovative Finance" for transportation projects and programs is a broadly defined term that
encompasses a combination of techniques and specially designed mechanisms that supplement traditional
financing sources and methods; and
WHEREAS, the Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization(CCMPO) commissioned a Blue
Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance to identify and make recommendations for viable Innovative
Finance strategies to advance regional transportation needs,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that:
We the undersigned party support the CCMPO Blue Ribbon Commission on Innovative Finance
Recommendations of June 17, 2009 in order to address the increasing need for transportation services in
Chittenden County and the sustainable matching of funding from state and federal sources to meet those
needs.
Adopted this day of , 2010 by:
City of South Burlington
Municipal Body
Mark L. Boucher, Council Chair Date
• 1-89 Urban Transportation Improvements, October 2003. This study analyzed several
potential improvements to the I-89 corridor between Exits 12 and 15, including the Exit 12B
interchange.
View the Report: http://www.ccmpo.info/library/I89/index.php?rept=1
• 1-89 Exit 12B Alignment Study, July, 2009. This study examined the potential future
traffic condition and potential optimal roadway alignments of this interchange.
View the Report: http://www.ccmpo.us/library/scoping/Exitl2B alignment study/
4. How is the current process different from the work done previously?
In October 2009, the CCMPO began a process to determine if the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) will allow the region to move forward to study a potential new
Interstate interchange. FHWA's approval of any new access point to the Interstate must be
supported by substantiated information justifying and documenting that decision. To offer
maximum flexibility, a proposed change in access can be submitted to FHWA for a
determination of"Engineering and Operational Acceptability"prior to the completion of the
required Environmental Impact Study(EIS). It is important to note that the new access can not
be approved until completion of the EIS.
The approval process is based primarily on traffic operational and safety issues, and also
includes some local and regional planning and policy requirements. This work will potentially
allow for an EIS to be undertaken, with the new interchange as a possible alternative. It is
worthwhile to seek FHWA's preliminary access approval of Exit 12B prior to the EIS. FHWA's
preliminary approval will ensure that Exit 12B is a viable alternative that should be evaluated in
the EIS.
5. What is an EIS?
The Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)requires that an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS)be undertaken for projects that"significantly affect the quality of the human environment."
The EIS is a highly-structured, detailed process that provides a description of the area, the
purpose and need for the study, an analysis of reasonable alternatives, the affected environment,
and an analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the
alternatives. The EIS has substantial public involvement requirements and there will be plenty of
opportunity for the public to be heard.
It is worthwhile to seek FHWA's preliminary access approval prior to the EIS so that 12B can be
studied as an alternative in the EIS. However, the FHWA will not grant a new Interstate access
until an EIS is completed and a"Record of Decision"is issued by FHWA.
If the CCMPO is able to proceed, an EIS could begin between the fall of 2010 and the spring
2011. It is expected this process will be completed in three to five years. Having a completed EIS
gives the VTrans the authority to begin right-of-way acquisition, apply for local, state, and
federal permits, and begin final design; these processes typically last 1-3 years.
Additional information on the EIS process can be found at:
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/docueis.asp
6. How can I follow the progress of the current process and future efforts?
The current process will continue through April, 2010. Information is constantly updated at the
CCMPO's website,www.ccmpo.org. For further information you may contact the CCMPO
Executive Director, Michele Boomhower at 802.660.4071 x15 or mboomhower(ciccmpo.org.
Communities working together to
(1111°F
+ Meet Chittenden County's transportation needs
CHITTENDEN COUNTY METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
•
CMPO
110 West Canal Street,Suite 202,Winooski Vermont 05404-2109
`, ', 0 (802)660-4071 /(802)660-4079 Fax
www.ccmpo.org/info@ccmpo.org
Interstate Exit 12B Access Study Fact Sheet
1. What is Exit 12B?
The Chittenden County Metropolitan Planning Organization(CCMPO), in association with the
City of South Burlington and the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans), is evaluating the
feasibility of locating a new interchange on Interstate 89 at VT 116, Hinesburg Road in South
Burlington.
N 1 To the north, Exit 12B would primarily serve
--,i ` a I the core South Burlington City area(including
w- cry IL,.„
t N the planned City Center development) and to
ENTER �� the northeast the Burlington International
. EXIT 128- e Airport and Vermont Air and Army National
to
SITE a y Guard facilities. To the south, the service area
"' , includes the well populated and growing
t , WILLISTON Southeast Quadrant of South Burlington and
_. GROWTH„,
CENTER beyond that- the Towns of Shelburne,
Charlotte, St. George, Hinesburg, and northern
TO Addison County.
HSBURG
2.Why do we need a new Interchange?
A recent study outlined the need for Exit 12B:
• Traffic levels along US 2, particularly at Exit 14 and Dorset Street, have reached capacity
during peak times. Numerous safety and congestion issues have also been identified in this
corridor, particularly at Exits 12 and 14.
• Congestion limits access to the Air/Army National Guard Facilities, the Burlington
International Airport, and the proposed City Center.
• The region will experience increases in housing units, employment, commercial activity
and airport trips, thereby compounding congestion and safety concerns.
3.What has been done to date for Exit 12B?
Exit 12B has been under discussion for many years. Three recent studies include:
• I-89/Hinesburg Road Northbound Off-Ramp, August 1996. This study estimated the
potential traffic and necessary geometric alignment of an alternate northbound off-ramp well
south (east) of Hinesburg Road which would tie into Tilley Drive on the Pizzagalli
subdivision.
View the Report: http://www.ccmpo.us/library/scoping/I89 HbrgRd off ramp 1996.pdf
ARM
Split
PLANNING & ZONING
MEMORANDUM
TO: South Burlington City Council & City Manager
FROM: Paul Conner, Director of Planning & Zoning
Ray Belair, Administrative Officer
DATE: February 1, 2010
SUBJECT: South Burlington Sign Task Force Findings
Last summer, as you know, a provision of the City's Sign Ordinance eliminating the
grandfathering of non-conforming signs took effect after a seven-year grace period. The
results of this provision have been positive, with many of the City's non-conforming signs
having been adjusted, moved, replaced or removed over the past year.
In September, following the receipt of a handful of requests from property owners to
consider amendments to specific provisions of the Ordinance, the Council requested that
staff pull together a temporary task force to examine these issues. Their findings are
discussed below.
The sign task force was comprised of group of people with a wide range of backgrounds
and perspectives. Members included:
• Steve Ploesser, Pomerleau Real Estate • Jessica Clark, South Burlington
• Bob McDougall, Napoli Group Planning Commission
(McDonalds restaurants) • Michael Terricone, South Burlington
• Steve Rowe, M.T. Bellies Design Review Committee
• John Floyd, Design Signs • Paul Conner, Staff
• Ray Denault, Twin State Signs • Ray Belair, Staff
• Randall Kay, South Burlington
Planning Commission
Findings of the Task Force:
The Task Force reviewed a list of issues related to the sign ordinance, and in some cases
have recommended amendments. For each of the items described below, the task force
held a discussion, and the recommendation represents the majority opinion (though not
always the consensus).
1
A final note:
In addition to the items below, the task force also considered a small handful of
amendments to the regulations that would further restrict properties in the use of signs.
As these types of amendments were not part of the task force's requested scope of work,
they have been left out of this report.
Item #1. Historic signs
The task force recommends that any sign that receives designation from the Vermont
Division for Historic Preservation or National Register of Historic Places as "historic" be
permitted to stay and be normally maintained regardless of whether they meet current
standards for height, location, size, materials, etc. Any alterations to the sign that cause it
to lose its historic designation would no longer be grandfathered.
We are aware of two (2) properties in the city that have received historic designationr
their signs: Al's French Frys and the Swiss Host Hotel.
The proposed language reads as follows:
SECTION 23: EXEMPTIONS
(s) Signs designated as "historic" by the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation
(or its successor) or the National Register of Historic Places. Alternations to such signs
shall only be permitted if the entire sign becomes compliant with these regulations or if
the proposed alterations are approved as remaining "historic" by the above-named
bodies.
Item #2. Free-standing signs: 5' setback from the city right-of-way
The task force studied this item in detail. Primarily at issue were the circumstances where
the City's right-of-way extends beyond the current sidewalk.
The final recommendation addresses two different situations:
a) Where the city right-of-way is wider than the edge of an existing sidewalk or
recreation path, a sign could be placed as close as one (1) foot from the right-of-
way so long as it is at least five (5) feet from this sidewalk/rec path. Where no
sidewalk or recreation path exists, it would allow a sign to be as close as one (1)
foot from the edge of the right away so long as it is at least fifteen (15) feet from
the roadway limit.
b) Where the city right-of way is at the edge of an existing sidewalk or right-of-way,
the task force recommended maintaining the minimum five (5) foot setback from
the ROW.
2
Properties affected by this change would primarily be located along Patchen Road, Allen
Road, Airport Parkway, and Swift Street, however the proposed language would address
any other similar circumstances.
The proposed language reads as follows:
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
"Traveled way" as used in this Ordinance shall mean the paved or otherwise surfaced
area of a public street or road intended for use by vehicular traffic, including aprons,
shoulders, and curbing, but not including a sidewalk or recreation path.
SECTION 9. FREE-STANDING SIGNS
(c) Sign Location. No part of a free-standing sign shall be placed in such manner as to
visually obstruct traffic.
L1 No part of a free-standing sign which is forty(40) square feet or less in size shall be
placed closer than five (5)feet to any property line, subject to the following:
(i) Public sidewalk oVecreation path exists in public right-of-way:
(A) Where the outer edge of the public right-of-way is less than five (5) feet
from the outer edge of the public sidewalk or recreation path, no part of
a free-standing sign shall be placed closer than five (5) feet from the
outer edge of the public sidewalk or recreation path.
(B) Where the outer edge of the public right-of-way is five (5) feet or more
from the outer edge of the public sidewalk or recreation path, no part of
a free-standing sign shall be placed closer than one (1) foot from the
right-of-way.
(ii) No public sidewalk or recreation path exists in public right-of-way:
(A) Where the outer edge of the public right-of-way is less than eleven (11)
feet from the outer edge of the traveled way, no part of a free-standing
sign shall be placed closer than five (5)feet from the right-of-way.
(B) Where the outer edge of the public right-way is eleven (11) feet or more,
but less than fifteen (15)feet from the outer edge of the traveled way, no
part of a free-standing sign shall be placed closer than sixteen (16) feet
from the outer edge of the traveled way.
(C) Where the outer edge of the public right-of-way is fifteen (15) feet or
more from the outer edge of the traveled way, no part of a free-standing
sign shall be placed closer than one (1)foot from the right-of-way.
j} No part of a free-standing sign which is larger than forty(40)square feet in size shall
be placed closer than twenty(20)feet to any property line.
3
Item #3. Directional signs on a property
The task force recommended an amendment to the directional signs section to provide
greater flexibility for large properties to install more and larger directional signs, up to a
maximum of eight (8) signs on a large property. The current limit is three (3). Several
businesses of large properties have expressed concern that the current limit creates
confusion for customers. The task force recommended language that would allow more
directional signs on these properties, and for some of these signs to be larger than the
allotted 3 square feet.
Properties affected by this change would include several hotels, as well as large businesses
such as Lane Press and others.
The proposed language reads as follows:
SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS
(m) "Directional Sign" as used in this Ordinance shall mean a sign not exceeding three (3)
(6) inches in height designed to direct and inform the public as to the location of exits,
entrances, service areas, loading and unloading areas, and designated parking spaces or
areas, or similar wording of an informational nature.
SECTION 12. INCIDENTAL AND DIRECTIONAL SIGNS
(b) Directional Signs.
(3) Directional signs shall not be considered additional wall or free-standing signs.
(4) Directional signs shall be sufficient to direct traffic safely, and shall not, in the
determination of the Code Officer, be excessive. Such a determination shall include a
consideration of factors such as, but not limited to,the nature of the business or
operation involved,the volume of traffic to be directed, and the configuration of the
buildings and improvements on the site.
(5) Lettering on a directional sign shall not exceed six(6) inches in height.
(6) Number and size of directional signs:
RI For properties of less than ten (10) acres in size,the number;and placement
and size of directional signs shall not exceed one (1) per curb cut or driveway
entrance to a property or a maximum of three (3),whichever is less. No such
directional sign shall exceed three (3) square feet in area. No such
directional sign shall be more than five (5)feet in height.
(ii) For properties ten (10) acres or more in size,the number of directional signs
shall not exceed one (1) per two (2) acres of property area,to a maximum of
eight(8) directional signs. Not more than one (1) directional sign shall be
placed within twenty-five (25)feet of each curb-cut or driveway entrance.
No directional sign shall exceed ten (10) square feet in size, and no more
than half(rounded up) of the maximum allowable number of directional signs
4
shall exceed three (3) square feet in size. No directional sign less than or
equal to three (3) square feet in size shall be more than five (5)feet in height,
and no directional sign larger than three (3) square feet in size shall be more
than ten (10)feet in height.
(7) No directional sign shall be placed closer than five (5)feet from a property
line. No directional sign that is greater than three (3) square feet in size shall
be located closer than fifty (50)feet from a property line.
Item #4. Non-residential uses in residential zoning districts
The task force recommends allowing a single sign of up to 30 square feet in size on non-
residential properties in residential zoning districts located along Airport Drive, to resolve
the unique circumstances faced by applicable properties.
The proposed language reads as follows:
SECTION 13. SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
(a) Non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. There shall be no signs in a
residential district(as so classified under the South Burlington Land Development Regulations
as presently in force or hereafter adopted and amended from time to time), except that one (1)
sign may be erected and maintained for a lot on which a valid non-residential use exists under
South Burlington Land Development Regulations, provided that the sign does not exceed
twenty(20)square feet, or thirty(30) square feet when located on a lot having frontage on
Airport Drive, or forty(40)square feet when located on a lot of at least two (2) acres having
frontage on Dorset Street or Hinesburg Road within the Southeast Quadrant Zoning District.
Item #5. Outdoor displays
The task force reviewed the Ordinance's current policy regarding outdoor display of
products and has recommended one change. The change would permit safety
information, logos, product names, and phone numbers affixed to the principal face of
propane gas cages.
The proposed language reads as follows:
SECTION 23: EXEMPTIONS
(t) Informational signs affixed to the principal face of a propane gas cage
containing safety information,the manufacturer's name,the manufacturer's logo, and/or
emergency contact information. Lettering, numbering, or logos shall not exceed two (2)
inches in height.
5
Item #6. Restaurant menus
The task force has proposed a new exemption for restaurant menu boards of up to six (6)
square feet in size to be affixed to the face of a business.
The proposed text reads as follows:
SECTION 23: EXEMPTIONS
(u) One (1) restaurant menu not exceeding six (6) square feet in size per restaurant,
affixed to a wall that adjacent to a door that leads directly into such restaurant. No such
menus shall be internally illuminated.
Note: though this was the consensus of the task force at the time, staff is recommending
that the limit be less than six (6) square feet (perhaps as low as two (2)), and that there
be a maximum lettering height of 1/2 inch.
Item #7. Definition of " in the vicinity of" for free-standing signs
The sign task force has recommended a clarification regarding the placement of free-
standing signs on a property. The current Ordinance allows more than one free-standing
sign to be placed on a property that has multiple curb cuts located more than 300' apart.
If a property owner wishes to erect more than one free-standing sign, these signs must be
located "in the vicinity of approved entrances and visible to vehicles passing the approved
entrances."
Ray Belair does not recall of any signs that have been permitted under this provision in
his tenure with the city, though there is one long-standing case where the question has
been raised. In order to remove vagueness from the Ordinance, the task force has
recommended the standard be replaced with a simple 25' rule.
The proposed text reads as follows:
SECTION 9. FREE-STANDING SIGNS
(b) Number of Signs Per Lot. The maximum number of free-standing signs on a lot shall
be as follows:
(2) Lots on which the Development Review Board has granted approval for the
development of the property with two (2) or more separate entrances to a public road
shall be entitled to additional free-standing signs where:
(i) each entrance is separated from each other entrance by a distance in
excess of three hundred (300)feet, as measured from center line to center line
between the two entrances; and
(ii) the number of proposed free-standing signs for the property does not
exceed the number of public road entrances that meet the standards set forth
above; and
(iii) the proposed free-standing signs are located within twenty-five (25)
feet of the in the vicinity of the approved entrances and visible`o vehicles
6
A
Item #8. Awnings and umbrellas
The task force reviewed the Ordinance's current policy regarding logos and
advertisements on awnings and umbrellas and has recommended no changes be made.
The Ordinance considers such logos and advertisements to be wall and free-standing
signs, respectively, and as such they are counted among the allotment for each business
and property.
Item#9. Readerboards [changeable message areas]
The task force reviewed the Ordinance's policy concerning readerboards [changeable
message areas] and has recommended no changes be made.
Item#10. Perpendicular signs
The task force reviewed the Ordinance's policy concerning perpendicular signs
(permitted in very limited circumstances, such as the Liberty Tax building on Williston
Road) and has recommended no changes be made.
Item#11. Non-conforming signs.
The task force has recommended removal of the majority of the text in the Ordinance
pertaining to non-conforming signs, given the passage of the deadline on June 3, 2009.
Staff has contacted the City Attorney to examine in what fashion any future changes to
the Ordinance that could place an additional restriction on properties would be
addressed. Staff believes that the proposed amendments in items 1-8 above do not place
any type of additional restrictions on properties, and so therefore the issue is moot at this
point. Staff has, however, contacted the City Attorney to review item#9 above to
determine whether this item could be construed to constitute a restriction.
The proposed text reads as follows:
SECTION 24. NON-CONFORMING SIGNS
ete of adoption of this
or moved unless it is
er,that this clause
7
basis, such as signs with changeable message areas and pricing signs.
t#:
(1) It is damaged or destroyed and the cost of reconstruction or repair is sixty
0
destroyed; or
(2) It has not been used for a period of six(6) months or longer.
•
ocation caused by street widening or other city, state or
federal activity beyond the control of the sign owner. Landscape feature signs that become
•
•
locating the sign.
id) Any sign lawfully in existence on the date of adoption of this Ordinance which is
-1-1
percent(25%); and
•
ordinance.
•
•
•
which is nonconforming as to location and/or as to the number of signs allow
ordinance.
(f) The provisions above notwithstanding,
(a) On or before JUNE 3, 2009, all non-conforming signs shall have been removed,
lawfully replaced, or otherwise altered so as to comply with all applicable provisions
of the South Burlington Sign Ordinance in effect as of that date.
8
sour„ South Burlington Fire Department SOUTIF
{iLINGTo 1,0,LINGT04,
575 Dorset Street
South Burlington, VT 05403
ire O
FIRF DFrF (802) 846-4110 FIR1 DF1,1
Fax (802) 846-4125
To: Charles Hafter, City Manager
From: Douglas Brent, Chief of Fire and EMS
Date: January 27, 2010
Re: Ambulance Fee Schedule
As you know during the budget discussions this year we spoke about possible increases
to the fees which we charge for ambulance service. I wanted to wait until the beginning of 2010
to see if Medicare had made any changes to the fee schedule which would affect us. We did not
raise our fees last year as the change in prices from our adjustment in 2007-08 was still in line.
As in the past I have also researched what the surrounding ambulance service providers
are charging and how their price relate to ours. Attached, please find a table listing the charges
for the other Chittenden County Services.
I recommend that we increase our charges as follows:
Basic Life Support- $390 up from $360
Advanced Life Support(E)1 - $475 up from $425
Advanced Life Support 2 -n/a
Mileage(per loaded mile) - $9.50 up from$9.00
Specialty Care Transport- $725 up from $550
Figures from 2008 — 2009 show us responding to 1,758 EMS incidents. We transported
(billed) 1374 patients which is about 78% of our patients. The remaining 384 patients or 22%
were not transported. Due to changes in Medicare reimbursements last year, all of our patients
are now billed at the Advanced Life Support rate except for Specialty Care Transports.
Using last year's utilization figures and with the changes allowed by Medicare the update
to our fee schedule should be increase our revenues by approximately $68,700 for service fees
and $2,748 for loaded miles. These changes would still leave us in just about the middle of the
average for the surrounding area.
SOUTH BURL. ESSEX COLCH. SHELB. UVM ST. MIKES
BURL. F.D. FIRE RESCUE RESCUE RESCUE RESCUE RESCUE
BLS $ 390 365 375 460 425 400 300
ALS 1 $ 475 435 475 550 525 500 450
ALS 2 N/A 615 N/A 625 N/A 600 N/A
MILEAGE $ 9.50 9.00 9.50 9.00 11.00 12.00 9.00
SPECIAL
CARE
TRANS. $ 725 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 550
January 28, 2010
SOUTH BURLINGTON FIRE DEPARTMENT
AMBULANCE SERVICE
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. Does everyone get charged for an ambulance transport?
It depends! If you are insured, our Billing Clerk will work directly with your health insurance provider
and process all necessary claims. However, if you are uninsured, you will receive a bill.
2. Who sets the rates that are charged and how much does an ambulance transport cost?
The rates are set and approved by the South Burlington City Council. The cost for an ambulance
transport can range from $390 to $725 depending on the type and severity of the call. In addition,
mileage is charged at $9.50 per mile for each mile a patient is on board.
3. What will happen if I do not have insurance?
No patient will ever be denied or refused medical assistance or transport due to a lack of insurance.
Any patient who has difficulty paying the bill for ambulance transport services, or has a question,
should contact the EMS Billing Clerk at 802-846-4110 to set up a payment plan.
4. Will my insurance rate!CIO up because South Burlington charges for ambulance transport?
No. Emergency ambulance transportation is an already included benefit for many insurance
carriers. Considering all other health care fees, ambulance transport claims are relatively small.
5. Does Medicare pay for ambulance transportation?
Medicare Part B pays 80% of the charge for a medically necessary ambulance transport. The
remaining 20%will be due from you. If you have secondary insurance coverage, they will be billed
for the remaining balance.
6. Will my insurance premiums go up because South Burlington files insurance claims for Ambulance
Transport?
It is unlikely that your health insurance premiums will rise solely because a claim for ambulance
transport is filed. Many health insurance carriers already have a provision written into your policy to
cover such costs.
7. What happens if I call 911 and don't need to be transported?Will I be billed?
No. We bill ONLY if we transport you. You will, however, be required to sign a refusal of care form,
releasing all Emergency Medical providers from any liability arising from your refusal to go to the
hospital.
8. Don't I already pay for fire and ambulance service through my taxes?
No. Your property taxes help fund fire and ambulance personnel stationed at our two fire station
locations is South Burlington. Revenues obtained from Ambulance Transport Insurance billing help
offset all other costs associated with the management, maintenance, and operation of ambulance
and emergency medical equipment. Additionally, revenues help provide funding for new fire/rescue
operations, capital improvements, and training, etc.
9. Why am I being billed for ambulance transport services? Isn't the service free?
No. Ambulance Transport services are not free. Each year the emergency call volume increases,
placing an additional strain on these important resources. In order to recoup costs and help ease
the burden on taxpayers and property owners, we bill your Health Insurance for this cost. When you
pay the premiums on your Health Insurance in most cases it covers all or a portion of the costs for
Ambulance Transport services.
41440
Ott
SOUL bt `„.itt""
PLANNING & ZONING
AGENDA
South Burlington Development Review Board
Tuesday, February 2, 2010 7:30pm Regular Meeting
City Hall Conference Room, 575 Dorset Street, South Burlington, VT
1. Other business/announcements
2. Minutes of January 5 and January 19, 2010.
3. Miscellaneous application #MS-10-01 of City of South Burlington for after-the-fact.
approval to alter the existing grade for the construction of stormwater improvements,
1175 Hinesburg Road.
4. Preliminary plat application #SD-10-02 of Bullrock Corporation to amend a previously
approved planned unit development consisting of five (5) multi-family dwellings for a total
of 160 units and a 40 unit congregate housing facility. The amendment consists of
constructing a 100 unit assisted living facility, 250 Quarry Hill Road.
5. Continued preliminary plat application #SD-09-51 of Pizzagalli Properties, LLC for a
planned unit development to construct a 50,000 sq. ft. office building, 119 Tilley Drive.
6. Site plan application #SP-10-05 of City of Burlington/ Burlington International Airport to
revise a previously approved plan to construct two (2) additional parking levels to an
existing three (3) level parking garage. The amendment consists of dividing the project
into two (2) phases, 1200 Airport Drive.
7. Site plan application #SP-10-06 of CCTA to construct a 117 sq. ft. bus shelter, 155
Dorset Street. -
8. Site plan application #SP-10-07 of City of South Burlington to upgrade and expand the
Airport Parkway Wastewater Treatment Facility, 1015 Airport Parkway.
Respec Submitted,
cliZ\
ay and J. Belair
Administrative Officer
575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4106 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com
January 29,2010
EXECUTIVE SESSION
To: Chair and City Council
From: Chuck Hafter, City Manager 3
Re: Consider entering into executive session to discuss personnel issues
Chair Boucher has asked that Council have an executive session discussion to discuss
contractual terms for the next City Manager. I will bring copies of my contracts with the
City to the meeting. I will also bring a copy of the 2008 Executive Salary Report which
is published internally by the Vermont Town and City Management Association. This is
a detailed report of salaries and benefits of Vermont Municipal Managers and
Administrators.